Citizen Spook

US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor Resigns

2009-06-09T12:22:00.000-07:00

On May 28, Jeffrey Taylor resigned as acting US Attorney for the District of Columbia. I have not heard from one person who got a response from him regarding their quo warranto letters. I did hear from one person who had proof that their QW letter to Taylor had been rerouted to the White House.

More on this story at the Natural Born Citizen blog here

TREASONGATE: "TIME OF WAR" - Fitzgerald gives nod to Death Penalty and Espionage Act.

2007-02-21T09:26:00.000-08:00

TREASONGATE: "TIME OF WAR" - Fitzgerald gives nod to Death Penalty and Espionage Act.

"Time of war". Fitz dropped it yesterday in closing arguments for Libby trial.

18 USC 794 (emphasis added by CS):

(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, ....information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

The "time of war" provision in 794 takes the same violation from 18 USC 793 and heightens it to a death penalty sentence.

I've previously reported to readers of this blog that 18 USC 794, a provision of the Espionage Act, provides for the death penalty when "information" which is "related to the national defense" is illegally communicated.

Yesterday, Patrick Fitzgerald finally tipped the public off to something the Citizenspook blog has been telling you about for quite some time now (see previous CS blogs), 18 USC 794 (b) was triggered and in in play for this continuing preosecution.

From the Firedoglake live web blog of Fitzgerald's closing arguments in the Libby trial:
"Time of war". Fitz dropped it yesterday.

I've slammed Firedoglake.com for not reporting the most important aspects of Treasongate, specifically their failure to focus on possible pending indictments under The Espionage Act. However, I must give credit where credit is due and recognize the marvelous public service FDL has provided to the country with their live blogging. It's truly an immense important work that they've done and I thank them for it, as should you.

Furthermore, upon reading Jeralyn Merrit's Huffington Post shill job for the Bush cabal today, and adding it to the incredible shill job she did in covering Rove's ass by filtering Luskin and Corallo's misleading fax statements which cover for the probable truth that Rove plead guilty to certain illegal activity "prior" to being charged (see article below), I have come to the conclusion that Merrit is a Bush cabal mole that has infiltrated FDL and I hope they flush her out.

I believe FDL have misplaced their trust in Merrit.

I was very impressed with Fitzgerald's performance and that of his team. Unless Libby has a mole in the jury room, Libby is going to be convicted. But Merrit has been trying her best to appear upset that Fitz has no done a good enough job to win a conviction. here's what she said today:

"In other words, Fitzgerald missed the forest for the trees. Maybe he thought the case wasn't there. But in charging such a stripped down version solely against Libby, I have to believe at least one juror, like me, will have a reasonable doubt and refuse to convict."

Load of crap. fitz nailed it and Merrit knows it. The question is, what does Merrit really know?

Citizenspook

LIBBY WAS JUST AN APPETIZER. CHEF FITZGERALD WONT SERVE THE MAIN COURSE UNTIL FEBRUARY 2009.

2007-02-15T12:23:00.000-08:00

Fitzgerald doesn't have to rush this prosecution. He's putting them on slow boil and come January 2009, Bush will lose his pardon power. Libby was indicted in October 2005, but the trial ends in Feb 2007. Extrapolate that 16 month timeline to future indictments and you'll start to see who the top chef really is.

Alot more information came out during this trial under oath. The sand thrown in Fitzgerald's eyes is being washed away. The next round of indictments may be coming, but there's no rush to judgment. Let the man do his job slowly and thoroughly. Let all the flavors steep into the stew.

Fitzgerald has spent so much less of the taxpayers' money than many recent Special Counsels (or Independent Counsels) while still managing to do a very efficient job as US Attorney. They have nothing on this guy. He was appointed by the Bush administration.

When the Bush cabal gets desperate as the noose tightens and the calendar brings the shadow of January 2009 closer, they may try to fire Fitz. But see my previous article on Fitzgerald wearing two hats. Bush can easily fire Fitz as the US Attorney for the District in which he presides, but Fitzgerald also wears the hat of "Special Prosecutor" investigating the Bush administration.

Trying to remove that hat will be a much different legal and political animal.

Should Fitz obtain prosecutions for Espionage after Bush is out of office, will the next (democratic?) resident of the White House offer to go down in history as the only Preseident ever to pardon Espionage?

The plot thickens. Be patient.

FITZ!

Citizenspook

IT'S THE ESPIONAGE, STUPID.

2007-02-15T12:15:00.000-08:00

THE PRESIDENT CANT DECLASSIFY "ESPIONAGE".

[I'm not asking anybody to believe me or in me. Doubt me. Doubt everybody, start from there. The see where the evidence leads you. Don't be lazy or loyal to any blog. Any blog that asks for your loyalty is doing truth a disservice. Be skeptical and ask questions until you see a clear picture.]

From the very beginning of this case, the public has been intentionally misled by the Bush administration and their media cronies regarding the most applicable statutes pertaining to the underlying crimes involved with the leaking of Valerie Plame's CIA employment. I can't say I was the first to mention The Espionage Act, but CS was the first blog to bring you an in depth analysis of the relevant statutes of 18 USC 793 and 794.

And more importantly, this blog is THE ONLY BLOG to have asked the critical question:

WHY WONT THE MEDIA DISCUSS THE ESPIONAGE ACT?

Instead of discussing this most relevant statute, the mainstream media and even the glorified blogs like Firedoglake, Talkleft, The Last Hurrah, Murray Waas and Digby have maintained a virtual ban on in depth discussion of it even though Fitzgerald himself has told us directly that the Espionage Act is in play.

And with the stench of the criminals' certain defense, "BUSH DECLASSIFIED PLAME'S STATUS IN THE NIE", we clearly see why the Bush cabal and their media cronies have tried to distract the public by belligerently slamming the much less relevant IIPA in our faces. In short, if the IIPA was the only statute they could be prosecuted for, they wouldn't have too much to worry about. Under the IIPA, if the info transmitted was "declassified", voila, you have a very difficult prosecution.

So, please see my previous posts for a comprehensive analysis of the applicability of the Espionage Act to the Plame outing.

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/ 2005_07_24_citizenspook_archive.html
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/ 08/treasongate-controlling-law-part-2.html
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/ 08/treasongate-prior-high-profile.html

Now let's hear Fitz weigh in on the Espionage Act. From the Fitz October 28, 2005 Libby Indictment press conference:

FITZGERALD: Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

later...

QUESTION: ... it's a little hazy I think for many of us -- you say that Valerie Plame's identity was classified, but you're making no statement as to whether she was covert. Was the leaking of her identity in and of itself a crime?

FITZGERALD: ...And all I'll say is that if national defense information which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act....So there are people who should argue that you should never use that statute because it would become like the Official Secrets Act. I don't buy that theory...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fitzgerald mentioned 793 so here it is in part (bold print is my emphasis):

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing...or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it...

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession...(followed by same as above)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing...or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed...

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And now 794:

(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing...or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that "intent to harm the USA" is not an element of the Espionage Act. Neither 793 or 794 require "intent" to harm the country as an element of the crime.

The Espionage Act protects "classified" information, but it also protects "unclassified" information. Fitz said that "classified" information is certainly protected under the Espionage Act. But the Espionage Act, by its very definintion and clear wording, also protects information which is not officially classified but simply is "related to the national defense".

The blogosphere desperately needs to shift the debate to whether Plame's status was "related to the national defense". If you want to drive the rightwingnuts crazy, don't let them draw you into debates about "classified" vs declassified - everybody knew it blah blah blah", or "classified vs covert" or "IIPA wasn't triggered". Stick to the Espionage Act because that's where Fitz is going.

Was Plame's employment "related to the national defense"? That's a no brainer. It was. There's no way to deny it.

The question all those blogs like FDL need to be asking their readers to consider is not whether Plame's status was "classified", it was. Fitz has stated that and he wouldn't state it were it not true. Moreover, while the question of whether her status was "covert" has not yet been publicly established, The Espionage Act does not require that her status be covert, or even classified.

793 of The Espionage Act only requires, for conviction:

1. that Plame's status at the CIA was "related to the national defense"
2. that the leaker(s) had "reason to believe" such information "could be used to the injury of the United States"
3. that the person this information was leaked to was not "entitled to receive" the information

794 of The Espionage Act only requires, for conviction:

1. that Plame's status at the CIA was "related to the national defense"
2. that the leaker(s) had "reason to believe" such information "is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation"

Seeing as how Fitzgerald has directly stated that this Statute is in play, the public needs the Espionage Act to be debated with the same sickening repetition as the virtually irrelevant IIPA. The liberal bloggers need to stop getting into arguments about "classifed vs covert" and start hitting the phrases contained in The Espionage Act.

If her status was actually covert, then this evidence will simply provide more weight to the sentence of those convicted, but whether she was "covert" is not a necessary element for criminal violations of The Espionage Act.

Plame's job was undeniably directly "related to the national defense". The CIA was created to defend the nation. Duh. It's the espionage, stupid.

People need to stop thinking that Plame was outed to bitch slap her hubby. The President and his crime family knew this was a serious crime which might possibly bring life in prison or even the death penalty. They took a calculated risk. The real question is "why?

You might hate them, but give credit where credit is do, they are daring and highly competent criminals.
The system has not failed Halliburton and The Carlisle Group. The Bush/Neocon system works for them like a well oiled machine.

The system has failed those soldiers who are dead because of this administration's competent lies.
Saying they are idiots and picturing them as monkeys is only playing into their defense.

Plame was outed for a much more sinister reason than a bitch slap to Joe Wilson. We need to find out what that (t)reason was.

The first words out of Wilson's mouth should have been, "My wife is the victim of state sponsored espionage. Throw the book at them, throw 18 USC 794 at them".

Im still waiting for Wilson to say that. I know it's difficult for many to understand why I'm picking on Joe Wilson. But I haven't seen him target the law which will most effectively punish the criminals who outed his wife even though Fitzgerald has indicated that this law is in play.

What Wilson has done is tell the world that he doesn't believe convictions are possible under the IIPA. That really bothers me. And it ought to bother you as well. Then there's the issue of Bush 41 giving Wilson all that love. It's too strange for words and if we don't ask tough difficult questions of all the parties, then we're not really searching for the truth.

The consistent lack of attention given to the Espioage Act has me very worried about the grand scheme of this crap.

Citizenspook

PLEASE REPOST

IT APPEARS KARL ROVE PLEAD GUILTY TO MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT BEFORE ANY CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AND WITHOUT A DEAL HAVING BEEN MADE

2006-06-23T12:36:00.000-07:00

LUSKIN CAUGHT PARSING?

Prior to being "charged" -- and without a "deal" -- it appears Karl Rove plead guilty to making a "false statement".

[UPDATED 6.24.06 5:45AM PST Updates appear in red. Please note that citizenspook will be leaving this post to linger until their is an official response from the Rove defense team as to whether Rove plead guilty.]

The public record and other statements of parties with special knowledge of Patrick Fitzgerald’s Special Counsel investigation support this report.

It appears Luskin's consistent insistence that Rove has never been "charged" or "indicted" is true. Luskin has surgically parsed his words to create a false impression that Rove was not guilty of any legal infractions.

It appears Rove plead guilty to making at least one false statement before “charges” were ever filed and without a “5K deal" or any other deal that I have been made aware of.

However, no "deal" was required for Rove to receive a statutory reduction of the “pending” sentence according to 3E1.1(a) of the Federal sentencing guidelines which provide for a "two level" reduction of sentence where a person has plead guilty and “accepted responsibility” for his actions

The 3E1.1(a) sentence level reduction is triggered by statute -- not the prosecutor – when a guilty party pleads guilty thereby “accepting responsibility” for his actions. The earlier the plea is entered, the more likely 3E1.1(a) will be triggered. There is no requirement that the person pleading guilty assist the prosecution as against any other defendant.

ANALYSIS OF LAWS, FACTS AND STATEMENTS

Chapter 3 Part E - ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

§3E1.1. Acceptance of Responsibility

(a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels.

(b) If the defendant qualifies for a decrease under subsection (a) , the offense level determined prior to the operation of subsection (a) is level 16 or greater, and upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the government and the court to allocate their resources efficiently, decrease the offense level by 1 additional level.

[Making false statements carries a base offense level of 6, so only 3e1.1(a) would apply to a plea of guilty for that offense. This would bring the base offense level down from 6 to 4 and I don't see how Rove would get more than probation at that level.]

Please take note that the two level sentence reduction does not require the guilty party to provide the prosecution with any information as to other possible defendants. The sentence is statutorily reduced by two levels simply for "accepting responsibility" in a timely manner so as to save the prosecution the trouble of preparing for a trial. Unlike a "5K" plea agreement which requires cooperation with -- and a motion from -- the prosecutor, the 3E1.1(a) two level sentence reduction only requires the guilty party to "accept responsibility" for his own actions by pleading guilty.

If the Prosecution agrees that the guilty party has properly "accepted responsibility", he may make a 3E1.1(b) motion for a third level of sentence reduction. Statutory and case law do not require that the guilty party cooperate with the prosecutor in the prosecution and conviction of any other defendant(s). But this only applies to offense with a base level of 16 or higher.

A 3E1.1(b) reduction, like the 3E1.1(a) statutory sentence reduction only requires the prosecutor to agree that the guilty party has accepted responsibility.

For a detailed analysis of the application of these statutes please see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MIGUEL MORENO-TREVINO, United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 2:04-CR-00051-DKW).

Jeralyn Merrit of talkleft.com almost nailed this down back on October 26, 2005, when she reported that Federal law allowed Rove to correct any perjury he might have committed before the grand jury and that Rove had probably done just that by willingly appearing before the grand jury for a fourth time:

Rove may have successfully cleared himself of a perjury charge regarding his conversation with Matt Cooper during his fourth grand jury appearance. The applicable perjury statute allows him to do this:

(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration
to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.

Merrit followed up on October 28, 2006 with a report titled, ">Does Rove Have a Secret Plea Deal? where she just barely missed being accurate as she postulated that Rove might have avoided “indictment” by pleading guilty to an “Information” – a charge brought by the prosecution by drafting a pleading of probable cause which is only done when the target waves indictment by a grand jury:

If they reached a deal, an Indictment is not necessary. A defendant can waive the right to be charged by Indictment and plead to an Information, which is filed by the prosecutor. It's an ordinary occurrence in my district.

The problem with the “Information” theory became evident last week when Luskin informed Merritt that there were never any “charges” against Rove. Since an http://www.co.rock-island.il.us/SAO.asp?id=376">“Information” is a “charge”, and Merritt was convinced that Luskin was speaking accurately, this theory was shot down.

Luskin also strongly insisted that there never was any “deal” at any time and that Rove cooperated from the very start with Fitzgerald.

On June 13, 2006 Merrit published a retraction of her prior theories featuring the following headline, EXCLUSIVE: No Deal for Karl Rove, wherein she reported:

Sometimes people just don't know when to cry "uncle." I do. I asked Robert Luskin this morning if Karl Rove has made a deal with Fitzgerald. His response:

There has never, ever been any discussion of a deal in any way, shape or
form.

Which is exactly what Luskin told me weeks ago. It's over, folks. Karl Rove will not be charged with a crime. He's cooperated with Fitzgerald by testifying to the grand jury five times and providing whatever information he had without a safety net. Without a 5k. Without assurances he would not be indicted. That's a hell of a risk, but Luskin pulled it off. My hat's off to Luskin.

I opined repeatedly on TalkLeft and HuffPo that Karl Rove would be charged at least with making a false statement to investigators in the fall of 2003 before a grand jury was convened -- the Martha Stewart crime. That was wrong.

I'm ready to put this to bed. Karl Rove walked. He's one of the rare subjects of an investigation who was able to talk his way out of an Indictment.

The problem with Merrit’s current analysis – as well as the similar analysis of the entire main stream media and major blogs – is that they failed to consider Rove might have “plead guilty” prior to any “charges” having been filed and without the safety net of a 5K deal, or any other plea bargain arrangement.

Merrit is an experienced attorney who is all too familiar with the fact that a person can plead guilty to breaking the law before any charges are ever filed.

She has previously discussed this issue – regarding a different criminal matter – at her blog:

One more thing: These Arizona cops and agents pleaded guilty before charges were filed. That means they didn't wait for the benefit of court-ordered discovery -and any exculpatory evidence the Government would have been required to disclose. In other words, they knew, after seeing whatever limited information the Government felt like showing them, that their goose was cooked.

And here’s a link to another case where people plead guilty “before being charged”:

Eight other people were arrested last year and two others agreed to plead guilty before charges were filed against them…

Back in her report of October 26, 2005, she discussed the possibility that Rove plead to making false statements:

On to Plan B. If Rove is charged, it might be only for making a false statement to investigators in the earliest days of the investigation when he said he didn't speak to reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife until after Novak's article was published…

If this is all the grand jury charges him with, and if, as I have speculated frequently in the past few weeks, he has cooperated against others, he could plead guilty under a plea agreement in which Fitzgerald moves for a sentence reduction under 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, possibly down to probation.

Rove would need that motion…

Patrick Fitzgerald, and only Patrick Fitzgerald, not the grand jury or the Court on its own motion, has the power to make that 5K1.1 motion, and ask that Rove not receive a jail sentence.

And that's how Karl Rove could walk.

Will it happen? Right now, only Fitzgerald knows for sure. As a devout critic of the Bush Administration, I bring it up because I don't like rats. If Karl Rove isn't indicted, or gets a sweetheart deal, I can't conceive of any reason why other than he sang his heart out.

So close, but yet so far. Unfortunately, she never mentioned http://www.ussc.gov/2003guid/3e1_1.htm>Rule 3E1.1 which – as explained above – requires no motion by the prosecutor or cooperation by the person pleading guilty to assist in the prosecution of others for the two level reduction to kick in.

When you study those Federal guidelines, it’s important to play close attention to Note 1(a):

Note that a defendant is not required to volunteer, or affirmatively admit, relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction in order to obtain a reduction under subsection (a) . A defendant may remain silent in respect to relevant conduct beyond the offense of conviction without affecting his ability to obtain a reduction under this subsection. However, a defendant who falsely denies, or frivolously contests, relevant conduct that the court determines to be true has acted in a manner inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility;

So, no “deal” is necessary for the 3E1.1(a) two level reduction, nor is a “deal” necessary for the extra single reduction listed in 3E1.1(b) if the base offense level were greater than 16. Once again, making false statements is a level 6 offense so 3e1.1(b) would not apply.

RANDAL SAMBORN’S COMMENT TO RYAN LIZZA

Contrary to misleading reports by various blogs, Fitzgerald’s tight lipped spokesperson, Randall Samborn, has not always answered “no comment” to substantive questions pertaining to this investigation.

Back in October, at the time of the Libby indictment press conference, Samborn – in response to ">a question by Ryan Lizza of The New Republic as to whether there were any guilty pleas in the case – said there was no “public record” of such pleas:

Yesterday, I asked Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn if there were any guilty pleas in the case. He told me there was no "public record" of such pleas. That sounded less than fully responsive, so I asked Preston Burton, a white collar criminal defense attorney, if there could be guilty pleas outside of the public record. Here's what he said:

Guilty pleas can be taken under seal--and often are--when the person entering
the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the
other targets or there is a safety concern. Also, plea agreements could have
already been reached but not formally entered in court.

Considering Samborn's cagey answer and the fact that we know Fitzgerald received high-level cooperation from several current and former administration officials, it is entirely possible that Libby is not the only Bushie who's been busted.
--Ryan Lizza

Another substantive answer given by Samborn back on October 28, 2006 was directed to the question of whether the investigation was ongoing to which ">Samborn responded, “the investigation will continue with a new grand jury.”

On June 13, 2006 Samborn changed his answer to this question by stating that he would not comment on the issue at this time.

The following District Court local ">rule states:

"With respect to a grand jury or other pending investigation of anycriminal matter, a lawyer participating in or associated with theinvestigation shall refrain from making any extrajudicial statementwhich a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by meansof public communication, that goes beyond the public record or that isnot necessary to inform the public that the investigation is underway, to describe the general scope of the investigation, to obtain assistance in the apprehension of a suspect, to warn the public of any dangers, orotherwise to aid in the investigation."

This allows the prosecution to inform the public that an investigation is under way. It also allows the prosecution to inform the public about the general scope of the investigation. Everything that takes place before the grand jury, is, of course, secret, but the “existence” of a grand jury investigation is certainly a matter of public interest. Indeed, Fitzgerald’s office has kept the public informed of the status of the investigation up until June 13, 2006 when he, via Samborn, refused to comment on the status of the investigation.

The same Federal rule would apply to the statements in Luskin’s fax. If Fitzgerald informed Luskin he does not anticipate seeking charges then Rove would be out of the general scope of the investigation and both Fitzgerald and Luskin may freely publicize that statement to clear Rove’s name. Whether it be a phone call, letter or fax, the medium does not matter, it’s all about the communication. Since Luskin made the communication public, the medium – a fax – can also be made public.

If there’s things in the fax which are to be kept secret pursuant to various Federal secrecy laws – for example: statements in the fax which discuss a sealed plea agreement – then Luskin can redact them and show what’s left.

On June 13, 2006, Fitzgerald, via Samborn, refused to confirm Luskin’s comments.

I believe that when one carefully examines Luskin’s razor sharp parsing, the truth emerges. Luskin has consistently stated:

1. Rove was never “indicted” or “charged” with any crime.
2. Rove never took a deal.
3. Rove has cooperated from the start with Fitzgerald.

I am not aware of any public statements by Luskin denying that Rove plead guilty to a legal infraction pertaining to Fitzgerald’s Special Counsel investigation.

If Karl Rove has not plead guilty to making at least one false statement, then let's have an official denial from Luskin.

I have contacted Randall Samborn and asked him about the subject matter of this report. He hasn't responded to my questions at this time.

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST AS YOU LIKE

DOES RANDALL SAMBORN'S CRYPTIC COMMENTS INDICATE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A GUILTY PLEA IN THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION?

2006-06-21T11:10:00.004-07:00

It appears that Randall Samborn's October28, 2006 statement "the investigation will continue with a new grand jury" was NOT the only time he gave a substantive answer to a relevant question regarding the Fitzgerald investigation.

Back on October 29, 2005 Ryan Lizza -- writing for a section of The New Republic called The Plank -- claimed to have received a very cryptic answer from Samborn to a probing question about the Fitzgerald investigation:

"Yesterday, I asked Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn if there were any guilty pleas in the case. He told me there was no "public record" of such pleas. That sounded less than fully responsive, so I asked Preston Burton, a white collar criminal defense attorney, if there could be guilty pleas outside of the public record. Here's what he said:

'Guilty pleas can be taken under seal--and often are--when the person entering the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the other targets or there is a safety concern. Also, plea agreements could have already been reached but not formally entered in court.'

Wow! We are definitely not in Kansas anymore if that quote is true.

It was also mentioned at Americanprogress on November 3, 2005:

Another thing we still don't know is if anyone pled guilty in the case. As TNR's Ryan Lizza reported over the weekend, he asked Fitzgerald's spokesman Randall Samborn just that question. Samborn partially dodged the question, telling Lizza that there was no "public record" of any pleas. Not satisfied, Lizza put the question to "a white collar criminal defense attorney," who told him that "Guilty pleas can be taken under seal – and often are – when the person entering the plea is cooperating with the government and they do not want to tip off the other targets or there is a safety concern. Also, plea agreements could have already been reached but not formally entered in court."

So here we have another instance of Samborn breaking from his standard "no comment", but this one here, this Samborn statement is way way out of character. Somebody needs to grill this Lizza person on the exact details of Samborn's statement about no guilty pleas having been entered in the public record.

Furthermore, if this quote is accurate, it provides further evidence that Samborn and Fitzgerald's recent double "no comment" as to whether the investigation is ongoing and what Karl Rove's status is...appears very strange indeed.

And the greek chorus being thrown about by Firedoglake and other main stream blogs trying to sell you on looking away from those bizarre Samborn/Fitz "no comments" just got their asses handed to them once again.

Imagine Rove plead guilty BEFORE giving the Grand Jury the chance to indict him. This is perfectly legal and plausible. It happens in RICO cases all the time:

When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.

Now apply this scenario to the facts in the Fitzgerald investigation. If Rove plead guilty, there could have been...

a. no indictment
b. no deal
c. no reason for Fitzgerald to "anticipate seeking charges"

Furthermore, the guilty plea might be sealed because there's a good public policy for having those pleas sealed. The secrecy protects the integrity of the investigation as well as the identity of the person who plead. And if that persoon is also going to be a witness, than the secrecy of a sealed plea would protect the witness from harm.

If Rove offered to plead guilty on his own volition while also offering to be a witness for the prosecution then you can't really characterize that as "cutting a deal". Perhaps he threw himself on the mercy of the court?

And if that's what happened, then all of Luskin and Corallo's statements are technically true.

If Rove plead guilty under these circumstances, and that plea is sealed, Luskin's manipulation of the facts to make it look like Rove was totally cleared has been a truly disgusting trick on the American people.

Somebody with access, hint to Talk Left, ought to ask Luskin specifically whether or not Rove plead guilty to anything in this investigation. A " no comment" type answer from Luskin would be a blockbuster quote.

This scenario is a strong contender.

"Wanna go for a ride?"

Citizenspook

PLEASE REPOST COPY AND LINK AT WILL

PART TWO: FIREDOGLAKE IS ACTIVELY MISLEADING READERS REGARDING SAMBORN AND BUSH COMMENTS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION...

2006-06-21T09:37:00.000-07:00

[Please see part 1 below before reading this report.]

Yesterday, Christy Hardin Smith responded to a comment by one of her readers familiar with this blog as follows;

"You don’t talk about proceedings while they are ongoing before the grand jury. In the presser after the Libby indictment, the new G/J had not yet been sworn in and informed about the investigation. They have now, and we just have to sit back and let the process take its normal course. There will be no comment from Fitz, I would bet, unless and until there are more proceedings or he folds up shop. Not while the grand jury proceeds with an investigation anyway. "

This comment contains two misleading statements:

1: A direct false assertion that no new grand jury had been impaneled.

2. A blatant false implication based on the false assertion: since no new grand jury had been impaneled Samborn and Fitzgerald had a small window of opportunity to legally comment that the investigation would continue and that once a new grand jury had been impaneled they would not be able to say "the investigation will continue".

Both the assertion and the implication are patently false.

The false assertion is that the new grand jury had not been sworn in. FDL knows that's a false assertion because FDL reported back on October 29, 2005 -- in response to a New York Times article -- that the new Grand Jury had already been impaneled. Here's what Jane Hamsher wrote:

Hamsher: Looks like everyone's struggling to keep up with Patrick Fitzgerald. NYT :

With the term of his grand jury at an end, Mr. Fitzgerald said he could present any new evidence to an already impaneled grand jury if needed.

Hamsher: Already impaneled? That's new.

Then the topic was discussed by some of her readers in the comments to that report:

The fact that Fitzgerald made reference to an "already empaneled" grand jury isn't odd or newsworthy. Federal grand juries are not case-dependent; they sit around for 18-24 months and hear whatever evidence a federal prosecutor wants to bring them. Fitzgerald is just saying that, if the need arises, he can present his case for further indictments to an existing grand jury. There's always one available.
Simbaud | Homepage | 10.29.05 - 2:41 pm | #

The already impaneled is NOT new. Fitzy said he could use one of the other GJ's currently impaneled (and working on other cases) in the press conference if necessary. GJ's don't just work on one case, they can work on multiple cases and he said right in the PC he would use one of the other ones if necessary as the old one's term expired. Not new at all.

GDoyle
GDoyle | 10.29.05 - 2:31 pm | #

Pachacutec, that's my guess. This GJ was already there, so no need to impanel a new one. Saves time and removes accusations of bias, I believe, since they didn't know when starting that they'd have anything to do with THIS investigation. IMHO.
TheOtherWA | 10.29.05 - 2:30 pm | #

When reading Fitzgerald's comments at the Libby indictment press conference, all of this should be very clear to FDL, the blog with the reputation of being the clearinghouse for all things Plame. But that reputation must be seriously questioned in light of FDL's twisted false spin on this issue. I have no choice to call it spin because I cannot find another word to describe this shit. Here's what Fitzgerald said on October 28, 2006:

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

FITZGERALD: This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

That's why the NYT correctly stated that a new grand jury had already been impaneled. Fitz made this even more clear with another comment in that press conference:

QUESTION: You noted earlier that the grand jury's term expired but you said something about holding it open. Or will you be working with a new grand jury?

FITZGERALD: The grand jury, by its terms, can serve -- was an 18-month grand jury. By its statute, to my understanding, can only be extended six months.

FITZGERALD: That six months expired. It's routine in long investigations that you would have available a new grand jury if you needed to go back to them. And that's nothing unusual. I don't want to raise any expectations by that; that's an ordinary practice.

And Fitz made one further comment about the new grand jury:

QUESTION: Just to be clear -- you did touch on this earlier -- with the grand jury time being done, you have no plans to file another grand jury related to this case at all, is that correct?

FITZGERALD: No. I think what I said is we could use any other grand jury or avail of another grand jury. We couldn't use the grand jurors whose term has expired today any further.

It's clear when you actually use the FACTS available, that there was no change in status of the investigation when the first grand jury's term expired by statute on October 28, 2005. Furthermore, FDL had discussed this issue on October 29, 2005. So there's no way they can say they were ignorant about it having quoted a NYT article on the issue.

What the hell?

And to those that would argue that the Libby press conference was the only time Samborn and Fitzgerald deviated from their pat "no comment", I would draw your attention to Fitzgerald's public affadvait filed with the court on November 18, 2005. On page 2, Fitzgerald states:

"Moreover, because the investigation is continuing, and because the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury that returned the indictment, traditional concerns that underlie Fed. R. Crim. Pr. 6(e) very much apply."

The statute cited here by Fitz leads to the Federal Rules pertaining to grand jury secrecy, yet the information contained in this affadavit was made public. You can read it at the Special Counsel's web site. And it was discussed by the MSM and blogs. Here's what Talk Left had to say:

Fitzgerald Confirms New Grand Jury Will Continue Leaks Investigation

Patrick Fitzgerald said in a court pleading today that his investigation of the Valerie Plame leaks case is continuing with the grand jury currently sitting in the District.

So, here we have another public statement by Fitzgerald that "the investigation will continue".

Why am I making such a big deal about this? Let me break it down for you.

FITZGERALD AND SAMBORN ARE NOT SAYING, "THE INVESTIGATION WILL CONTINUE" OR "THIS IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION"....any more.

Now they are refusing to comment on this issue.

Because "no comment" exists now where it did not exist in the past, we MUST consider the possibility that the status of the investigation has been the subject matter of "Sealed" activity.

And if the status of the investigation is the subject matter of "Sealed" activity, then Fitzgerald and Samborn must answer "no comment" to the very same question they were free to comment upon at earlier stages of this investigation.

The American people need to be educated as to this possibility, not dumbed down to it by shitty reporting submitted by FDL which has developed a reputation as being a leader on Plame related issues. Personally, I do not see why they deserve such a lofty reputation. They completely fumbled the ball on their parot like insistence that the IIPA was the controlling law and later had to recognize that the Espionage Act -- as discussed by Fitz in the press conference -- was actually more appropriate especially since it carries much harsher penalties than the IIPA, ie life in prison or death sentence if invoked in a time of war.

[For a detailed analysis of the Espionage Act's application to the Fitzgerald investigation please see previous CS reports, Part 1 and Part 2.]

So, if the status of the investigation has changed, and we know the President says it has, then what is happening? Yes. That is the question. Up until today, I have postulated two scenarios:

SCENARIO ONE: The grand jury issued Presentments instead of Indictments.

And we still haven't heard Luskin deny there were any Presentments although yesterday he once again denied that there were any "secret" indictments in a statement given to Jeralyn Merrit of Talk Left, since she has access, ought to ask Luskin if there were any Presentments.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I'm saying it's possible that if Fitz had been under pressure and saw interference coming, he might have educated this grand jury as to their Constitutional power of Presentment (a thorough report on the historical use of grand jury presentments will be the subject of a future CS report).

The issue then should not be whether common procedure in the Federal Courts would quash such a Presentment, the issue should be whether quashing such a Presentment violates the Constitution. And I believe that getting that very issue before SCOTUS is the most important tool we have available to us in order to preserve our system of Government as well as our national sovereignty.

I, for one, do not believe we will ever see a genuine, fair, legal election again without taking these electronic voting machines to a national bonfire. I applaud the Brad Blog for leading on election fraud issues and sticking hard to one important topic and making a difference.

Furthermore, if you're looking for either the DNC or the RNC to save us, you're a fool. They both suck lapdog style...forever beholden to corporate scum. The only Representative I can believe in for sure is Ron Paul.

I recognize the Presentment option is a long shot in this case, but I'm using this case to start a national dialogue on this repressed Constitutional power of the people.

And anybody out there in the blogosphere who tries to shut down discussion about this grand jury power obviously doesn't want us to have such power. I've seen arguments thrown about that we the people aren't qualified to initiate charges or investigations, that we'd abuse the process. Then why are we given the right to vote people to life in prison? We are legally required to serve as jurors and we ought to take that aspect of citizenship seriously. We ought to be educated from grammar school about what it means to be a Constitutionally impaneled grand juror.

And we need to take that power back and we don't need Congress fucking it up. We can force the issue when we sit as grand jurors. We can't be afraid of what might happen, we must try to be Constitutional grand jurors armed to the teeth with knowledge instead of blind statutory puppies.

SCENARIO TWO: Fitzgerald is facing a shut down of his investigation by external Government or Judicial forces.

Please be aware that both options might be happening at the same time. We the people have a right to know whether there is an investigation ongoing into the exposure of our national intelligence assets at a time of war.

Up until about five minutes ago, those were the only two options I was looking at. But I've come upon a third option and it will be the next report coming at you later today by...

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST AT WILL

PART ONE: FIREDOGLAKE IS ACTIVELY MISLEADING READERS REGARDING SAMBORN AND BUSH COMMENTS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION...

2006-06-20T19:32:00.000-07:00

...and I really don't know why. And I'm not going to speculate. I'm seething with anger right now, but I'm going to stay on point. I don't want to say anything I might regret later. But I really don't know what to make of FDL's willful misrepresentaion of Randall Samborn's comments.

Christy Hardin Smith completely misrepresented material facts in one of her columns today. Some of her very astute readers have also been reading this blog and they asked her very relevant questions to which she spun shit I can't believe I read there.

This from Christy FDL today:

"Fitzgerald’s office continues to stick to their "no comment" policy, which has pretty much been in effect from the start of all this (other than the laugh Jane managed to get out of Russell Samborn on the whole Viagra pen issue.)"

(all quotes from FDL can be found

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/20/popping-the-trial-balloon/#comments

They know that's false. It's almost as if they were trying to poor water over the fire started by this blog regarding the mysterious refusal by the Special Counsel's office to acknowledge that the investigation is ongoing.

As I've pointed out in previous reports this week, Samborn has only ever answered one important question with something other than "no comment". That was back on October 28, 2005 when he stated the investigation would continue with a new grand jury.

Now Samborn says, "no comment" to that same question. This shows a clear change in response from the Special Counsel's office.

FDL would have you believe that Samborn is not allowed to tell us whether the investigation is ongoing, yet he did tell us just that back in October. Here is how she handled that issue:

"You don’t talk about proceedings while they are ongoing before the grand jury. In the presser after the Libby indictment, the new G/J had not yet been sworn in and informed about the investigation. They have now, and we just have to sit back and let the process take its normal course. There will be no comment from Fitz, I would bet, unless and until there are more proceedings or he folds up shop. Not while the grand jury proceeds with an investigation anyway. "

FDL is telling their readers that Samborn can't tell us if the investigation is ongoing. That's BS. The workings of the Grand Jury are secret, but the existence of an investigation is not. This is still America, for now. The investigation's existence and status as "ongoing" has always been made very clear to the American people. There is nothing in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which prohibits the US Attorney from stating that an investigation is ongoing. For FDL to lead their readers to believe that is the case is a lie. And they know it.

Furthermore, it is standard operating procedure for a prosecutor to announce "the investigation will continue".

Look at the comments from other Grand Jury investigations which say "the investigation will continue" right in the official press releases. The first is from Elliot Spitzer in conjunction with a US Attorney:

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2003/mar/mar10a_03.html

Here's another one:

http://milwaukee.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel06/durgcharges051106.htm

See how many more you can find doing a Google.

Then her readers asked her about Bush's comments which allege that Fitzgerald has ended his nvestigation and check out her answer:

"dqueue says:

June 20th, 2006 at 11:34 am

I have to float this, because I think it’s interesting speculation. CitizenSpook collates a couple underreported tidbits. 1. Apparently Bush may have said that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation. 2. Samborn answers a little differently than in the past.

Christy's answer:

"Bush said that during a press conference with regard to a question about Rove, and Rove only. It should not be read literally, especially since it wasn’t Fitzgerald saying it. Unless and until I hear it from Fitz or one of his spokespeople (who really are saying variations of “no comment” — that has to get old saying it in exactly the same words all the time, after all), then I’m not buying into any other theory, unless and until I can substantiate it myself through independent evidence. That’s just how my skeptical brain works. "

Then this reader also weighed in:

authority_stealing says:

June 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pm

I too am interested in Citizen Spook’s questions as to Sealed vs. Sealed, runaway grand juries, and why more hasn’t been made of Dear Leader’s recent comments:
“On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: ‘It’s a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he’s conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he’s ended his investigation.’ ”

Where does she get this special inside info about what Bush meant and what question he was answering? I'd like to see the copy of the transcript she has that the rest of us don't.

In case you haven't noticed, there's a full court press on by Rove and Bush and their pundits to try to convince the American people that Fitz is done with the investigation and has moved onto the trial prep phase. BUT FITZ ISN'T CONFIRMING ANY OF IT.

I think Fitz is in trouble. I'm going out on a limb here. My instincts are telling me they've applied serious pressure and Fitz is in a Judicial dogfight. I have no sources other than Samborn's refusal to acknowledge that the investigation is ongoing. But none of this makes any sense. The Luskin fax which we can't see. Samborn's shift, etc. It's all very weird.

Examining this in light of Samborn's previous willingness to state that the investigation would continue coupled with the cold hard FACT that US Attorneys are clearly allowed to say "the investigation will continue"...leads me to believe that something very fuckin' bad has happened to this investigation.

And if Christy and others want to know what the President actually meant when he said that Fitzgerald's investigation had ended, then they can lobby one of their MSM sources to ask Tony Snow what the President meant.

Make some noise people. This case is so damn important. It's a life or death situation for America. It's that big.

Citizenspook

please repost, copy and link at will

BUSH COMMENTS DONT BODE WELL FOR LIBBY PARDON

2006-06-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

President Bush said on Air Force One, June 13, 2006:

"It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html

See yesterday's report for a detailed examination of Bush's strange and vastly under-reported comments which unequivocally state that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation. These comments have been largely ignored by the blogs.

The trial balloon being floated out regarding a Libby pardon due to the so called "criminalization" of politics is dubious and Libby should take heed now and consider turning State's evidence.

Think about this: If the President himself has just gone on the record to say that Fitz has conducted a dignified, thorough investigation, how can he justify a pardon from such an ethical investigation by a US Attorney actually appointed by Bush?

It's really something Libby ought to think about.

Could you imagine the press conference:

Non-Existent Reporter: Mr. President, didn't you state on Air Force One, back in June 2006, that Fitzgerald had conducted a dignified and thorough investigation?

Bush: Yes, I did.

Non-Existent Reporter: Then why are you now undermining a thorough, dignified investigation conducted by a US Attorney you actually appointed?

Bush: Ummm. (Touches ear piece)....

My personal opinion is that Libby just doesn't belong to the cabal the way Rove, Bush and Cheney do. He appears to be the designated scapegoat. The pardon trial balloon may actually be intended to comfort Libby, keep him confident he won't stay in prison and therefore keep him silent. Libby may be an Aspen, but Rove, Bush and Cheney come from a whole other family of trees.

I don't see how a pre-trial pardon could be on the table considering Bush's comments. Perhaps a last minute pardon, but I doubt it. If Scooter's conviction actually does signal the end of this investigation, Bush won't have any logical reason to pardon him in light of his glowing comments about the Fitz investigation. Something to think about from CS to I. Scooter.

Please don't assume that anything I've written in this report agrees that Fitz has ended his investigation as clearly as Bush, Luskin and Rove would have us believe. As I stated in yesterday's report, I think Fitz may have been railroaded and the Bush and Luskin comments appear to be a gambit that they can keep sealed whatever really happened behind the closed doors of the Grand Jury.

Citizenspook

please repost

PRESIDENT BUSH SAYS FITZGERALD'S INVESTIGATION IS OVER

2006-06-19T08:57:00.000-07:00

Let me separate this report into two sections.

1. FACTS and QUESTIONS

2. ANALYSIS

All of the FACTS in section "1." are not disputed. Every FACT in this report is 100% documented.

The QUESTIONS are simply questions.

The ANALYSIS section contains my take on the facts.

1. FACTS and QUESTIONS:

The CIA leak investigation has been shut down according to George W. Bush.

Thanks to MissWaverly of the Democratic Underground discussion forum for pointing out this quote.

"On Air Force One flying back from a surprise trip to Iraq, Bush said of the decision: 'It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation.' "

DU link

New York Times link

Last week, Randall Samborn changed the official response of the Special Prosecutor's office regarding the status of the investigation.

When asked last week if the investigation was ongoing, Samborn refused to comment. This answer changed the official response of the Special Prosecutor's office as to the status of the investigation. Samborn has consistently invoked the "no comment" response to "almost" every question he's been asked. But back on October 28, 2005, at the time Libby's indictments were announced, Samborn was asked if the investigation was ongoing and to this he replied,

The investigation will continue with a new grand jury.

Fitzgerald -- at the Libby indictment press conference -- stated that the investigation was ongoing.

From a CBS News Report on October 28, 2005:

"Rove’s lawyer said he was told by the prosecutor’s office that investigators had 'made no decision about whether or not to bring charges and would continue their probe into Rove’s conduct.

Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today."

Political Forecast link

There you have it, back in October 2005, Samborn and Fitzgerald (at the Libby Indictment press conference) both unequivocally stated that the investigation was ongoing.

As of yesterday, the official word from Fitzgerald’s office – via Samborn -- is:

"Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, 'I'm not commenting on that as well at this time.' "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml

How is it possible that President Bush can unequivocally state that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation, while Samborn refuses to confirm this?

Some have argued that if Samborn were to say that the investigation was ongoing -- as he did at the time of the Libby indictment press conference -- that would elicit further media inquiries about who Fitz was investigating. To this I say, "So what?" Fitz can answer those questions in the same manner he answered them at the Libby indictment press conference when he refused to give any names. From the Libby indictment press conference:

QUESTION: Is Karl Rove off the hook? And are there any other individuals who might be charged? You say you're not quite finished.

FITZGERALD: What I can say is the same answer I gave before: If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named, because we either charged someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read that answer in the context of the name you gave me.

Libby Indictment Press conference link

But the more serious question is --

IF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION HAS ENDED AS PRESIDENT BUSH HAS STATED, WHY WON'T SAMBORN OR FITZGERALD CONFIRM THE PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT?

If the President is correct, the question remains -- WHO SHUT THE INVESTIGATION DOWN? I can think of three answers:

1. Fitzgerald shut it down.
2. External Government forces shut it down.
3. Judge Reggie Walton shut it down.

It's obvious from the statements of Luskin, Corallo and President Bush, they want us to believe it was Fitzgerald who shut the investigation down after clearing the entire Bush cabal of wrongdoing.

Please also note that Samborn would not comment last week on the status of Karl Rove even though Rove's attorney and spokesperson claim that Rove was cleared by Fitzgerald.

Various commentators have argued that Samborn's recent "no comments" should be ignored since he almost always answers "no comment."

But "almost" doesn't count except in horeshoes and hand grenades. Samborn's recent refusal to comment on the status of the investigation stands in stark contrast to his comment of October 28, 2005 -- "the investigation will continue..." And since that very specific comment was the only comment with any direct substance Samborn has ever issued, it makes sense to scrutinize carefully his most recent refusal to confirm that the investigation is ongoing.

Additionally, Fitzgerald, through Samborn, has refused to publicly issue any exculpatory comments or evidence pertaining to Rove's status.

Furthermore, as I pointed out last week, Samborn's official comment from October 28, 2005 -- "the investigation will continue" -- has been mysteriously edited out of the CBS News report the comment first appeared in.

And since I wrote that report last week, Samborn's only substantial comment --"the investigation will continue" -- remains mysteriously absent from the CBS News report. And since that quote was attributed to CBS News, there now exists no direct confirmation that Samborn ever said that.

The link provided for the original CBS News report by politicalforecast.net is

CBS News link 1

But when you click through to it, you come to a two part article about the Libby indictment which does not include the quote by Samborn stating that “the investigation will continue”. That quote has been edited out of the article. Click through and you’ll see that the link to the second part of the two part-article, dated October 29, 2005, does not contain the Samborn quote, “the investigation will continue”. When you click the link at the bottom of that page, it brings you to -- not part one of the article you were reading -- but rather a different article dated October 30, 2005.

CBS News link 2

Neither link includes the quote by Samborn, “the investigation will continue.”

It wasn’t just politicalforecast.net who quoted this Samborn statement. You can find reference to it at Think Progress

as well as Democratic Underground

The quote was also carried by WTKR , but the page has now been removed.

The full WTKR story with the Samborn quote can be found here

ANALYSIS

If Samborn's October 28, 2005 quote -- "the investigation will continue" -- had never been uttered, it would be difficult to read anything into Samborn's most recent comments.

There appears to be a coordinated effort to distract those examining Samborn's refusal to confirm President Bush's allegation that Fitz has ended the investigation. That effort has also been extended to Samborn's refusal to issue a public exculpation of Rove's status. The greek chorus sounds something like this:

"Samborn always says 'no comment'. Samborn would say 'no comment' even if somebody asked him if his name was Randall?"

But the facts don't support the greek chorus because Samborn was very comfortable stating "the investigation will continue" back in Ocotber 2005.

There must be a reason why Fitzgerald via Samborn has refused to issue a public confirmation that:

A. President Bush was correct when he stated Fitzgerald "ended" the investigation.

B. Rove has been cleared.

Somebody with access needs to ask CBS News why they've rewritten history regarding Samborn's comments of October 28, 2005.

SOMEBODY WITH ACCESS NEEDS TO ASK CBS NEWS WHY THEY'VE REWRITTEN HISTORY REGARDING SAMBORN'S COMMENTS OF OCTOBER 28, 2005.

If the status of this investigation has been terminated by "SEALED" activity, Fitzgerald has NO LEGAL OPTION to comment. That would give Rove, Luskin and Bush the freedom to liberally comment for Fitzgerald. The only way for Fitzgerald to legally give us a hint that something might be rotten in Denmark is to issue a "no comment" where "no comment" did not exist before.

And that's exactly what we have now, a "no comment" from Samborn to the only question he ever offered a substantive answer to in the past.

I want to go on the record and say I believe in Patrick Fitzgerald. Everything available to me as a critical human being which influences my instincts is screaming loud to me that Fitzgerald is an ethical man swimming amongst vipers. And I believe he and Samborn have used the only tool available to them to inform the public that the situation is not as clear cut as Luskin, Rove and Bush would have us believe.

Last week, Samborn issued a "no comment" to the only question he previously made a substantive comment to. And he's refused to confirm Luskin's statements purporting to exonorate Rove as well.

It's incredible that a US Attorney refuses to confirm the President of the United States concerning the question of whether a criminal investigation with grave national security interests has been ended.

I believe it's totally in the realm of possibility, if not probability, that Fitzgerald was shut down by "SEALED" activity. Had Fitzgerald seen this coming, it's possible he may have educated the Grand Jury to their Constitutional powers of PRESENTMENT as opposed to INDICTMENT. It's also alternatively possible Fitzgerald was ordered to end the investigation. And it's possible that both of these scenarios are in play.

If Fitzgerald has been illegally stopped, and that decision is sealed, then Fitz can't speak out. The Bush cabal would know that he couldn't legally speak out and thereafter choose their statements carefully, making it appear as if Fitz has ended the investigation by selective quotation. Of course, Luskin can help to clear all of this up by publishing the purported document which allegedly clears Rove. But so far, Luskin refuses to do that.

If my analysis is on point, I expect Fitzgerald may be awaiting future decisions of Judicial review before he takes considers more drastic options, ie resignation.

Furthermore, all things considered, I'm very disgusted by bloggers who have eaten Luskin's comments up like good little Bush admin. stooges. The Talkleft.com attempt to squelch all dialogue concerning Rove's status is particularly sickening. You fold up the tents and go home dear girl, I'm sticking with Fitz until he officially clears this up.

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY AND REPOST AT WILL

All Citizenspook reports are made freely available with no copyright attached. Feel free to copy sections or entire articles at will.

P.S. Various readers have commented that when doing a Google search on "citizenspook" the engine sometimes provides only three hits and then on a second attempt 556 hits come up. As of last week there were over 3600 hits. I just confirmed that only 3 hits showed up followed by a second attempt which showed 556.

Furthermore, the blog has been redirected at times to various blank sites.

I find this all very flattering and it inspires me to keep writing.

Coming soon:

An in depth study of the Grand Jury use of Presentments.

JUNE TALKING POINTS FOR CITIZEN SPOOKS

2006-06-16T03:38:00.000-07:00

In yesterday's report I was perhaps guilty of cramming too much information into one essay. After seeing the various arguments floating around discussion forums, I noticed that the trolls are trying to focus attention away from the most important aspects of this report. So I'm putting up two talking points today which, if argued properly, will expose trolls from the wrong side of the tracks.

CS talking point # 1. Fitzgerald and Samborn have done an about face.

In October 2005, after the Libby indictment was announced both Fitz and Samborn unequivocally stated that the investigation would continue. As of June 13, 2006 their official position on whether the investigation is ongoing has shifted to "no comment at this time." This particular "no comment" changes the status of the investigation based upon prior direct answers by Samborn.

The big question you need to get out is why Samborn has shifted the official response from

the investigation wll continue

to

no comment on that at this time

C'mon people, something very starange is happening here with this Luskin fax situation. My theory that a run away grand jury may have taken the reins from Fitz is certainly speculation, but SOMETHING has happened which caused Samborn to change his response to questions regarding the ongoing status of the investigation.

People should be examining the tight lipped Samborn's comments because they indicate that something is going on behind the scenes of this investigation which has now caused Samborn to release a very intriguing "no comment" where there "no comment" did not exist before.

CS Talking Point #2: We the People Have Been granted Constitutional Police Powers Over Tyranical Governmental Abuse As Grand Jurors.

Procedural rules and practice cannot overturn the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment grants the power to indict on their own volition to Constituionally empanelled Grand Juries.

Justice Scalia wrote an opinion for the court in 1994 which insisted that the Grand Jury's historical powers have not changed and remain to this day. (See yesterday's post for links and quotes).

Although the Government has cleverly hidden this power from us to shield itself from the oversight we are mandated with, the power still remains -- albeit unused for decades -- despite procedural rules and practices which require a US Attorney to sign Grand Jury indictments.

The Governement trusts us to indict, and even to convict people to death while we sit as jurors. So there is no reason why we should not be able to exercise our Constituionally mandated police powers over the Government when we sit as grand jurors.

Imagine you are on the Fitz Grand Jury armed with what you know about this power. If I were there, I would have lobbied for an indictment regardless of what the prosecutor was up to. Who knows what kind of pressure might be coming down on this prosecutor or any other? It's our duty, once we are empanneled, to weigh in on the evidence.

Why leave it to politicians who have proved themselves e beholden to Presidential and corporate overlords, when we the people have the Constitutional right and duty to do that which our elected officials have failed to do. Refuse to do.

And if the new common procedures of the grand jury system have deprived us of our power, then it's time to take that power back when we are sitting as grand jurors. This is something we can do without the help of legislation. The legislation already exists in the Constitution. All we have to do is exercise it and then see what SCOTUS does about it. Will Scalia choke on his own words.

The choice is yours America. Pass it on.

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST

RANDALL SAMBORN INDICATES FITZGERALD’S PLAME INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN

2006-06-14T19:36:00.000-07:00

While yesterday’s Citizenspook headline was clearly labeled as conjecture -- citing no sources -- today’s headline carries an impeccable, unimpeachable source --Randall Samborn -- Fitzgerald’s notoriously tight lipped press officer.

In a political atmosphere run amok with pundits in constant chatter mode, Samborn has become infamous for his pat phrase “no comment.” But as you will soon see, some “no comments” are much bigger than others, especially when the same question asked yesterday of Samborn in a CBS News report elicited a complete reversal by the Special Counsel’s Office.

This is rare history. Randall Samborn has issued a statement which tells us something we did not already know before he opened his unusually tight lips.

Before we address that Samborn comment, we’ll examine his other comment from yesterday:

“Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, said he would not comment on Mr. Rove's status.”

That’s not the big one, but it does raise questions many bloggers and reporters have begun asking today. If Rove is no longer a “target” or “subject” in the Plame leak case, why doesn’t Samborn or Fitzgerald just tell the people the simple truth? It appears that the truth is not simple.

The lack of confirmation from the Special Counsel’s Office regarding Luskin and Corallo’s statements certainly keeps us all in the dark about what the hell is really going down here. But that analysis is not the main topic of this report.

Still, we all recall that quote from yesterday, yet tracking it down online has proven a difficult task. Here is the link I found through Google’s news search engine

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&client=firefox-a&rls=
org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ie=
UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&tab=wn&q=samborn+rove+status+june+13&btnG=Search+News

When you click it, you will see the quote I highlighted above as a caption for the actual New York Times report by David Johnston and Jim Rutenberg, published: June 13, 2006. But when you click through to the actual New York Times article, you will not find that quote. It appears to have been edited out. And this will be a recurring theme in this article.

RANDAL SAMBORN DOES AN ABOUT FACE

OK, here it is, and most of you have probably come across it, so please suspend judgment until we go back a few months for the punchline:

Fitzgerald met with chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan before he notified Rove. Hogan has been overseeing the grand juries in the CIA leak case. Fitzgerald's spokesman,

Randall Samborn, declined comment. Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/ap/politics/mainD8I7C7N00.shtml

This is a blockbuster quote. You would think that if Fitzgerald were still investigating the Plame leak, his press officer would tell the public this is an ongoing investigation. And if Fitz had completed his investigation, one would expect Samborn to say that the investigation is complete.

After all, the investigation must be open or closed, right? I’ve never heard of an investigation that’s neither open nor closed. Have you?

That quote by Samborn certainly seemed strange to me and I mentioned it in my speculative report yesterday (more on that below). But yesterday, I downplayed it in my mind because it’s Samborn’s standard pat response, “No comment.”

NOT!

Today, Samborn’s refusal to confirm or deny whether the investigation remained open haunted me.

The question involves the status of a very public case where people in high Government positions are being accused of treasonous activity, espionage even. Recall that at Fitzgerald’s press conference after Libby’s indictment, Fitz indicated he was considering the Espionage Act to prosecute anybody found responsible for the Plame leak.

[Citizenspook was out in front of the MSM and the blogosphere in our detailed analysis of the Espionage Act -- not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act – as the controlling law for the Plame leak investigation.]

The standard Samborn “no comment” was not appropriate at all for the question asked. Do we have an investigation into who leaked Plame’s name or not? Even for Samborn, “no comment” seems far too elusive and incendiary. This is the kind of “no comment” which raises more questions and problems for the public than a simple answer to the question.

So I looked back in time to see if Samborn had ever been asked this question before to see what his response had been in the past. And what I found blew my mind.

Samborn was asked this question in the past, and his answer yesterday signifies a complete change, an about face has been documented. It now appears -- based upon a thorough review of Samborn’s prior statements -- that the Special Prosecutor’s Office does not know if the investigation will continue. The incredible questions this raises will be addressed below, but first we will examine Samborn’s prior official answers.

From a CBS News Report on October 28, 2005:

Rove’s lawyer said he was told by the prosecutor’s office that investigators had “made no decision about whether or not to bring charges” and would continue their probe into Rove’s conduct.

Fitzgerald’s spokesman, Randall Samborn, said the investigation will continue but with a new grand jury. The term of the current grand jury cannot be extended beyond today.

http://www.politicalforecast.net/2005/10/28/rove-still-under-investigation-by-fitzgerald/#comments

There you have it, back in October 2005, Samborn and Fitzgerald (at the Libby Indictment press conference) both unequivocally stated that the investigation was ongoing.

As of yesterday, the official word from Fitzgerald’s office – via Samborn -- is:

Asked if the CIA leak investigation is still continuing, Samborn said, "I'm not commenting on that as well at this time."

Samborn -- and by proxy Fitzgerald -- have made an official about face. The status of the investigation is now officially in limbo. And I submit to you that neither Samborn nor Fitzgerald are ignorant to the significance of this carefully worded reversal of stated policy pertaining to the status of the investigation.

It just gets stranger and stranger, doesn’t it. You have no idea.

Notice that the above quote taken from October 28, 2005 is attributed to CBS News but the link I’ve provided is to politicalforecast.net . I would love to have provided you a link to the actual CBS news quote. It was originally attributed to CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

The link provided for the original CBS New report by politicalforecast.net is

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/politics/main990068_page2.shtml

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/28/politics/main990068.shtml

Neither link includes the quote by Samborn, “the investigation will continue.”

It wasn’t just politicalforecast.net who quoted that Samborn statement. You can find reference to it at Think Progress…

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/28/new-grand-jury-will-continue-investigation/

as well as Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1884715

The quote was also carried by WTKR, but the page has now been removed.

http://www.wtkr.com/global/story.asp?s=4042769&ClientType=Printable

The full WTKR story with the Samborn quote can be found here…

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/browse_thread/thread/6e64d332b62cc65c/fcc732b9a1e98d0b?lnk=st&q=samborn+fitzgerald+%22investigation+will%22&rnum=1&hl=en#fcc732b9a1e98d0b

Why have these quotes been edited out of these major media publications? It will be interesting to see how fast those quotes return to the stories quoted above.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

It means something very strange went down in May, 2006.

Let’s see what we know:

We know Fitzgerald’s Office has done an about face with regards to the ongoing status of this investigation.

We know that Fitzgerald has not confirmed or denied Luskin and Corallo’s statements concerning Rove being cleared.

We know Fitzgerald cannot comment about any activity by the Grand Jury which has been sealed by the court.

We know that within three business days of Friday, May 12^th 2006 the “Sealed vs. Sealed” entry was added to the District Court’s Pacer system by Judge Reggie Walton who is presiding over the Libby indictment. According to some excellent detective work by Marie26 at the Democratic Underground discussion board, we know that Case No. 06-CR-128 was probably entered on May 16 or 17^th. Since the 17^th was a Wed. and the Grand Jury meets on Wed., that date is more likely than the 16^th.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1406622#1410652

5. We know that Rove’s spokesperson, Mark Corallo, when he worked as a press officer for Ashcroft at DOJ, was no stranger to the use of “Sealed vs Sealed”. See

Link

WHAT WE DON’T KNOW

We don’t’ know if “Sealed vs. Sealed” is a charge against Rove.

Truthout.org claims to have a reliable source informing them that “Sealed vs. Sealed” was an indictment returned by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. I have no way of verifying that because there is no official information available about that case. It is completely sealed.

Since it carries the “CR” designation, it must be a criminal case, not a civil case or a motion regarding news sources like Cooper and Miller. Those carry different designations than “CR”.

CONCLUSIONS

If Luskin and Corallo can quote the fax sent by Fitzgerald, than that document is not sealed and they are legally free to show it to the world. If that fax completely exonerated Rove with no legal implications against the story they have told the world, then one would expect them to print that important exculpatory document. The have refused to show the world and until they do, the entire scenario DESERVES to be examined.

We must examine it in light of Randal Samborn’s strange statements regarding the status of Rove and the entire investigation. If Rove’s people and Fitzgerald are on the same pages, we expect a communication from Fitzgerald to that effect. If Luskin has a document from Fitzgerald that he is legally allowed to quote from, then he is also allowed to show that document.

But he won’t. And Fitz won’t back up those statements.

And Samborn won’t even tell us if the investigation is ongoing. Adding this strange behavior to the existence of “Sealed vs Sealed”, we must assume there is something very unusual about the Plame investigation now that wasn’t strange before May 2006.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume now that Jason Leopold was not lying and was not being lied to. I am not saying I believe him. I have no way of knowing if his claims are true. But for the sake of argument, I want to assume Leopold, Samborn and Luskin are all telling the truth.

What scenario would allow them all to be telling the truth? There may be others, but the scenario I speculated upon yesterday -- a runaway Grand Jury may have returned charges without Fitzgerald having sought them or signed them -- allows all of the parties to be telling the truth.

If that were the case then charges may actually exist and may be the “pending case” Luskin referred to.

These might be the same charges Leopold became aware of. The investigation may have been put on hold due to the unique Constitutional issue such charges would cause. And that might also explain Samborn’s inability to confirm whether the investigation is ongoing.

If the Grand Jury returned charges which were not requested by Fitzgerald, such charges would not be signed by him. In fact, according to Constitutional law, the Grand Jury could eject Fitz from the Court and bring whatever charges they like without him. Such charges might read:

Grand Jury for the District of Washington D.C. vs. Karl Rove

And in that case, the charges may have been sealed until Judge Walton decides how to handle this unique Constitutional exercise of citizen authority.

I have seen various commentary about yesterday’s Citizenspook report alleging that the runaway Grand Jury scenario is not possible since lower courts have held that a prosecution cannot move forward without the signature of a U.S. Attorney. I submit that any lower court ruling which states that is in direct contradiction with the Constitution.

Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has ever removed the right of Grand Jurors to return charges without a US Attorney’s acquiescence. Far from it.

Please read my previous report on the Constitutional independent authority of Grand Jurors:

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

Link

Justice Scalia, delivering the opinion of the court, laid down the law of the land:

"'[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history," Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It "`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.'" United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). ' "

Furthermore,

Justice Powell, in United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974), stated:

"The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] …The grand jury's historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972)."

Is it possible that Fitzgerald had the patriotic audacity to educate the Grand Jury as to their power to return indictments without his approval?

Is it possible that Fitzgerald anticipated interference by forces in the DOJ loyal to the people he is investigating?

Is it possible that behind the scenes the very fabric of our citizen powers to investigate the Government as Grand Jurors is under the final assault of a Government hell bent on destroying the safeguards of our delicate system of checks and balances?

Is it possible that Fitzgerald has spoken to us through Randall Samborn by sending an S.O.S. hidden in the simple quotation, “No comment”?

There are other possibilities, but none of them allow for all of the players to be telling the truth. I don’t believe Luskin and Corallo would say anything to the public which Fitzgerald could slam them on. Not a chance. Corallo is ex DOJ and Luskin is too skilled to do anything that stupid or unethical. So we MUST assume that Luskin and Corallo have parsed their words within the law and facts.

We don’t have to assume that Leopold and Truthout.org are telling the truth, but all things considered, I believe they have real sources or else they had to know they were committing professional suicide. Their sources could be misleading them, but we have the unique confirmation from major media reporters like David Schuster, and Chris Matthews who also believed Rove had been or was going to be indicted at about the same time Leopold first said that they were.

So if the Grand Jury acted on their own, without the signature of Fitzgerald, then Luskin’s statement that Fitzgerald doesn’t anticipate seeking charges could be true even though charges are pending against Rove. And if the “pending case” Luskin referred to is actually a charge against Rove, then his statement in this regard is also true.

THE PROBLEM WITH MY ANALYSIS

The problem then is what to do with Corallo and Luskin’s insistence that Rove has not been indicted which is a totally different animal then whether or not Fitz “anticipates seeking charges.” If the Grand Jury returned charges against Rove on their own volition, how can team Rove’s direct, unqualified insistence that Rove was never indicted square with my theory? An excellent question. Good thing I have the perfect answer. It’s called

PRESENTMENT

From TENNESSEE v. JEFFREY DWIGHT WHALEY:

“The grand jury has the power to act independentlyof the court and the district attorney

General by instituting a criminal action by presentment. State v. Superior Oil, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 658, 661 (Tenn. 1994). In practice, the district attorney general is informed of the offense, prepares the appropriate charge, and delivers it to the grand jury where it is signed by all members of the grand jury. State v. Hudson, 487 S.W.2d 672, 675 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1972) (citing State v. Darnal, 20 Tenn. 290 (1839)). A bill of indictment, on the other hand, is sanctioned by the district attorney general and signed only by the foreperson and not the other members of the grand jury. State v. Davidson, 103 S.W.2d 22, 23-24 (Tenn. 1937). “

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:RO7mNaBw1scJ:www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/TCCA/PDF/004/whaleyjd.pdf+%22presentment+v+indictment%22&hl=en&gl=us&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a

Obviously, Tennessee law does not apply. I only cite the case to show the difference between INDICTMENTS and PRESENTMENTS. The Bill of Rights mentions both. And the Grand Jury has the Constitutional authority to return either, but as our system developed certain habits of procedure, charges brought exclusively by the Grand Jury became regularly classified as PRESENTMENTS as opposed to charges brought directly by the U.S. Attorney which are commonly referred to as INDICTMENTS.

Somebody with clout needs to ask Luskin if Rove is the subject of any PRESENTMENTS by the Fitzgerald Grand Jury. Because if the Grand Jury returned charges in the form of PRESENTMENTS, then Luskin and Corallo could steadfastly deny that any INDICTMENTS have been returned against Rove.

These people are professionals. If you give them wiggle room they will use it like a skilled Samba dancer.

Citizenspook

PLEASE COPY LINK AND REPOST EVERYWHERE

STRONG INDICATIONS ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED BY RUNAWAY GRAND JURY IN "SEALED VS. SEALED"

2006-06-13T15:41:00.000-07:00

I'll begin by telling you straight up, Citizenspook has no sources for this headline. But I believe it is the most likely explanation for all of the anomolies, strange quotes and secretive actions invoved with the official Special Counsel investigation by Patrick Fitzgerald. The following argument is my analysis of the LAW and FACTS. Unlike previous disserations by this author, the following is short and firmly based upon the evidence. I am attorney so let me argue the case based on the following mysterious indicators:

1. The "Sealed vs. Sealed" matter.
2. Luskin's carefully worded statement from this morning.
3. The carefully worded statements of Randal Samborn, Fitzgerald's press officer.
4. The strange case of Jason Leopold
5. The Constitutitional grant of authority to Grand Jurors to indict on their own volition without requiring a US Attorney "seek charges".

Yesterday, Jason Leopold, who alleged back in May that Rove had already been indicted, revisited this allegation by examining the strange indictment returned by the same Grand Jury working with Fitzgerald which was sealed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia under the bizarre heading of "Sealed Vs. Sealed,"

The following is taken from http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206Z.shtml

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

CR signifies a criminal case.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I have never seen another case titled "Sealed vs Sealed" so this by itself is VERY strange. Then couple it with the fact that it was the same Grand Jury empanelled for the Fitzgerald investigation. Judge Reggie Walton presided and it was returned -- as Leopold pointed out -- on a day that Fitzgerald also met with those same Grand Jurors.

All of that raises massive red flags. Some have argued that the case might refer to a war between Fitzgerald and the DOJ. This was specifically floated out by a Daily Kos diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/21/184052/881

as well as here http://my.opera.com/prosperingbear/blog/show.dml/277182.

However, this is not possible under the facts reported by Leopold because such a filing would not be the subject of an indictment by the Grand Jurors. If Fitzgerald filed a complaing against DOJ for trying to remove him then no Grand Jurors would have been involved. Judge walton would make that decision not the grnad jurors.

So what is "Sealed vs. Sealed"?

Now let's review the two ways a Criminal Indictment can come down under the Constitution:

1. A US Attorney may request and indictment be returned by the Grand Jurors which is then signed by the US Attorney.

2. A Grand Jry may return and indictment without the request or signature of a US Attorney.

Under number 2 above, such activity constitutes a "Runaway Grand Jury", although that disparages the true purpose of Grand Jurors as a fourth branch of checks and balances.

For an in depth study of this issue see my previous report

TREASONGATE: The Federal Grand Jury, FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/08/treasongate-federal-grand-jury-fourth.html

Now let's examine those statements by Luskin.

To answer that let's look at Luskin's carefully worded commentary:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove...

In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation."

If the Grand Jurors returned the indictment without Fitzgerald's signature, than it may very well be true that Rove was indicted but Fitzgerald is not the one who indicted him.

And if Rove was indicted as follows:

"Grand Jury for the District of Columbia vs Karl Rove" than the "pendign indictment" referred to by Luskin is explained. If Luskin was not reffering to an indictment against his client then he shold be able to unequivocally state, "Karl Rove has not been indicted".

Notice that Luskin's letter mentions both:

1. The pending case and
2. The investigation

The pending vase might very well be "Sealed vs Sealed". Luskin can clear this up.

Fitzgerald cannot comment on "Sealed vs Sealed" and that may explain why Samborn will not comment on Rove's status according to

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000888.php

Furthermore, Samborn will not even comment on whether the investigation is ongoing.

And all of this might indicate that there is a war on to stop Fitzgerald, that he saw the pressure coming and enlightened the Grand Jurors as to their Constitutional ability to indict on their own without him. His hands may have been illegally tied by the Court and his superiors. [Revisit my previous posting on this topic.]

If that happened we are facing a Constitutional challenge to the valdity of the Grand Jury's power and right to bring charges where they see a crime despite the Government's intention to impede them. And if this is what happened, then Fitzgerald and Samborn have no other option but to say, "No comment."

And TPM Muckraker is reporting that Luskin will not comment on how he was "formally advised" Fitzgerald. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php

Citizenspook

Please repost everywhere.

DANIEL HOPSICKER IS THE GOVERNMENT MOLE MESSIAH OF 911 TRUTH DAMAGE CONTROL

2006-05-26T09:30:00.000-07:00

I haven't written about 911 before in this blog. So let me state what I believe has already been proved by the physical, scientific, testimonial -- repressed -- evidence: the US Government pulled off the 911 tragedy to further its own goals of reshaping the global power grid in favor of their interests. It's the greatest crime ever perpetrated.

And the genius elements of the Government who were charged with the 911 task certainly anticipated that their would be a 911 truth movement. They, more than any of us, knew that they had a very small window under which they could remain safe from public scientific media scrutiny. They knew they could whitewash 911 for a couple of years, but eventually the massive truth would come down on them in this information age. After all, you can't effectively spin things like "scale" and "physics" let alone eyewitness reports.

The stakes were just too huge to ignore the ability of truth to come to the fore. So the Government prepared their antidotes well in advance of 911. This is the Citizenspook take and the following attack on Daniel Hopsicker's credibility is intended to expose his reporting on 911 as a black psy op of damage control. And I must applaud the intelligence involved with this operation. It was planned before 911. It's first strike came in September 2001 and it has continued to grow under the excellent handling of an incredibly talented group of operatives charged with taking the sting out of the real 911 truth movement.

Let me warn you, the following argument, while simple to grasp, must not be judged until the punchline at the very end. Thank you for your patience while reading this.

Last week I became aware of Daniel Hopsicker's recent article regarding the intricate web connecting Mohammad Atta with a local Venice, Florida convenience store owner by the name of Makram Chams. Atta hung out at Chams' convenience store many times before 911. Hopsicker originally wrote about this connection back in 2005. Last week a new development tied Chams to Titan Corporation:

"San Diego defense contractor Titan Corporation, already implicated in the fraudulent bankruptcy of a shadowy St. Petersburg FL company which owned the DC9 "Cocaine One" flight busted in Mexico, employed a Lebanese contractor who assisted Mohamed Atta and other terrorist hijackers in Venice, Florida."

From Hopsicker's Mad Cow report. http://www.madcowprod.com/05172006.html

I was fascinated by Hopsicker's articles which make a very convincing case that the CIA was involved in assisting the so called 911 hijackers obtain flight training.

SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS SERIES OF ARTICLES AND MAY BE SCRATCHING YOUR HEAD ASKING -- WHY WOULD SOMEBODY IMPLICATE THE CIA IF THEY WERE A GOVERNMENT MOLE MESSIAH OF 911 TRUTH DAMAGE CONTROL?

And I have to admit, while reading Hopsicker's report, my first concept was to simply copy it word for word, supply a link and credit the man for being a brave patriot. But the very last section of his report left me bewildered:

"But you won't find much about any of this on the innumerable websites of the '9.11 Truth Movement.' Most seem to be utterly fascinated currently with speculation about materials which might have been secreted inside the Twin Towers which could have made them collapse.

They used to utterly fascinated with proving that no plane hit the Pentagon. Before that there were utterly fascinated with the idea that the planes were flown by remote control. And on and on."

[The grammar mistakes and emphasis are his, not mine.]

Red flags fell from the heavens on the Citizenspook bullshit detector. How could anybody as smart and savvy as Hopsicker be so "certain" that the twin towers were not laced with explosives? How could anybody with even half a brain look at the Pentagon footage and not have serious questions about what hit the Pentagon? You must have questions if you have a brain at all. We're not all going to agree on what we saw. But we must have questions.

So what gives?

My first impulse was to do a Google news search and see if this story was hitting the Google "news" search engine? Unless you're in China, anything will show up in the Google "web" search engine, but for a write up to hit the Google "news" search engine, it must have some clout. Many huge blogs do not show up in Google's "news" search, but sure enough Hopsicker's fledgling blog reports from -- http://MADCOWPROD.com -- do show up in the Google news search. http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=hopsicker%20chams

This, by itself, does not prove anything. But it led me to have a look further into Hopsicker's background. Was this guy some unknown the main stream media could label "conspiracy theorist"? I was curious because anybody classifiable as such usually does not show up in the Google search engine.

I then learned that Hopsicker comes form the main stream media. He's one of their very own. Daniel Hopsicker was a producer at Wall Street Week for PBS, he's the former executive producer of the NBC show Global Business, and he's been an investigative reporter for NBC News.

Very interesting.

Somewhere in time, Hopsicker's beat turned from finance to Government involvement in drug smuggling. Again, this would -- at first glance -- appear to make him legit. And that is exactly what those reports were intended to do. His so called exposes on the Clinton Bush crime families' involvement with the Mena airstrip -- Barry & 'the Boys' : The CIA, the Mob and America's Secret History was published when?--- anybody? anybody? Bueller? Anybody? you guessed it -- Septemebr 2001. Gee wiz, just in time to get him legit for his coming mission. Then in 2004 he published Welcome to Terrorland : Mohamed Atta & the 9-11 Cover-up in Florida .

Hopsicker's role in Government 911 truth damage control is to appear as if he's a staunch Government/CIA critic. It's hard to attack a guy for being in league with the Devil when he's one of the most extreme critics of the Devil, right? And if Hopsicker had simply kept his mouth shut about the rest of the 911 truth movement we'd never know he was a mole. So why is Hopsicker going out of his way to mock the rest of the 911 truth movement? If he'd just kept his mouth shut and avoided attacking the rest of the 911 truth movement -- a movement which gravely concerns those responsible -- then Hopsicker's credibility would be virtually unassailable.

But Hopsicker could not keep his mouth shut because it's his purpose in this grand game to use his long planned "911 truth credibility" as a bastion of destruction for the "other
911 truth movement which is not sanctioned by the Government.

HOPSICKER IS A DAMAGE CONTROL MOLE MESSIAH FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

At this very moment in time they are getting him ready for the major talk show circuit.

They are grooming him as the atom bomb to destroy the 911 truth movement and the seeds of this destruction were sewed in an article written by Hopsicker for Onlinejournal.com back on November 7, 2001. Before I get into the evidence, let me state with authority what Hopsicker's role unequivocally is:

DANIEL HOPSICKER'S REPORTING ON ATTA, CHAMS, TITAN, GOSS AND THE FLIGHT TRAINING ACTIVITIES NEAR VENICE FLORIDA WILL EXPOSE A CIA OPERATION WHICH AIDED THE SO CALLED 911 TERRORISTS IN A BUNGLED CIA ATTEMPT TO INFILTRATE AL QUEDA.

The key word being "bungled". The CIA will become the fall guy and will be implicated in a cover up of epic proportions. The story will unfurl as follows:

THE CIA ATTEMPTED TO INFILTRATE AL QUEDA USING DRUGS AND MAFIA CONNECTIONS AS COVER BUT THE CIA BLACK OP WENT VERY WRONG AND ENABLED THE HIJCAKERS TO PULL OFF 911 WITH THE UNWITTING HELP OF THE CIA.

That's it. And it partially explains the "alleged" infighting between government spy divisions. As it plays out, you will be told about the CIA attempting to control information and stop the world from knowing about its "bungled" attempt to infiltrate Al Queda. This will be the sanctioned story which will spread throughout the main stream media in the coming months and it will also be the nutron bomb intended to destroy the genuine 911 truth movement.

Do I have proof for this theory? Of course. All you have to do is go back to November 7, 2001 and read what Hopsicker wrote for onlinejournal.com in his article titled:

WAS THE CIA RUNNING A TERRORIST FLIGHT SCHOOL?

"Was the CIA running a covert, or black, operation out of the Venice Airport? Might they have been training pilots for bin Laden in an effort to penetrate his organization that went more-than-just-slightly-horrifically awry?"

"horrfically awry" ---- remember that phrase.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:95-RDH721gsJ:www.american-buddha.com/911.wastheciarunningterrorflight.htm+%22daniel+hopsicker+was%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

The article was only found using the Google cahe option.

Note that Hopsicker isn't, and has never, alleged that the Government "intended" 911 to happen.

He alleges that the Government was involved by accident and this is the distinction between the truth and the reality. If the CIA aided the terrorists by accident while trying to infiltrate them, then, of course, they would try to cover that up. But as the story unfurls, understand that a "bungling keystone cops concept" of the CIA's involvement is a much different animal than a concept which alleges that the Government pulled off 911 with malice aforethought.

Hopsicker's Nov. 2001 article finishes as follows:

"Frankly, we can’t differentiate between terrorism and organized crime and drug dealing," Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff told the Senate Banking Committee hearings about the terrorists’ money trail in the aftermath of the Sept 11 disaster.

Terrorist groups have been implicated in the $360 billion a year international narcotics trade, directed by organized crime, says Judge Thierry Cretin of the European Anti-Fraud Office.

As recently as six weeks ago, crime families were being seen as particularly important for terrorist groups involved in the acquisition and transport of arms, like in the case of a Jersey City man, accused of attempting to smuggle Stinger missiles out of the country to Osama bin Laden, who is now reportedly helping federal agents investigating the Sept 11 terrorist attacks.

If the deal he got caught doing was typical, insiders say, it was oil and heroin up front for guns and training.

Oil and heroin upfront for arms and training. Now there’s a story we haven’t heard about yet in the roiling skies above the terrorist flight schools on the Gulf Coast of Florida. "

He's got this concept down -- A CIA BUNGLED ATTEMPT TO INFILTRATE AL QUEDA WENT HORRIFICALLY AWRY RESULTING IN 911 DISASTER AND COVER UP -- since all the way back in November, 2001. And isn't it amazing how the story has continued to blossom for Hopsicker right up until yesterday, May 25, 2006, when he published the following article:

"PORTER GOSS RESIGNATION MYSTERY SOLVED: DC 9 WITH 5.5 TONS OF COCAINE WAS CIA PLANE." http://www.madcowprod.com/05252006.html

This Hopsicker, a regular 911 Nostradamus. He's the Messiah of Government 911 damage control. You heard it here first at Citizenspook.

PLEASE COPY ARCHIVE AND REPOST EVERYWHERE

PS: Fitz knows all.

ESPIONAGE CANNOT BE DECLASSIFIED

2006-02-16T16:45:00.000-08:00

Cheney and Bush cannot declassifiy Espionage Act violations. Which brings me to the most important Tresongate story so far ...

Outed CIA officer was working on Iran, intelligence sources say by Larisa Alexandrovna
of Raw Story.

Raw Story reports that intelligence officials say Plame was working on Iran and that her outing has cost ten years damage. Where is the blogosphere? Where is Firedoglake? Aren't they supposed to be the foremost "authority" on all things Plame?
They're out hunting Cheney on this shooting thing which is going nowhere while the most important revelations about Treason are ignored. Plame was a NOC and she was working on Iran nukes info. But this sort of throws a shitload of question marks all over the "Bush Gang outed Plame to get back at Wilson" idiot spoonfed conspiracy theory for the masses which David Corn et al have forcefed "the nation".

Fitz knows the truth. He knows something is wrong with this whole picture.

Please repost.

Citizenspook

TREASONGATE: What's Mysteriously Missing From Fitzgerald's Website, Press Conference, Press Release and The Indictment

2005-11-04T08:21:00.000-08:00

TREASONGATE: Let's All Take A Deep Breath And Reexamine The Facts

2005-11-02T13:46:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I published an explosive article (see below) about David Corn misquoting Fitzgerald. The reader comments here as CS, Democratic Underground , Rigorous Intuition and various other forums were polarized to the extreme. I respect that, and I respect that people are angry at me for attacking Wilson and Corn's credibility. Others who are receptive to my point of view praised and defended my reporting.

I do not want CS to be a blog that divides people. That is why the comments are totally uncensored and open. Even the comments which are filled with profanity, vitriol and spin are welcome. Thank you all for posting here and elsewhere. The comments are the best part of the blogosphere.

I'm not a professional reporter. Until publishing this blog I had no experience as a journalist or political commentator. I don't want to be a paid reporter. I am a reader of blogs and a news junkie who has experience as a lawyer and an investigator. That's as far as I want to go. I don't want to be known. I don't want to be a talking head. I just want to get to the truth.

As for my credibility, like Fitzgerald, blogs on the left are calling me a faux partisan hack because I credited Clifford May and The National Review for publishing the theory that David Corn outed Plame's status as a NOC and also because I have labeled Wilson and Corn as co-conspirators with the White House. While right-wing blogs have attacked me for being a left wing hack because I have called for the neocons to be prosecuted under the Espionage Act for actions (Plame and Brewster outings) they consider not to be criminal, but simply political.

I will grant both sides their frustration and have empathy for the confusion that has beset America. I am not insulted by any of the tags that have been put on me because I understand the pain this country is going through via the intended polarization of the American people. So let me try to unify the troops by taking a deep breathe and answering all of the questions which have arisen over the last 24 hours.

I will do this by interviewing myself using questions that have come up from readers. And I will publish this now with the understanding that the interview will continue in the comments section of this blog as readers digest this article and compose further questions for my review. I will answer every question the readers have. I simply ask that you have patience for the answers to your questions. Trying to stay on top of all the leads coming my way is very time consuming. There are people trying to do patriotic things while others are trying to thwart them. Both end up in my mailbox and it's not easy separating the real from the unreal.

It's not easy for any of you either. I've made mistakes and I've tried to be honest about those mistakes, tried to make up for them and this is what the current article you are reading is all about.

QUESTION: Why should anybody trust CS?

ANSWER: You shouldn't. You shouldn't trust me. You don't know me. You don't know if I have an agenda. You don't know anything about my motives other than what I've written and what I've written hasn't been 100% correct. So you shouldn't trust me. You shouldn't give me a pass when I screw up. You should hold me over the fire and fry me until you see me respond to your questions.

At the same time, you should also give credit when somebody proves a fact to you. I was attacked by the moderators at Democratic Underground for citing the Espionage Act as the most valid law pertaining to the Plame affair. DU locked that thread and told its readership that they would open it when I backed up my theory with proper sources. I told DU my source was the law and quoted the law and analyzed the law, but DU kept the thread locked.

As it turns out, Fitzgerald focused on the Espionage Act in his press conference and Libby's indictment. DU has never reopened the thread or apologized for casting aspersions on my reporting. My reporting on the Espionage Act was not the first in the blogosphere, but it was by far the most detailed and legally sound explanation of the law the blogosphere has seen on this topic.

I took issue with those in the media who had erroneously directed the people's attention to the IIPA as the exclusive law controlling the Plame outing.

David Corn was the first person in the media to raise the issue of the IIPA and Joe Wilson followed him as the foremost cheerleader of that law. You can defend them all you like, but shouldn't they be held up to scrutiny for getting it wrong?

Corn is supposed to be this ace reporter, but for two years he never mentioned the law which has now come to forefront of this investigation, the Espionage Act. For two years Wilson and Corn discussed the IIPA exclusively and in doing so the stage was set for many talking heads to debate the intricacies of the IIPA while the true master of this fact pattern -- the Espionage Act -- was ignored.

If you want to give them both a pass, that's your prerogative. But what about the non-disclosure agreement violations? Those also mention 18 USC 793 and 794 as well as the IIPA and other laws. Written reports by Wilson and transcripts of interviews with do not mention even the possibility that the Espionage Act was in play. The same goes for Corn.

Wilson stated in his book -- "The Politics of Truth" -- that on July 16, 2003, David Corn published an analysis of the IIPA so that Americans would have some knowledge concerning "all of the legalities" involved. That was wrong. Fitzgerald has spoken and he's locked onto the Espionage Act. Wilson and Corn got it wrong. That's a fact.

What does that fact mean? The answer to the question -- at this point in time -- is conjecture. But it's a question neither has answered in public.

So you shouldn't trust them anymore than you should trust me. Trust nobody. Start out with the assumption that whatever you read is conjecture (or worse -- spin) and go from there with your analysis of the subject matter.

Trust the facts not the spin.

For example, before Fitzgerald issued the indictment and gave the press conference, it was not a fact that the Espionage Act would be used, but since Fitz struck, it is now a fact that the Espionage Act is totally in play. That is now a fact and you can trust it.
And if you want to be schooled, you really need to read 18 USC 793 and 794 with all the sub-parts. You will find that there are sections of those statutes which make it illegal for reporters to publish certain information. Have a look at 793(e) and 794(c) for guidance on whether reporters can be prosecuted under these laws. Novak, Corn and Pincus have issues with these laws.

I was analyzing the Espionage Act when most blogs were exclusively debating the IIPA. You should consider that and cut me some slack. But don't believe anything just because I report it. You have the ability to fact check things for yourself. Don't be lazy. Do the work. Corn and Wilson got the law wrong. CS did not.

CS was also the first blog to thoroughly explain the delegation letters by Comey to Fitz as well as the GAO report which found that Fitz had all of the power of an Independent Counsel even though he is not an Independent Counsel. This happened when it looked like Comey's replacement might be looking at ways to fire Fitz. That GAO report is very interesting. So cut me some slack on that one as well. And if you want to read a true history of your power as federal grand jurors, I suggest you read my report on the history of that power. I'm not exactly shooting blanks over here.

QUESTION: What's The Biggest Mistake You've Made CS?

ANSWER: The biggest mistake I've made is drawing conclusions about Corn and Wilson without properly backing up those conclusions with supporting evidence strong enough to convict them of my accusations. I am guilty as charged. The last 24 hours have made me realize that my original headline and attack on Corn and Wilson, while supported by the facts to some degree, have been more driven by instinct and gut feelings.

That is no way for a journalist to behave.

The first post in this blog was July 28, 2005, my first piece of journalism ever. The attention I've received since then has blown my mind. My very first report was listed as a source at Wikipedia . Instead of taking a deep breath and trying to follow my gut to information which would thoroughly confirm that my suspicions about Corn and Wilson were true, I jumped online and published my accusations as if I "knew" those accusations were correct.

I "knew" no such thing. I believe I'm right about these two, but I can honestly say I don't have the evidence to "convict" them in the court of public opinion. And this is why the country is lucky to have someone like Fitz at the helm. He probably has a lot of gut feelings going on about a lot of people involved in this investigation, but he's proven to everyone that he will only prosecute what he believes he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are many facts that support my gut feelings. And we will discuss those facts. All I ask is that you recognize a fact when you see it. Be realistic, especially at a time when so many unrealistic things are happening. If I prove a fact to you, and that fact is damning to somebody you respect, you need then to start asking questions. Theories can be spun as conjecture and partisan lies, but facts are much harder to spin.

When a fact has been proven to you, and that fact is damaging to somebody you have believed in, you must be careful not to give an automatic pass to those responsible.

Trust not so easily. Ask questions. Demand answers. In this way we can end the partisan division and get to the truth.

We often allow our sense of doubt to be corrupted by those we "want" to be right. We've been duped so many times. When the facts don't add up, get out your calculator and start crunching numbers.

I retract my accusations that Corn and Wilson are in cahoots with the White House. I cannot prove that. I believe it to be true. There are facts which support it, but I don't have enough evidence to convict them. I apologize. This was a clear rookie mistake. My last column on Corn phrased the issue as a question just for this reason. But my original accusation was presented as a true conclusion and that was an amateur blunder.

QUESTION: Why did you rely on an obvious right wing propaganda rag like The National Review when you cited Clifford May as a source for your attack on Corn?

ANSWER: My report from yesterday includes the following disclaimer:

"Readers -- I am no fan of The National Review and their war propaganda, but a fact is a fact. May raised very legitimate questions which must be answered."

I didn't come up with the theory that Corn helped out Plame's status as a NOC. I don't believe in plagiarism. If you point out something to me which makes me look at things in a new light, then I'm going to credit you and it doesn't matter who you are. Clifford May speculated that Corn outed Plame's status. Forget about the messenger and just look at the message. Analyze it in light of facts and draw your own conclusions.

Novak said Plame was an "operative".

Corn said she was a "NOC".

From what I understand, an operative is a spy. I will grant the Corn defenders that. It even says so in the dictionary. But as far as I can tell, there are two kinds of spies. Those with "official cover" and those with "non-official cover" (NOCS). Novak's column labeled Plame as an operative, but Corn said she was a NOC.

I can accept that...operative = spy.

I cannot accept that...operative = NOC.

Corn stated she was a NOC. If he made a mistake, let him admit that he made a mistake and in his admission -- through the words that he uses -- we can analyze the veracity of his assertions and compare those assertions to other statements and conduct.

It's the totality of the circumstances you need to stay locked on, not just isolated incidents.

Corn doesn't list any other sources for his article but Novak. I don't understand how Corn comes to this conclusion without the Brewster Jennings info or something else. Did it never occur to Corn that Plame might have had official cover? Why give Corn a pass? Just because Clifford May brought it to your attention? Is that why you give Corn a pass? Perhaps Corn, Novak and May are trying to mess with your mind? I don't know. I can't prove that. But it's so obvious to me that the easiest way to keep America divided is on party lines.

So let's take a deep breath and digest this fact. Two days after Novak published, Corn -- citing no other source but Novak -- states that Plame was a NOC. He also listed other details that are suspicious, but let's ignore those and stick to the real heart of the matter.

Perhaps it could have been established that Plame worked for Brewster Jennings and that her employment with a private firm proved that she was a NOC since she would need a government job to have "official cover".

But Corn's July 16, 2003 report doesn't allege anything like that. Corn doesn't tell his readers that he researched Plame's job history, found out she worked for a private firm, and concluded on that basis that she must be a NOC. His report doesn't say that. His report claims to be based on Novak's report exclusively. But Novak doesn't say Plame was a NOC. Corn's report, two days later, does say she was a NOC.

operative
covert
NOC

She could be a covert operative and not be a NOC...IF she had official cover.

How did Corn know she never had official cover on July 16, 2003?

These are facts. It sucks that Clifford May and The National Review were first to expose these facts.

IT SUCKS! And the way Clifford May reported it really sucks. He didn't zero in on the main issue, the NOC statement. That's the beef. It's fair for somebody like Corn to extrapolate that operative = spy, but it's not fair to assume operative = NOC. You need something more than what Novak wrote.

Why didn't somebody else get there first? I don't know. But if I report on these facts and I don't mention the journalist who first brought these facts to our attention, what does that do to my credibility? It makes me guilty of plagiarism if I don't credit May's report. It's a catch 22.

Is it intended as a catch 22? I don't know, but it sure plays that way.

QUESTION: CS, what other facts lead you to believe that David Corn is not being honest with America?

ANSWER: Let's start with the most recent incident.

David Corn twisted Fitzgerald's words to make it appear that Fitz said something which Fitz did not say. This is a BIG fact. No amount of spin can change the fact. An ethical reporter does not make patchwork quotations as Corn has clearly done. Patrick Fitzgerald chooses his words very carefully. His office is leak proof and his press conference was his only chance to speak directly to the American people.

Doesn't Corn owe Fitzgerald the respect to quote him directly instead of "creating" quotes out of thin air?

Some of you may be saying, "Hey CS aren't you making accusation which you can't prove again?" The answer is no. I can prove that Corn misquoted Fitzgerald and I am the original source on this particular fact.

On the evening of October 28, 2005, David Corn published a review of Fitzgerald's press conference for The Nation which was also published at Yahoo news. Pay attention to the following passage written by Corn:

Fitzgerald...did declare that "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified...but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community" and that "her cover was blown" by the Novak column. (So much for the goofy right-wing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.)

Now have a look at what Fitz actually said :

"Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

Once again, Corn published:

"her cover was blown" by the Novak column.

Corn commits an unforgivable heavy handed forgery of what Fitz actually said. Corn's report makes it appear that Fitz said "her cover was blown by the Novak column". Please notice he puts quotes around the first part, but not the second. He creates the impression in the reader's mind that Fitz made that specific statement.

Fitz never said "her cover was blown by the Novak column" which is what Corn implies by his "selective" quotation marks.

Fitz said, "The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

Later in the press conference, Fitzgerald says,

"That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began."

So, according to Fitz:

- the first sign of Novak's cover being blown was Novak's column.
- her cover was blown in July
- it became clear that her cover was blown in Fall 2003

We can all try to put this in context, but none of us has the right to say we know exactly what Fitz meant. My take on this is the following:

- In the Fall of 2003, it became clear to Government officials that Plame's cover was blown so
they initiated an investigation.
- Plame's cover was blown in July 2003.
- The first sign of that cover being blown was Novak's column.

My take is conjecture. Corn's take is conjecture. Your take is conjecture.

But Corn represented an intentional misquote as being a fact. That's two layers of deception

- the fake quote
- not explaining that his report was conjecture

Since July 2005 Corn has been facing accusations that his July 16, 2003 column was responsible for outing Plame's NOC status. So Fitzgerald's statement that Novak's column was just "the first sign" of her cover being blown certainly does not help Corn's case at all.

Had Fitzgerald actually said, "Wilson's cover was blown on July 14, 2003 in Novak's column", then Corn would have every right to feel vindicated. But Fitz didn't say that. A fair non-biased journalist wouldn't report that Fitz made a statement favoring that reporter's cause when, in fact, a reasonable interpretation of Fitzgerald's comments could be construed to mean that Corn is still over the fire.

That may not be what Fitz meant, but it's certainly a reasonable interpretation.

Corn didn't portray his reporting on the Fitz statement as conjecture. Corn reported it as fact. This is -- at best - shoddy journalism. At worst, it's a flat out lie intended to mislead the country about his role in the Plame outing.

All we can do is guess what Fitz meant. And Corn is allowed to guess just like the rest of us. But Corn's report from October 28, 2005 -- widely disseminated through The Nation and Yahoo News -- does not make a guess at what Fitz meant. Corn makes a statement of fact that Fitzgerald has concluded Plame's cover was blown by Novak's column. It's bad enough that Corn doesn't put his conclusions in the form of conjecture, but Corn goes one step further by rearranging Fitzgerald's words -- twisting those words into a statement Fitz never made.

For those of you who support Corn, don't you think he owes his readers an explanation?

And I would expect that somebody with more clout than CS might get Randal Samborn to issue a statement regarding this misquotation of Fitzgerald's very carefully chosen words.

Furthermore, Corn is not exactly an unbiased party reporting objectively on the news. He's involved and he's used The Nation and Yahoo News to protect himself from scrutiny by defending accusations about him with the use of false quotes followed by an attack on his critics:

"...So much for the goofy right-wing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask..."

That's quite a clever trick. Corn twists the prosecutor's words - words that may imply others were involved in Plame's outing after Novak's column was published -- so that it appears the prosecutor has cleared Corn of any responsibility and then he uses the fake quote to mock those who have legitimate questions about his veracity.

This is not journalism. This is wrong. And Corn's behavior in this regard has now brought him more attention and scrutiny, not less. People know when they've been lied to. Corn lied about Fitzgerald's press conference.

That's a fact.

A journalist with as much power as Corn should know better. The word "audacity" comes to mind.

Would those who support Corn really allow right wing hacks like Novak and May to get away with such a blatant quote forgery as Corn is guilty of?

Corn's playing fast and loose with Fitzgerald's words doesn't prove that he is involved in the conspiracy to out Plame and Brewster Jennings, but his behavior certainly raises red flags which need to be examined in light of other statements and reports by Corn. We need to examine what he has written as well as what he has not written.

QUESTION: What did Joe Wilson do to make CS believe he's not been up front with the American people?

ANSWER: Joe Wilson had the media connections to publish "What I didn't Find In Africa" before our troops were put in harm's way. He had many months to counter the Bush administration's arguments -- to Congress, the military and the people -- in support of going to war in Iraq. After the war was well under way, Joe Wilson raised public awareness about the fake war Intel. And that awareness has led to an awakening that the country was duped into supporting the war by bogus Intel.

Joe Wilson tendered his conclusions to the CIA about the Niger fraud right after he came back from Africa.

When the President gave his famous State of the Union speech containing the 16 words, Joe Wilson could have written "What I Didn't Find In Africa" to counter the President's bogus message. Had Joe Wilson responded to the President before the war, 2000+ soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians might still be alive today.

Perhaps Joe Wilson has a reasonable explanation for not taking action before the war. If so, he's failed to tell the country why up until now. I would that think Joe Wilson -- if he's truly a patriot -- would expect the American people to ask that question of him.

QUESTION: What else did Joe Wilson do to make CS believe he's not been up front with the American people?

ANSWER: In two years of interviews, reports and lectures, Joe Wilson -- like Corn -- has been miserably deficient when it comes to discussing the applicable laws that were violated in the outing of his wife's covert status. But the most upsetting actions undertaken by Wilson are his statements given to reporters on background prior to his July 6, 2003 New York Times Op Ed. The Daily HowlerDuring his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.
published a very decisive and accurate time line detailing Wilson's statements to the press which raises serious questions about Wilson's veracity. From The Daily Howler:

Wilson wrote his famous op-ed in early July 2003. But in May and June of that year, he “backgrounded” some high-profile pieces about his trip—pieces which flatly misstated the facts, but presented a clear-and-pleasing contradiction. For example, here’s part of Nicholas Kristof’s op-ed piece from May 6 of that year. Wilson later told Vanity Fair that he was the source for the column:

KRISTOF (5/6/03): Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons...

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted—except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

This account is highly dramatic—but it’s utterly bogus. In fact, Wilson never saw those famous forged documents; in fact, no one in the U.S. government had seen the docs at the time of his trip. No one knew whose signatures were on the documents—and Wilson didn’t make the report which Kristof described. Wilson didn’t “debunk the forgery,” as he made clear in his own later column. But Kristof’s column, though factually fake, told a highly dramatic tale, in which a fearless envoy debunked a forgery—and Bush just kept on citing it anyway. This created the illusion of a sharp contradiction—a clear-cut, perfect drama. And so did Walter Pincus’ piece in the Washington Post, another (bogus) report for which Wilson was the source:

PINCUS (6/12/03): [T]he CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, reporters heard a dramatic story, in which the ambassador performed a clear-cut debunking of some forged documents—documents Wilson never saw. When he was interviewed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson acknowledged that he was the source for this Pincus report—and he offered laughable reasons for his apparent misstatements (text below). Meanwhile, Kristof published a follow-up column. His original column had been blatantly wrong, as Wilson of course had seen when he read it. But to all appearances, the honest ambassador never clued Kristof. The new column was dramatic, but wrong once again:

KRISTOF (6/13/03): The agency chose a former ambassador to Africa to undertake the mission, and that person flew to Niamey, Niger, in the last week of February 2002. This envoy spent one week in Niger, staying at the Sofitel and discussing his findings with the U.S. ambassador to Niger, and then flew back to Washington via Paris.

Immediately upon his return, in early March 2002, this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus, for two main reasons. First, the documents seemed phony on their face—for example, the Niger minister of energy and mines who had signed them had left that position years earlier. Second, an examination of Niger's uranium industry showed that an international consortium controls the yellowcake closely, so the Niger government does not have any yellowcake to sell.

A highly dramatic, clear-cut debunking—but one that is based on fake facts. Ditto for the account given by Judis and Ackerman when they discussed the honest ambassador in a New Republic cover story released on June 23:

JUDIS/ACKERMAN (6/30/03): In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

One year earlier, Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive.”

In this passage, Judis and Ackerman misstate what Bush said in his State of the Union; Wilson can’t be faulted for that. But they too reported the bogus story in which the honest ambassador—now a “prominent diplomat”—provided a clear-cut debunking of those famous forged documents.

In fact, those documents had been forged—but Wilson himself never saw them, played no role in their debunking. But so what? Somehow, Kristof/Pincus/Judis all heard a fake tale—a pleasing tale, with direct, clear-cut debunking at its core. But then, everybody in the press had been hearing this pleasing story at the time Joe Wilson went public. Wilson’s own Times column was more circumspect; it didn’t repeat these howling misstatements. (See above. Finally speaking on the record, Wilson expressly said that he hadn’t seen the forged documents.) But perhaps it took a bit of time for the press to notice an awkward fact—Wilson’s column didn’t really contradict what Bush had said in his State of the Union. The press had been hearing Hero Tales of direct debunking for months. Perhaps they didn’t notice, right off the bat, that Wilson’s column was somewhat less dramatic.

Aesop’s press corps loves a good fable. For two months, Wilson—on background—had offered just that. At any rate, the press corps was beginning to look for a tale which would illustrate their (accurate) new conclusion: Bush misled us on the way into war. But right up to this very day, Wilson’s “contradiction” doesn’t quite parse. Result? To this day, scribes misstate what Wilson said. It builds a more dramatic tale, in which contradictions are more direct. But that’s what Aesop’s press corps typically does when it decides to convince us rubes of the truth of its latest Group Judgment.

In this case, their judgment was accurate. They just chose a rather weak tale with which to convey that new judgment.

WHAT WILSON SAID IN HIS COLUMN: Here is Wilson’s fuller account of what he found in Niger:

WILSON (7/6/03): In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's...

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

But Bush never said a transaction took place! From that day to this, Aesop’s press corps has bent, shaved and rearranged facts to create a direct contradiction.

WHAT WILSON TOLD THE SENATE COMMITTEE: According to the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson acknowledged that he was the source of the Pincus report. Why then did Pincus think that Wilson had debunked the forged documents? Prepare to avert your gaze:

SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT (page 45): The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.

The IAEA debunked the docs, not Wilson. But egad! According to Wilson, he may have confused his own work with that of the IAEA! Avert your gaze in embarrassment as you ponder how Kristof, Pincus and Judis/Ackerman came to write those bogus reports—reports which helped prepare the way for Wilson’s not-contradictory column.

If you're willing to give Wilson a pass on this issue, and you're willing to accept that he "mispoke", will you also give Libby and Rove a pass when they say, "I don't remember" or "I must have mispoke"...?

Isn't it hypocritical to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt when his own words cast aspersions on him? I don't believe Libby or Rove and I certainly won't give them the benefit of the doubt, but I certainly will hold Wilson up to the same standard of review as Libby and Rove.

Nobody gets a pass. Trust nobody. Look at the facts. Ask questions. Demand answers.

Reader (and lone CS guest blogger) "Antiaristo" has also pointed out the following in comments to the previous CS report:

...In an interview aired Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Wilson said that Plame, 42, was in shock when she saw her name and that of her fictitious employer published in a syndicated column by Robert Novak.

"She felt like she'd been hit in the stomach. It took her breath away," Wilson said.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9875093/

...Plame was in Novak's July 14 column, but Brewster-Jennings was in Novak's October 3 column.

Why is Wilson pretending that her name and that of her fictitious employer were published in the SAME column?

Perhaps Wilson "mispoke" again? How are we supposed to know when the guy is telling the truth? This statement makes it appear as if Plame's name as well as Brewster Jennings' were revealed at the same time. Perhaps Joe Wilson really meant to say, "She felt like she had been hit in the stomach twice"...? I don't know. Somebody who has access to him can ask if he mispoke again.

Had Wilson stood up before the war, America would owe him a great debt. And perhaps history will still defend his honor and show him to be a hero, but he's got a lot of questions to answer before any of us can be sure of his innocense or his guilt.

The Intelligence divisions of our Government are run by spooks. They are a different breed than the average person. They play games. Spin yarns. Conceive conspiracies. This is what they do. And they justify their decisions in the name of national security. But there's a profit margin built into war. The Carlyle Group and Haliburton have made billions because of war. We the people -- through the sweat of our labor -- line the pockets of these companies as they rebuild an Iraq which they also got paid to destroy.

"Creative destruction."

RICO. Keep that in mind. And when somebody tells you that the word "conspiracy" is for nuts, just ask them who wrote the RICO statutes and then ask them if they are willing to release everyone in the mafia who was convicted under RICO laws and other conspiracy laws. If conspiracy is for nuts, what the hell is that word doing in so many of our laws? Are the conspiracy laws nuts as well?

Americans are generally not spooks, but America better start thinking like them if it wants to know what really happened in the Plame affair.

So take a deep breath, put your bullshit detectors on and get to work. The country needs your scrutiny, questions and doubt. Blog comments are the way to make your voices heard. Letters and phonecalls to Congress are not going to cut it.

by CS

TREASONGATE: Is David Corn Feeling Fitzgerald's Heat?

2005-10-31T20:42:00.000-08:00

Did David Corn publish intentionally misleading quotations from Fitzgerald's press conference?

BACKGROUND

My report of August 19, 2005, "TREASONGATE: IN CAHOOTS -- How The White House, Wilson, Novak, Corn and Plame Conspired for Treason" accuses DC and JW of being part of a broad double agent conspiracy to out Plame and Brewster Jennings.

One of the most interesting aspects of that report concerns the fact that it was David Corn who was the first person in the media to out Plame's "covert" status as a CIA officer. Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 but it wasn't until two days later, July 16, 2003, that DC was the first person to publish that she was an undercover CIA agent working on WMD. His source may have been JW.

It was Clifford May at The National Review who first brought this to our attention in a July 2005 column. [Readers -- I am no fan of The National Review and their war propaganda, but a fact is a fact. May raised very legitimate questions which must be answered.]

From my report:

Clifford May's article, Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?published in National Review online, July 15th 2005, makes a strong case that, while Novak was the first person to expose "Wilson's wife", Corn is actually the journalist responsible for first publishing Plame's undercover/covert status:

"This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA.

Read— or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is 'an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction'...

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by DC published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: 'Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?'

On what basis could Corn 'assume' that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a 'top-secret' operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been 'outed' in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column...

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her 'dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.' But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?"

Since Novak did not report that Plame was 'working covertly' how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing? Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, 'I will not answer questions about my wife.' Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background?

Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed...

May's report comes out on July 15, 2005. Citizenspook published our accusations on August 19, 2005. Buzz started to spread throughout the blogosphere about this theory.

Cut to Fitzgerald's press conference and the aftermath.

On the evening of October 28, 2005, DC published a review of Fitzgerald's press conference for The Nation which was also published at Yahoo news. Pay close attention to the following passage:

Fitzgerald...did declare that "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified...but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community" and that "her cover was blown" by the Novak column. (So much for the goofy right-wing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask.)

This is a blockbuster screwup by David Corn.

" 'her cover was blown' by the Novak column."

Fitz did not say that.

DC has twisted what Fitz said and that quote is false. Fitz never said "her cover was blown by the Novak column" which is what DC implies by his "selective" quotation marks.

If Fitz did say that, DC would appear to be off the hook, but Fitz said something much different than what DC has mislead his readers to believe. And this does not take a rocket scientist to understand.

Here's what Fitz said:

"Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

Recall that Novak and DC both published in July 2003. Novak outed her identity as a CIA officer on July 14, but DC published that she was an undercover spy on July 16th. Had Fitz said that Valerie Plame/Wilson's cover was blown by the Novak column, DC would appear to be vindicated. But Fitzgerald chose his words very carefully:

"The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

That's much different than what DC wrote in his column. Fitz was careful NOT to say that her cover was blown by Novak's article. The "first sign" of it being blown was Novak's article, but the second sign was DC's article two days later.

And Fitz clarifies things further a bit later when he states:

"That brings us to the fall of 2003. When it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown, investigation began."

According to that statement by Fitz, it was not "clear" that her cover was blown until Fall 2003.

Is David Corn feeling the heat?:

"So much for the goofy right-wing conspiracy theory that I colluded with Joseph Wilson after the Novak column to out Valerie Wilson as an undercover CIA operative. If you don't know about that, don't ask."

What's goofy is the bumbling manner upon which David Corn attempts to sway public opinion while leaving himself wide open for charges of willful misquotation.

It's not a right wing conspiracy, David. Citizenspook is not a right wing blog, nor is it a left wing blog. It's an independent analysis of Treasongate. The National Review is certainly a right wing propaganda rag but that doesn't color the facts. It's a fact that Corn's column was the first to publish that Plame/Wilson was an undercover spy.

It's also a fact that his October 28, 2005, report of Fitzgerald's press conference terribly misquotes him in a manner which is intended to divert attention from those questioning Corn and Wilson's roles in this conspiracy.

Fitzgerald never said -- "her cover was blown by the Novak column". He said the Novak column was the "first sign" of her cover being blown. Nothing in that statement contradicts allegations that you outed her status as a NOC. On the contrary, Fitzgerald's statment clearly indicates that things are not as cut and dried as David Corbnn would like people to believe

TREASONGATE: FITZGERALD For SCOTUS

2005-10-29T09:33:00.000-07:00

Fitz asked America to trust him yesterday. And he's earned our trust. The country and even the criminals are lucky to have this man at this moment in time. Turns out that Patrick "the bulldog" Fitzgerald is nothing more than a doe eyed fawn caught in the headlights...but they haven't blinded him.

The headlights of the world are focused right into the eyes a genuine pure soul. How many of that species are left on this filthy planet? Fitz took all the steam out of me. The venom is gone. I'm slightly ashamed of myself after listening to Fitzgerald and digesting his vibrations.

Make no doubt about it, Citizen Spook would have thrown the book at the Bush crime family (and even the reporters involved) for violating 18 USC 794 of The Espionage Act which has life in prison or the death penalty as the ultimate sentence.

And I could make a case. Indeed, I have made the case to many people.

If Fitz wanted to he could make a case as well. And this is why the Bush cabal are lucky to have Fitzgerald as the "umpire".

Fitz isn't out to "get" anybody. He wants the country to trust him to do the right thing. He is not an over zealous prosecutor. He's an honest working stiff who's trying to operate within the very letter of the law. He will not go one step beyond what he believes is fair to all the parties involved.

Fitz has ethics, and he's not afraid to use them.

I feel somewhat vindicated (are you listening Democratic Underground?) because it's obvious -- after going over the Fitz press conference -- and the indictment -- that the controlling law as far as Fitz is concerned is the Espionage Act.

Page 2 of the indictment lists 18 USC 793 as one of the laws relevant to the investigation, but page 2 doesn't mention the IIPA:

As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.

Later in the indictment, on page 9, he lists five laws as being relevant to his investigation, the IIPA, 18 USC 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), 18 USC 1001 (false statements), 18 USC 1503 (obstruction of justice) and 18 USC 1623 (perjury).

And in the press conference he also mentions "793" specifically while not mentioning the IIPA by name although he certainly referred to it.

The "18 USC 1001" reference is very interesting because it also deals with fraud and this is relative to possible state court prosecutions under the felony murder rule. Please see my report on that topic.

What is conspicuously absent from the indictment and the press conference is 18 USC 794. This is the law I would have thrown at them, but I'm not Fitz. And this is why the Bush criminals are lucky to have Fitz as prosecutor. He's not going to prosecute a law just because he can.

I was really upset for a little while yesterday. I couldn't understand how a prosecutor -- and this goes for the AIPAC indictments as well -- could prosecute under 18 USC 793 but not also use 18 USC 794 when the country is in "time of war". The only real difference between 793 and 794 is that 794 -- which allows the maximum sentence of life in prison or death -- is available when the country is at war.

It sure seems like we're at war, doesn't it? 2000 soldiers are dead, we're occupying a foreign land and we're fighting "the enemy". So why no mention of 18 USC 794, Fitz?

I think I know why. Because this war isn't "legal". Congress did not "declare war" and Fitzgerald believes in the law. So he's not going to bastardize the law by sanctioning the war. If Fitz brought indictments under 18 USC 794, essentially he would be making a quasi-political decision. In order to prosecute under 18 USC 794, a prosecutor must establish -- as one of the elements of the statute -- that the illegal release of national defense information happened "in time of war."

But Fitzgerald knows that this Iraq conflict is not a legally declared "war". It was not declared by Congress which is required by the Constitution, and it does not rise to the level necessary under the statute.

The statute was written in 1917. And at that time the Constitution was still in use (sarcasm laced with truth). The framers of the Espionage Act understood that "war" could not happen without an official "declaration of war" as was intended by the framers of the Constitution.

And this is why we are lucky to have Fitz as the captain of this ship right now. Nobody can say that Fitzgerald hasn't exercised prosecutorial restraint. Citizen Spook would have charged the bastards with 18 USC 794 and hung them on their own words, "We are at war." "I'm a war president."

You understand what I'm getting at?

Our man Fitz doesn't think like the rest of us. His vision of the law is pure. He knows, in his heart and mind, that without a Constitutional declaration of war, there is no way he can -- in good conscience -- prosecute under 18 USC 794.

A headline grabbing irrational prosecutor would have ignored this technicality and hung them on their own words and actions. And this is why Bush, the neocons, and the media better show this young man some respect. Could you imagine the prospect of those indicted attempting to convince the court that we were not "in time of war" after all they've said and done to convince the American people that we are at war as the body bags come home on a daily basis.

THE PROSECUTOR'S OPENING STATEMENT TO THE NATION

Fitzgerald's press conference yesterday was more than just an announcement about the Libby indictment. Although Fitz plays his cards close to the vest, if you read between the lines there is a ton of information available.

Yesterday, Fitz took the chance to basically make his opening statements for the coming prosecution of certain individuals under the Espionage Act (18 USC 793). The press conference was Fitzgerald's only chance to speak directly to the people about where he is taking this case.

18 USC 793 is a statute of the United States Code, federal law of the land. The statute has various elements which the prosecution must prove. Fitzgerald hit on each of those elements yesterday. This is what a prosecutor does in an opening statement. He discusses the elements of the statute and applies each element to the facts.

Fitz told us that there was a breach of national security when Plame's cover was blown. The indictment establishes that she worked in the CIA's counter proliferation division, the covert operations part of the CIA. (Josh Marshall first pointed that out.)

Fitz established that the country was put in danger by the release of her name and that the release of her name was done intentionally.

He also established that her identity as a CIA officer was not known outside of the intelligence community.

Fitzgerald laid out each element of the statute and made the case to the USA that certain laws had been broken. I'd say he made the case for both 18 USC 793 and the IIPA, but it's obvious that 18 USC 793 has a much easier bar to clear.

18 USC 793 does not require that the leakers intended to hurt the country. This is a talking point I was hearing within minutes of the press conference having ended. On more than one program I heard the right wingnuts like Hannity and even some ill informed guest on Randi Rhodes' show playing the card that the IIPA and the Espionage Act are equally difficult to prosecute because of "the intent requirement". They were alleging that the Espionage Act requires the prosecutor prove that the leaker "intended to harm the country".

This is a lie. Please see the first Citizen Spook report, TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law - Big Trouble For The White House Staff for an in depth study of 18 USC 793. The short version goes like this:

18 USC 793 of The Espionage Act --

The statute only requires that the information leaked be related to the national defense and that the individual responsible for disclosing that information have a reasonable belief that the information could be used to the detriment of the USA.

This legal test is much easier to meet than the test put forth in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Requirements for prosecution under 18 USC 793:

- information was intentionally leaked
- the information was related to the national defense
- the leaker had a reasonable belief the info "could" be used to harm the USA

"Could be used" is a much easier bar to clear than "would be used".

Now review Fitzgerald's press conference. He tells us that all of the elements of this statute were met regarding the leak of Plame's identity. I believe he's going to prosecute somebody under the Espionage Act.

He even defended the use of this law against critics. He made his case for prosecuting under 18 USC 793. He mentions it by name and was most candid while discussing the arguments people have raised against the use of this law. It's Fitzgerald's opinion that the law is fair when fairly applied.

As for the IIPA, he may bring indictments under that law as well, but he doesn't mention that law on page 2 of the indictment where he has drawn some conclusions. The indictment itself only mentions the IIPA on page 9 where he lists statutes his investigation was looking at. I don't know what Fitz will do with the IIPA, but the talking point you must be aware of goes like this:

"Fitzgerald was charged with investigating whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated."

That's a lie. Comey's letters delegating authority to Fitzgerald empower him to investigate and prosecute "any federal criminal laws related to"...the outing of Valerie (Plame) Wilson. Fitzgerald's authority is not exclusive to any statute. In fact, it's ridiculous for people to even argue such a proposition. Prosecutors investigate behavior to see if "any crimes" have been broken. They do no investigate a statute. They investigate behavior.

Patrick Fitzgerald has shown a ton of restraint by not prosecuting under 18 USC 794. The Bush administration and the leakers are very fortunate that the man investigating them has great morals and more of an appreciation for America -- and its laws -- than they themselves possess.

Looking into Fitzgerald's eyes, you can't help but see the truth. Those who disparage his investigation, from the left or the right, are doing the man and the country wrong.

Fitzgerald ought to be nominated for the Supreme Court. If Bush has any sense of legacy or a "come to Jesus" moment in his soul... he would nominate Patrick Fitzgerald for SCOTUS.

Fitz has proven to the country that he is a man of principle, understanding and law.

Those responsible for the leak ought to come forward and plead guilty, take their punishment and thank heaven that Fitzgerald doesn't believe he can legally go after them under 18 USC 794.

THIS BLOG HAS BEEN DEBUGGED

I have no venom left. Fitzgerald kicked my ass yesterday. He made me believe in chivalry, honesty, love of country. I haven't felt so proud to be an American since I was a small child saying the Pledge of Allegiance in grammar school. I've been a jaded son of a bitch for many years, through Iran Contra, the Clinton crimes (and there were many) to the Bush neocon murderous agenda...it's been very hard to feel proud of this country.

Fitzgerald is a national treasure.

18 USC 793 was violated and Fitz is coming after those who are guilty. The talk shows, newspapers and blogs will not change his mind at all. He is more ethical than the rest of us, has no political axe to grind, and is fully capable of handling whatever pressure comes his way.

Thank you, James Comey. And thank you President Bush for installing Fitz as US Attorney.

Like Fitzgerald said, "Let's all take a deep breathe." The prosecutor deserves our faith. Let him do his job.

If you're guilty, plead guilty. It's your best bet and what's best for the country.

Fitzgerald for SCOTUS. That would be one hell of an ending to this. It's Bush's only chance for a true legacy.

Citizenspook is now the unofficial FITZ FOR SCOTUS web blog.

God blessed America.

by Citizen Spook

I apologize to the Firedoglake girls for my attitude over the last few days. I haven't acted like a gentleman. I believe in my analysis just the same, but my behavior in communicating it was less than pure. Fitzgerald made me feel dirty so I took a shower.

TREASONGATE: Bitchslapping the media

2005-10-28T08:26:00.000-07:00

BITCH SLAP #1:

BOB WOODWARD was on Larry King yesterday. Check out his unsourced spin. And I quote:

"And this is not even a firecracker, but it's true. They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So people have kind of compared -- somebody was saying this was Aldridge Ames or Bob Hanson, big spies. This didn't cause damage."

Bob doesn't even need a source? What's his source? Who told him this? Nobody else has seen the "holy grail" of Treasongate documents -- a CIA damage report on the Plame/Brewster Jennings outing -- but Bob just does his little dance on the airwaves as if Deep Throat was tonguing his floppy ears again.

Bob Woodward, you're a fucking fraud, mate. A fucking fraud. He doesn't even front a source. Larry King let him get away with that?

Newsfakers.
Flakers.
Rumour cake makers.
Piss off, all of you. Your mates are going down.

And they say the blogs aren't really news? Woodward ought to work on a DC based graphic novel. Fiction master. He's full of shit.

BITCH SLAP #2:

WALTER PINCUS from The Washington Post for outing Brewster Jennings as a CIA front and risking the lives of all who were involved with it... My man ANTIARISTO just tied him up in little knots with his Treachery From The Washington Post report (see yesterday's blog below).

I want to add a few comments on that:

- Pincus outed Brewster Jennings on October 3, 2003, almost three months after Plame's name and identity were leaked.

There's a pattern here that's interesting. First Novak outed Plame's name, but it was David Corn -- a few days later -- who outed her covert status.

Then on the same day -- October 3, 2003 -- Novak outed Brewster Jennings name, but Pincus outed BJ as a CIA front.

Pincus and others are trying to spin it that Brewster Jennings was outed when Plame listed them as her employer on a 1999 tax return. However...

- Brewster Jennings was a front "company". You can't be a CIA "front company" unless you're a company. Duh.

- The identity of Brewster Jennings as a "CIA asset" wasn't exposed until Pincus spilled it on Ocotber 3, 2003.

This was espionage which resulted in the exposure of a CIA asset working on WMD.

- Who were the "administration officials" that confirmed Brewster Jennings was a CIA front?

From the Ocotber 3, 2003 WAPO:

"After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA."

- Why are administration officials going to Walter Pincus with Plame's tax returns? And why is pincus publishing the identity of a CIA front company?

Isn't that an Espionage Act violation?

This is big, huge story.

The front company was supposed to be used by Plame as cover and that's why she listed it on her tax return. It was a FRONT.

The illegal use of this information by Pincus to out Brewster Jennings identity as a CIA asset was treason.

Go get them Fitz.

This is a big story. Nobody is reporting it but Citizenspook (via Antiaristo)

And you can be sure that when it does finally break out -- like the Espionage Act analysis and the Comey/GAO delegation of authority stories -- nobody in the MM and most in the main stream blogosphere will ignore that CS broke the news -- and more important -- that CS covers the legalities involved with pinpoint accuracy.

This blog has been way out in front educating the blogosphere on these issues and it pisses me off to see massive blogs misleading their readers as to the law. CS has extensive, documented and thoroughly researched legal analysis painstakenly translated into a form of English non-lawyers can understand.

When attorneys who do not have the skills or passion for the law that I do attempt to give legal lessons by watering down the analysis they do a great disservice to their readers. Which leads me to:

BITCH SLAP #3:

REDDHEAD from Firedoglake is an ex-prosecutor and defense attorney who provides legal analysis which is sometimes interesting. But their most recent legal reporting has been defective, especially as it pertains specifically to some of my work on the "Felony Murder Rule" and the power of the federal Grand Jury.

A Firedoglake reader asked Red to comment about my report. Before I quote Red directly on their response to my report, let's take a look at Red's "Untying A Few Legal Knots" about how a "creative prosecutor" might conduct an investigation:

"In my experience, the people who complain about a prosecutor being creative are criminal defense attorneys and family members of the people indicted. In this case, it's GOP strategists, who haven't complained at all about the "creative" use of detaining people of interest for terrorism cases without any hearing, any legal representation or any due process for months. Ahem.

"Prosecutors are limited by the laws as written by Congress. However, if someone has broken a law, and is charged with that particular conduct, the prosecutor should not be castigated for charging the violation simply because other prosecutors are either too lazy, too uneducated, or too busy to use prosecutions for that law themselves -- even prosecutors sometimes get into a rut in terms of what they do and don't charge. A good prosecutor avails herself of all the laws, not just a select few." (Emphasis added.)

That's interesting, Red. Conider now my report on the Felony Murder Rule which makes the case for State court prosecutions of the Bush crime family for the murder of American soldiers resulting from the felony fraud perpetrated upon congress, the military and the American people in their bogus case for the Iraq War. State court convictions would be exempt from the Presidential pardon power, but Red fails to mention that aspect of things. Ahem?

Read my report for the full legal details, but the short version goes like this: all states have a felony murder rule which means that those who are involved in committing a felony can be prosecuted for murder if anybody gets killed as a result of the underlying felony. I thoroughly addressed every aspect of this procedure as well as jurisdictional issues in my report.

Here's what

Reddhead had to say about it:

Anon -- I think that would be a substantial stretch, given the budget constraints, overwork issues and enormous constitutional arguments that would have to be overcome, not to mention some questions on jurisdiction and immunity from prosecution issues. I think most state prosecutors would be reluctant, to be honest, and I don't see how it would be likely. It's an intriguing intellectual exercise, but not particularly practical from the small-town, real-world state prosecutor sort of perspective. At least, in my experience, anyway.ReddHedd

Homepage 10.26.05 - 11:18 am #

What a fucking hypocrite you are. Look how that statement contrasts with Red's comments about a "creative prosecutor".

Intriguing intellectual exercise?

2000 people are dead, Red. The pardon is going to be used. If SCOTUS allows that to happen, then the felony murder rule is the only chance these victims will have for justice.

Time contraints? Budget?

Who's fucking side are you on, FDL? I'm really starting to wonder.

Red provides no direct commentary about the legal aspects of my report and the various case law cited, just a blanket diss on the theory.

Red, I'll debate you and destroy you on this. Anytime, any blog.

Red also bumbled through an explanation of the federal grand jury recently but failed to mention anything about the power of the grand jury to present indictments on its own accord despite the prosecutor's wishes. And Red offers nothing about "run away grand juries" either.

If you want an in depth analysis of the federal Grand Jury's history and true power as the FOURTH BRANCH of the US Government, then read Citizen Spook's Grand Jury report .... a must read for anybody who is seriously interested in educating their fellow citizens as to the best strategy for us to become the actual custodians of power over the Government of We The People.

BITCH SLAP #4: Those Who Are Saying Fitz Can't Prosecute on The Niger Documents.

Firedoglake gets another bitchslap -- albeit this is only part of a collective bitch slap -- for whining about the following NY Times article instead of doing something to counter its propaganda:

Can we just say the timing on this one is fucked? Just up from the NYT, an article by Doug Jehl on the FBI counterintelligence case into the Niger documents:

The continuing inquiry into the source of the forged documents has been conducted separately from the investigation by the special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald into the leak case, which has to do with whether Bush administration officials committed crimes related to disclosing the identity of Mr. Wilson's wife, an undercover C.I.A. officer.

Law enforcement officials say they do not believe that the two issues are related.

I am so not happy about having THIS thrown at me just as I was getting ready for a good night's sleep before tomorrow's whatever-it-may-bring.

- Why doesn't Hamsher counter this spin by quoting the UPI story which sources NATO officials who say Fitzgerald asked for and received, from Italian authorities, the dossier on the Niger documents?

Why is Jane Hamsher so worried about this report by the New York Times? Like they've been credible through the Treasongate festival? Didn't they report last week that Cheney was interviewed under oath when everybody and his pet fucking rock knew that wasn't the case. And then there's the Judy Miller fiasco.

And another point that the prestigious folk at Firedoglake have forgot to mention -- FITZGERALD WEARS TWO HATS.

- He's the US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
- He's the special prosecutor in the Plame affair.

If he finds illegal activity concerning the Niger documents, and for whatever reason such crimes do not fall within his delegation of authority as Special Prosecutor, there's no reason why he can't investigate those crimes while wearing his US Attorney hat. After all, FDL, that's what US Attorney's do.

They prosecute Federal crimes.

I hope this lifts your spirits, Jane.

But if it doesn't then have a look at TREASONGATE: NIGER DOCUMENT FRAUD -- Wilson And Plame May Be On Fitzgerald's Radar For Treason Related To The Niger Document Conspiracy which discusses the most likely scenario which would allow Fitz to investigate and prosecute those involved with the Niger document fraud.

by Citizen Spoook
citizenspook@hotmail.com

TREASONGATE: Treachery By The Washington Post -- Pincus Outed Brewster Jennings

2005-10-27T12:14:00.000-07:00

GUEST BLOGGED by ANTIARISTO -- brilliant sleuth from the dynamic Rigorous Intuition forum .

TREACHERY BY THE WASHINGTON POST"

TREASONGATE: NIGER DOCUMENT FRAUD -- Wilson And Plame May Be On Fitzgerald's Radar For Treason Related To The Niger Document Conspiracy.

2005-10-26T22:30:00.000-07:00

[UPDATE 10.28.05: Reader Brian Sipe provided an insight on how Fitz can be legally investigating the Niger document fraud. His analysis provides a relevant insight. So I've updated this report with Brian's comments in red.]

New analysis of pleadings filed by Fitzgerald has revealed that his investigation has been diverted towards the Niger document fraud.

Fitzgerald's District Court pleadings from June 2005 informed the court that the investigation was-- "for all practical purposes complete" -- back in "Fall 2004" except for the refusal of Cooper and Miller to cooperate.

Mark Kleiman is one of the few bloggers who mentioned the Espionage Act before I published my two part series on 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 794 . So today, when I came across his October 23 2005 article, -- If you meet the Special Counsel on the Yellowcake Road, no-bill him. -- I was upset and confused by his allegation that Fitzgerald has no authority to investigate the Niger Document Fraud:

As against the GOP spin that he was appointed to look into violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, he has the original letter giving him "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" and a second letter written shortly thereafter specifying that his authority extends to any criminal attempt to frustrate that investigation.

But note that none of the documents on the site gives Fitzgerald any authority over the wider question of who made up and peddled the Nigerien yellowcake story, or the still wider question about how the administration hyped the threat of an Iraqi nuclear weapons acquisition program as part of its sales pitch for the war.

Apparently Frank Rich suggested on Meet the Press today that the case might go in that direction. Ain't gonna happen. Surely if Fitzgerald were moving that way, he would have asked for authority to do so, and would have added that request and the response to it to his webpage.

In the same article he debunks the "IIPA is controlling" neocon talking point... while also squashing Fitzgerald's authority to investigate the Niger document fraud. He even links to Comey's delegation letters as proof of his assertion. Although I was confused, I felt that Kleiman is a blogger who is trying to call it by the rule of law without any spin. Still, he hasn't analyzed the second letter correctly.

Comey's first letter authorizes Fitzgerald as follows:

"I hereby delegate to you all of the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity..."

Kleiman discusses Comey's second letter to Fitzgerald, but he doesn't explain it properly. Kleiman wrote:

"...and a second letter written shortly thereafter specifying that his authority extends to any criminal attempt to frustrate that investigation."

That's not accurate. The first letter limited Fitzgerald's authority to the unauthorized disclosure of Plame's identity, but the second letter expands that authority more than Kleiman gives it credit for. From the letter:

At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses...

The key phrase is:

"any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure"

Fitzgerald's authority extends to the violation of any federal criminal laws which are "related to the underlying...disclosure" of Plame and Brewster Jennings.

So how does the creation of the fraudulent Niger documents -- a clear violation of federal criminal law, certainly 18 USC 1001 among others -- fall under the investigation of the unauthorized exposure of Plame's identity?

The documents surfaced in October 2002. Novak's column outing Plame as a CIA employee was published on July 14, 2003. How could the Niger document fraud be relevant to Fitzgerald's investigation? Think hard about this.

FITZGERALD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE ANYBODY FOR THE NIGER DOCUMENT FRAUD...

unless....

...it's "related" to the disclosure of Plame's identity or the exposure of Brewster Jennings.

But Fitzgerald IS looking into the Niger fraud.

Kleiman's article includes two updates at the bottom of the original text. The first reads:

Update A reader points me to this Josh Marshall post linking to a UPI story by Martin Walker reporting that "Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government" and inferring from that fact that "the CIA leak inquiry that threatens senior White House aides has now widened to include the forgery of documents on African uranium that started the investigation." Josh vouches for Walker's credibility, and I have no reason to doubt him.

But note that the inference doesn't follow from the fact, and is contradicted by Fitzgerald's terms of reference. Fitzgerald may well want to bring in the Yellowcake Road story to show motive for whatever crimes he charges, but the charges themselves will have to be limited to blowing Plame's cover and covering it up.

I don’t' agree with Kleiman here. The second Comey letter is pretty damn broad. If Fitzgerald can show that the creation of the fraudulent Niger documents -- or the use of them -- was related to the disclosure of Plame and Brewster Jennings, then Fitzgerald can prosecute the violation of any federal criminal laws involving the Niger documents.

I'll admit that Kleiman has a point about motive. If the exposure of Plame was done as motivation to bitch slap Joe Wilson, than the creation of the Niger documents -- which must have happened in late 2001 -- is barely related to the exposure of Plame and Brewster Jennings in July of 2003.

As much as I want to see the Niger fraud punished, I'm not sure Fitz can make it work on that basis. But if he's got something on them he should run with it and if it's powerful stuff the judges will give him a wide berth. And rightly so.

Now to the second update at Kleiman's blog:

Update Kevin Drum has a theory about the motivation for the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson, and that theory seems to fit the facts : the W.H.I.G. thought that Joseph Wilson had proof that the Yellowcake Road documents were forgeries before the 2003 State of the Union address." I still doubt that Fitzgerald has the authority to bring charges about the forgery, as opposed to the outing.

I disagree with both Kleiman and Drum. If the Bush syndicate thought Wilson had proof that the Niger documents were fraudulent and they outed Plame to intimidate him from speaking out, then I believe that would be sufficiently "related" to the disclosure of Plame's identity to allow Fitzgerald to prosecute. Kleiman is wrong.

But Wilson apparently isn't in possession of any other information other than what he reported in the Times Op Ed of July 6, 2003. He makes no such allegations and he's certainly not been shy about speaking up.

Furthermore, Drum's argument is a bit farfetched in that Wilson had already published his Op Ed -- spilling what he knew about the Niger deal on July 6, 2003. It's that same argument that keeps coming back, but makes no sense -- the Bush team bitch slapped Joe Wilson to get back at him.

If they were trying to intimidate Wilson... they were too late in doing the job. This don't fly. The motive isn't there for the Bush freaks to subject themselves to the ultimate terms of the Espionage Act -- life sentence or death sentence under 18 USC 794.

We know -- from Fitzgerald's 75 page brief -- filed with the Court of Appeals -- that Fitzgerald was interested in the Niger documents and Wilson's trip to Niger. From the Fitz brief:

[page 15]

In the Op-ed piece, Wilson, a retired career State Department official, asserted that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that yellowcake uranium had been sought or obtained by Iraq from Niger.

[page 19]

On September 13, 2004, the grand jury issued subpoenas to Cooper and Time seeking: “testimony and documents relating to conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way: former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; the 2002 trip by former Ambassador Wilson to Niger;

[page 73]

Specifically, the information sought is focused on testimony and documents related to communications occurring during a limited time period, which specifically concern former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; the 2002 trip by former Ambassador Wilson to Niger; Valerie Plame Wilson; or Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium. Given the limited scope of the information sought by the subpoenas and the general nature of the investigation, it is obvious that there is a real possibility that the information sought will be relevant and of substantial importance to the investigation, as required by § 50.10(f).

The key phrase in that passage is "of Iraqi efforts to obtain Uranium". It's interesting that Fitz lists Wilson's trip to Niger and Iraqi efforts to obtain Uranium as separate subjects of inquiry.

We also know that when the Court of Appeals decided against Cooper and Miller the court's 83 page opinion contained eight redacted pages of evidence provided to the court by Fitzgerald. Judge Tatel stated:

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash.

[Please see the previous CS article, Treasongate:Special Counsel's Showing Decides The Case"]

Also, let me throw in a comment directly from Fitzgerald taken from page 44 of the pleadings filed with the Court of Appeals:

If anything, the public’s interest is heightened in this case, because the crimes being investigated have national security implications, and the subjects of the investigation are government officials with access to sensitive government information.

It's very possible that Fitzgerald first looked into the Niger trip while developing motive for retaliation against Wilson. The pleadings certainly indicate that he was investigating that theory. From page 45:

Cooper and Time are being asked to identify a confidential source, given the nature of the relevant communications – namely, the alleged disclosure of sensitive government information for the purpose of political advantage or retaliation against a critic of the administration...

But I've stumbled onto something in Fitzgerald's District Court pleadings which I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere:

Fitzgerald filed the "GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO JOINT MOTION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE" with the US District Court in June 2005. And this memo cryptically implied that his investigation -- except for receiving the testimony of Cooper and Miller -- had been completed in "Fall 2004". From page 8:

The Special Counsel seeks to bring the ongoing investigation, which he began in December 2003, to as swift a conclusion as possible. By fall 2004, the Special Counsel's investigation was for all practical purposes complete except for the testimony of petitioners. (Emphasis added.)

Now consider that Fitzgerald has very recently requested the official dossier on the Niger forgeries from Italian authorities. From UPI :

NATO sources have confirmed to United Press International that Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.

Fitzgerald's team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium.

So, knowing that Fitzgerald is digging into the Niger conspiracy, the question now becomes:

What theory of the case sufficiently relates the unauthorized disclosure of Plame's identity to the Niger fraud under Comey's specific delegation of authority?

[ANSWERED BY READER BRIAN SIPE: By outing Plame, the Bush Administration was trying to cover its tracks regarding the fake Niger documents and other bogus Iraq WMD intel that it foisted on Congress and the public. Therefore, the Plame outing was a crime that DIRECTLY RESULTED from previous high crimes. They are NOT unrelated incidents. They are part of the same CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY by the Bush Administration to lead America to war under false pretenses, which was an act of HIGH TREASON.

Therefore, Fitzgerald can act under his plenary authority to unravel the entire conspiracy of "related" crimes, which he seems to be doing...The crimes flowed in an unbroken chain. They are part of the same broad criminal conspiracy by the Bush Administration to lie to the public regarding the non-existent Iraqi WMD's ...

The Bush Administration tried to disguise its original treason by compounding it by outing a CIA employee... That's the "theory of the case" that allows Fitzgerald to go after the Niger document forgers.Brian Sipe 10.27.05 - 6:28 pm # ]

It wasn't Wilson who was getting close too exposing the villains of the Niger document fraud, but it might have been PLAME and her cohorts in BREWSTER JENNINGS.

Under this scenario, if the Bush syndicate had created the forgeries, pushed them into the world and used them to defraud Congress, the military and the people, then outing Plame and Brewster Jennings to stop the spooks from fingering them -- for lying about the grounds to go to war -- would certainly be sufficiently related under the terms of Fitzgerald's authority.

If you really think about, it's one of the most plausible scenarios which would allow Fitzgerald to aggressively investigate the Niger fraud. If this was the case, there's two possible conclusions:

- Plame was outed because she was getting too close to fingering the Niger document conspiracy making her and Wilson genuine victims of espionage.

OR

- Plame outed the spooks getting close to the Niger documents to protect the Bush syndicate. Then they fabricated the outing of Plame to cover her ass -- making her and Wilson guilty of espionage.

Those are the only two scenarios I can imagine that would allow Fitzgerald -- under the specific powers delegated to him -- to aggressively prosecute those involved with creating and using the fraudulent Niger documents. There may be other scenarios, but I haven't thought of them yet.

If Plame was not guilty of espionage, and was a true victim in this, the facts would be different. Wilson's book would be different. His testimony before the Senate would have been different and Plame would have been forced to come forward and tell her story.

Furthermore, if Plame was truly a "victim" of this conspiracy, then her husband would be demanding prosecutions under the Espionage Act instead of being the main cheerleader for the applicability of the IIPA.

And why didn't Joe Wilson write his Op Ed before the soldiers were shipped off to the slaughter?

Think about the support he's garnered by speaking out against Bush's war. Had he stepped up to the plate before our soldiers were killed, before the war began, the war might never have been authorized and funded. In the face of Wilsons's allegations, Congress could not have approved the war resolution. All of the antiwar sentiment he's drummed up now would have been an extremely potent remedy to the solution of war.

He waited until the war began. 2000 soldiers later he wants to be a hero.

Something is rotten in the house of Wilson.

by Citizen Spook

citizenspook@hotmail.com

PLEASE REPOST and LINK

TREASONGATE: CHALLENGE TO FIREDOGLAKE – Wilson Is In Cahoots With Bush Crime Family. Stop Kissing His Ass.

2005-10-26T11:06:00.000-07:00

Citizen Spook is rather pissed off today. My favorite blog on Treasongate up until yesterday was Jane Hamsher's "Firedoglake".

I linked to Firedoglake earlier this week. That blog has been great fun, cool pictures, well written, insightful, and interesting legal analysis by Hamsher's colleague Reddhead as well. But yesterday Hamsher really pissed me off.

WHY DOESN'T JANE GET "IT"?

QUESTION: Why didn't Joe Wilson publish his OP ED, "What I Didn't Find in Africa" before our soldiers were sent off to Iraq? Why was Wilson sitting on this analysis before our soldiers were sent off to the slaughter? I'll answer that later, but it's the big question.

I truly thought Jane was a good candidate for understanding the "Joe Wilson is in cahoots with Bush crime family" scenario.

Boy was I wrong. Yesterday she implied that such thinking was from "Wingnutia":

Wingnutia may want to impugn Wilson shamelessly, but Poppy called him a "true American hero" and raised him to the rank of Ambassador for the skillful way he handled himself in the midst of a very delicate and dangerous situation during the first Iraq war.

She's falling right into the neocon trap that's been set from the start -- Poppy Bush doesn't approve of Junior's neocon cabal so now he's coming to the rescue.

POPPY BUSH DOESN'T APPROVE OF JUNIOR'S NEOCON CABAL AND NOW HE'S COMING TO THE RESCUE.

It's Iran Contra all over again. W will feign ignorance, and who's going to argue with that? Poppy's pals will come in, Scowcroft et al are already sounding the trumpet. The new age neocon perps, Libby, Rove, Cheney and others indicted will make a deal where they resign and are pardoned. Then W will restock the liquor cabinet with Poppy's old school cronies who have been running the show all along.

Get ready for it blogosphere. It's going to be everywhere, just like the "anatomy of a smear" mantra Joe Wilson has been putting out. You know, the "let's bitch slap Joe Wilson and subject ourselves to the death penalty under the Espionage Act" crowd.

And Jane's drank the smear Kool Aid big time:

"If Bush wasn't in on the "smear Wilson" campaign and didn't care about it, I have to believe he would've told Ari to put a sock in it and focus instead on all the great photo ops this current trip was affording him."

Jane has now moved to the town of Wingnutia. Wingnutia is the town that only houses two kind of folk:

- Those who have Aspen roots (co-conspirators with Bush CrimeCO)

- Those who truly believe Joe Wilson is a hero.

A few months ago I broke the Espionage Act to the blogosphere as the controlling law of Treasongate in a two part series on 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 794 . Up until I published these articles, the MM and blogosphere was focused EXCLUSIVELY on the IIPA.

Firedoglake was right there with everybody else lapping it up from Joe Wilson and David Corn, the two cheerleaders who were charged by the Bush cabal with disseminating disinformation about the IIPA indicating that it was the controlling law.

But since Citizen Spook broke the news that the Espionage mandates:

- life in prison or death
- is easier to prosecute
- was the motivation for the ridiculous shift from GWOT to GSAVE

the whole world has caught up and the Espionage Act is in play everywhere.

Doesn't it bother you, Jane, that the man who is supposed to have been hurt the most by the outing of Plame -- her husband Joe Wilson-- was the main culprit in directing the world's attention to the IIPA?

In his book, interviews and newspaper articles, Wilson never once mentions the Espionage Act, although he did say that the outing of his wife was just like the outing of Aldrich Ames -- who was in fact prosecuted and sentenced to life -- under the Espionage Act. Yet Joe Wilson preferred to ignore that act which provides for a slam dunk conviction under these facts and instead he cleverly tied you and the rest of the country up with the minutiae of details necessary to find guilt under the complicated IIPA.

“Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

That is a direct quote given by Joseph Wilson to David Corn for the infamous report published on July 16, 2003, in The Nation wherein Corn exposed Plame's "undercover" status as a CIA officer.

"This is the stuff of...Aldrich Ames."

Now that the Espionage Act is squarely in play, doesn't it seem odd that Joe Wilson and David Corn were solely responsible for whoring the IIPA to the world as the controlling law?

Doesn't it seem odd that Wilson wrote in his book that he didn't think anybody at the White House would be prosecuted?

After all, Valerie was a NOC and she was outed.

AN AMERICAN SPY WORKING ON WMD AND HER ENTIRE DIVISION WAS OUTED BY OTHER AMERICANS.

How can this not be espionage?

HOW CAN THIS NOT BE ESPIONAGE?

Joe Wilson, how can this not be espionage?
David Corn, how can this not be espionage?

Both of them never even mentioned the Espionage Act in two fucking years of working this to the public.

Now the Espionage Act is on the tip of everybody's tongue, but not back in July 2003 and not until July 28, 2005 when Citizen Spook broke the story which was miraculously followed days later by indictments in the AIPAC investigation -- under what law?

Give that blog junkie a cigar -- The Espionage Act.

The AIPAC indictments returned by McNulty's grand jury came under 18 USC 793, The Espionage Act.

In Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth", he tells us that David Corn was out in front of the pack by writing about the IIPA. From The Politics of Truth, page 4:

"David Corn, from The Nation magazine, had alerted me and later written the first article pointing out that the disclosure by way of the Novak article might have violated the 1982 IIPA. But whether illegal or not, it was still an unwelcome intrusion into my wife's private life..."

Whether illegal or not?

YOUR WIFE WAS A NOC WHO WAS OUTED, DUDE.

How could it not be illegal?

These people make me sick.

They really must believe they are invested with magical powers of hypnosis.

C'mon, Jane. You're not zoning in on this shtick? Really?

So David Corn was the first pawn used to disseminate the spin that the IIPA was the controlling law. And look at Wilson sew the subtle innuendo "whether it was illegal or not." On page 349 of TPOT, Wilson explains Corn's purpose:

"Corn then published a detailed exploration of the law to ensure that other journalists, as well as regular readers of The Nation, understood all of the legalities involved."

That's some damning evidence right there. Because we know that statement is a bold faced lie carefully designed to continue the illusion that the IIPA was the controlling law.

ALL OF THE LEGALITIES INVOLVED?

This is like, give me a damn break, it's so cheesy... Does anybody reading this actually believe Wilson and Corn were interested in educating people as to "all" of the legalities involved?

Wilson and Corn, pied pipers of the IIPA.

Wilson's book references the IIPA on pages; xxxviii-xxxix, xl, 4, 346, 349, 350-351, 358-360, 384-385, 388, 395-396, and 445. Do you know how many times 18 USC 793 and 794 are mentioned? None, nada, zero. Why do you think that is? Because Wilson never heard of these laws? No. This CIA couple know the law inside out.

And they know the carnage that outing Plame caused to the operations and operatives she was overseeing, people that trusted her whose lives were in her hands.

From page 446 of Wilson's book:

"We worry about our personal security, but there is little we can do."

You could have stayed off the over of Vanity Fair, that would have been a start, Joe.

Nobody dared publish a photo of Plame...until she posed with her husband for the January '04 issue of Vanity Fair. Wasn't it bad enough that her name got out, that her front company was exposed? Why would she follow through by mugging for the camera in Vanity Fair? Isn't that just putting her in more jeopardy? Isn't that making it even easier for enemy agents both here and in foreign lands to reconcile her likeness?

You'd think, out of respect for her fellow agents she'd lay low and stay out of the spotlight, but "Valerie was always a star in her profession". (page 446)

Now more than ever.

It's open season on the NOCS she supervised, the NOCS out there in the field gathering evidence on who?

Who do you think?

From page 447 of Wilson's book:

"We had assumed that on the day the Novak article appeared, every intelligence office in Washington, and probably all those around the world, were running Valerie's name through their databases. Foreign intelligence services would not attack us, but they might as well threaten any contacts Valerie might have made in their countries, and they would certainly be eager to unearth operations she might have been involved in.

International terrorist organizations were a different story, however. There was a history of international terrorists attacking exposed officers."

So they go on the cover of Vanity Fair like this was a bad episode of Jane Bond.

And Wilson goes on the Daily Show for jokes with Jon Stewart. From page 358:

"Jon was so humorous that I found myself laughing heartily right along with the audience..."

From page 384:

"An officer had been exposed, an act that threatened many intelligence professionals."

It's hilarious, isn't it, Mr. Wilson?

In "The CIA at War", by Ronald Kessler, the Vanity Fair photo was discussed on pages 344-345:

"Their claims to have been victimized by the Bush white house were destroyed when they agreed to be photographed sitting in their Jaguar for the January issue of Vanity Fair. Wilson claimed that the fact that his forty-year old wife wore sunglasses and a scarf disguised her. But anyone she dealt with overseas could clearly recognize her..."

" 'They risked undermining any possible prosecution by their public statements and appearances,' said John L. Martin who, as Chief of the Justice Department's counterespionage section, was in charge of supervising leak investigations. 'The scarf and the sunglasses worn in the Vanity Fair picture was a sham.' "

"In fact, the CIA never would have given permission to appear in a photograph. No doubt because of that, she never asked. Agency officials were stunned."

"...Not only had Wilson and Plame subverted their own posturing as victims of the Bush White House, they had undermined the integrity of the CIA's clandestine program to collect intelligence using covert officers. If a CIA officer took her duty to remain in a clandestine role so lightly it could make agents leery of risking their lives to provide intelligence to other CIA officers."

Wilson and Plame behaved as if they were trying to make the Bush administration's case for a defense to the IIPA.

Read that again.

I don't believe you read it again, so here it is in big bold print...

Wilson and Plame behaved as if they were trying to make the Bush administration's case for a defense to the IIPA.

By showing up in public as they have done, they lend credence to the Bush talking points which argue that Plame's status at the CIA was not covert and that blowing her cover was no big deal. Their gambit was based on the arrogant self belief they could trick the nation into believing its laws against espionage don't exist.

Under 18 USC 794, it doesn't matter if she was covert, it only matters whether her name and position were "related to the public defense". Don't forget that State Department memo though. The paragraph her name appeared in was marked "(S)" for secret, and according to a Bush Executive order, that meant her name and job were classified info.

The memo is prima facie proof of her status.

THE STATE DEPARTMENT MEMO IS PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF PLAME'S STATUS.

Wilson certainly can't claim ignorance of the law. He's issued detailed analysis of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, on the record, during a public Q&A at one of his glorious book signings, recorded by William Kaminsky, wherein Wilson discussed the intricacies of the IIPA and explained in great detail that convictions under that act were unlikely. He exhibited a great knowledge of that law while forwarding the diversionary spin started by his pal, David Corn.

From Kaminsky's blog :

Meeting Joe Wilson (Part 1 of 2)

On Thursday night, the venerable and most definitely left-leaning Harvard Book Store held a lecture/question and answer session/book signing event with Ambassador Joseph Wilson...

First of all, Ambassador Wilson has every confidence in the dedication and prosecutorial skills of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald.

However, Wilson concedes a point many of the Administration's defenders make: it will be extremely hard to convict anyone of violating the most serious (and most often discussed) of the applicable laws, namely the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (United States Code, Title 50, Sections 421-426). Rather, Wilson thought that a prosecutor wanting a winnable case would have to settle for the weaker charge of disclosure of classified information (United States Code, Title 18, Section 798)...While technically disclosure of classified information can be a felony carrying the same maximum penalty of a fine and 10
years imprisonment as violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it apparently can also be prosecuted as a misdemeanor charge, and this is what Wilson thought likely...

I guess it's a real good thing for the American people that Patrick Fitzgerald is the special prosecutor and not Joe Wilson.

More from Kaminsky,

Wilson offered two reasons for his pessimism:

1. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act explicitly says that it is a valid defense versus prosecution to claim an operative's identity has previously been revealed...

It is clear that the Administration's defenders intend to use this defense...

But anyways, when all is said and done, this isn't the main reason why Ambassador Wilson is pessimistic about the prospects of a successful prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, his main reason is:

1. Right at its outset, the Act qualifies that disclosing a covert operative's identity is illegal only if it is done intentionally and in the knowledge that the government is still actively maintaining a cover for operative...

Wilson said he believed that anyone accused under the Act thus could successfully mount the defense that he or she knew only that Valerie Plame was employed by the CIA and not that the CIA actively maintained a cover (or covers) for her as a operative in the Clandestine Service who was active in the last 5 years.

Look at Wilson go. He's got that spin down pat. On the one hand, he's literally crying in public over the outing of his CIA wife, "If I could give you back your anonymity....", while on the other hand, he creates the Bush admin defense all in one gasp of legal puke. He exhibits a knowledge of various US Code as well as a perfect analysis of the IIPA, while steering the entire country away from the controlling law, 18 USC 794 and 793.

Have a look at Joe Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth", and look for any mention of 18 USC 793 or 794. It's not there.

His book does start with a section called, "Anatomy Of A Smear". And that's the talking point. We've exposed it, but they're still holding on with their teeth.

The "smear" Kool aid.

It breaks my heart that Hamsher has bought into this bullshit, or "fucking bullshit" as she might say. Don't get me wrong, her dirty mouth is refreshing and I'm a huge "Natural Born Killers" fan. And this is why I give her the benefit of the doubt. I don't put Hamsher in the same zip code of Wingnutia as David Corn. Corn is an Aspen, Hamsher has simply been deceived.

The Espionage Act is spreading fear throughout the neocon land of Aspen and the wingnutia brigade has been given its Espionage talking points. The spin on the Espionage Act has been laughable, totally ridiculous. I'll take a microscope to some of the recent discussion from the Bush wingnuts about the Espionage Act in a follow up blog. But for now, let me leave you with the following two anomalies emanating from Joe Wilson's actions:

1. QUESTION: Why didn't Joe Wilson publish his OP ED, "What I Didn't Find in Africa" before our soldiers were sent off to Iraq?

Why was Wilson sitting on this analysis before our soldiers were sent off to the slaughter?

ANSWER: He would have developed the same devoted following he has now before the war started, and this would have seriously damaged the chances of the Iraq war resolution form being passed.

Wilson could ahave been a genuine hero and stopped the war by speaking up about what he didn't find in Africa before the troops were sent there to die.

2. How the hell can you give Wilson a pass as to his misleading statements given to Walter Pincus about the forged Niger documents?

Back on July 20, 2004, The Daily Howler did an excellent analysis of this issue and the Senate Intelligence Report it pertains to:

According to the Committee report, Wilson misstated to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post, in an interview for a 6/12/03 report—an interview conducted at a time when Wilson was still anonymous. According to the report, Wilson told Pincus that he had determined, as part of his trip, that the famous Niger documents were forged. The problem: Wilson had never seen these forged documents. Indeed, the documents weren’t even in US hands when he took his trip to Niger. According to the Committee report, Wilson “told Committee staff that he was the source” of the Pincus article. Here’s the way the Senate report recorded Wilson’s explanation for his apparent misstatement:

SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT (page 45): The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.

Since that idea is clownish and absurd on its face, one would surely want to hear Wilson’s fuller response to this allegation. Sadly, he only pretended to respond in his letter to the Committee; as anyone can see, he gives a groaning “non-response response.” He offers irrelevant, meandering points, basically noting that, on other occasions, he didn’t claim to have seen the forged documents. (Please note: In the letter, he never denies that he misstated this matter to Pincus.)

Liars get caught. Joe Wilson was trying to get caught. Wilson has been given the role of multitasking. The OP ED started the fire. Then he douses it with the IIPA. He lies to Pincus knowing he'll get busted which gives his Aspen cronies the ammunition to attack him.

THIS IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS. Look over here at the IIPA. Look how tough it is to get a conviction. Look at all the different diversions we can hit you with.

But don't look behind this curtain, the one hiding the Espionage Act. No no no. Don't look over there, nothing to look at.

They failed and now they are really sweating. This was an elaborate game they were playing. Multi levels of deceit to expose Plame's network, Brewster Jennings etc. They were onto something big which had to be stopped. Outing Plame and BJ must have been the only way to make sure they were stopped.

Don't believe in double agents, Jane? C'mon. What world are you living in? Wingnutia. Sell your home there and move.

by Citizen Spook
citizenspook@hotmail.com

TREASONGATE: THE FELONY MURDER RULE - The Iraq War Fraud Could Lead To State Court Prosecutions For Murder Of American Soldiers

2005-10-25T07:43:00.000-07:00

Ordinarily, the President, as Commander In Chief, and his Executive Branch, could not be held legally responsible for the death of US soldiers on the battlefield. But if congressional, military and monetary support for the Iraq war was procured through a fraudulent criminal conspiracy, the Bush syndicate will have no protection from prosecution in state courts -- out of jurisdicitonal reach of the President's pardon power -- which is limited by the Constitution to federal crimes against the United States.

Fitzgerald's court filings appear to have zeroed in on, not just the leak fact pattern, but the Niger document fraud as well.

This is massive.

...the greatest criminal conspiracy in American history:

The fraudulent case to bring our country to war that took the life of 2000 soliders and lined the pockets of Bush's "base". Fact.

The Caryle Group is in the business of war. No war, no billion $ contracts, ch ching ching ching.

[Attention Frank Carlucci, or should we call you "the architect." Rome is a beautiful city. Carlucci, Ledeen and Armitage. Sounds like a law firm or a" consulting group"? I digress...not really.]

In a previous article , we discussed a possible exception where Presidential pardons for crimes against the "United States" might be voided. [Again, the President's pardon power does not extend to state court convictions.] Unfortunately, this exception depends on the House impeaching followed by convictions in the Senate.

It's not impossible that Congress will do the right thing, considering...

- The body bags mount up as the blood of our soldiers mixes in the streets of Baghdad with innocent Iraqi citizens.

-Delay is in trial.

-Frist is being investigated by the SEC.

-AIPAC Espionage Indictments Are Ongoing.

The climate is ripe. And after Fitzgerald's category 9 indictment hurricane, our elected officials might actually be forced to do the right thing. We can only hope and pray it is so.

But even if the House and Senate lock down impeachment conviction and removal from office, the SCOTUS review is anybody's guess.

So let's not kid ourselves, the Presidential pardon power is not easy to nullify.

Still, despair not, justice has many faces.

The Presidential pardon power does not extend to criminal convictions in state courts.

Those are limited to "federal" crimes against the United States. The trick then, is to bring the T-gate offenders into state courts and convict them out of reach of the crony freedom factor pardon machine (...being tuned up as we speak).

I've been screaming for convictions under ****18 USC 793 and 794, the Espionage Act. But violations of the Espionage Act are not the only crimes that have been committed.

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com discussed other laws Fitzgerald should be looking into:

There are plenty of violations of federal law to be found around the Niger uranium forgeries, and I expect Fitzgerald has found most if not all of them by now. When the president made his 2003 State of the Union address, and referred to Iraq's efforts to procure uranium in "an African country," the source of his allegation was a cache of documents that had been turned over to the American embassy in Rome under mysterious circumstances...

Whoever forged these documents and introduced them into the American intelligence stream is guilty of violating

[18 USC 1001 ]:

"Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

And this law,

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

[18 USC 371 ]

The only problem I have with Raimondo's analysis is that it shouldn't be limited to whoever forged the Niger documents.

The laws quoted above also cover Government officials who knew the documents were fake but represented the evidence contained in the forgeries as being legitimate which thereby caused Congress to approve the war resolution and appropriations for the Iraq war.

We don't yet know who created the fraudulent Niger documents, but we do know that Fitzgerald has been briefed on this issue by Italian authorities.

The laws cited above make it clear that both the "creation" and "use" of these documents was a felony.

The "cover up" of the documents' fraudulent nature was also a felony. Fraudulent statements about the veracity of the documents would also be a felony, i.e. Bush relying on them in his State of the Union address (the famous 16 words); and let's not forget Powell's reliance upon them at the UN as well as Condi's mushroom cloud speech.

If proved that government officials knew the documents were fraudulent then their criminal actions relating to such knowledge must be prosecuted.

It's undisputed that the Niger documents are frauds. But the truly wicked aspect of this tragedy, as it pertains to our legal analysis, is that the documents are BLATANTLY bogus.

BLATANTLY BOGUS....blatnatly bogus bogi bogushevits bogusly bogus. BLATANT TO the extreme so bogus they are laughably bogus so fake they are comically fake so bad they are OBVIOUSLY fake so FAKE they are obviously bogus. Did I mention that the Niger documents are utterly and completely bogus?

You understand...

The Nuralcubicle Blog has an interesting run down on the history of the documents:

"One letter, dated October 10, 2000 [The article’s editor at La Repubblica identifies this as the "memorandum of understanding" between Niger and Iraq] was signed with the name of Allele Habibou, a [Niger] Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, who had been out of office since 1989. Another letter [Editor’s note: dated 27 July 2000][...] had [...] a text with inaccuracies so egregious [...] that 'they could be spotted by someone using Google on the Internet."

And this from The Cat Bird Seat

"How were the forgeries missed?...

[T]he discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not recognize that they were not authentic.

Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not Mamadou's.

Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said."

The New Yorker Magazine quotes a CIA official who said, "Everybody knew at every step of the way that they were false—until they got to the Pentagon, where they were believed."

The Pentagon didn't believe any such thing. Nor did they ever believe that Al Queda was truly in cahoots with Saddam. Lies...

- No real Niger documents.
- No money trail showing a yellow cake deal.
- No deal between Iraq and Niger.
- No connection between Iraq and Al Queda.
- No WMD in Iraq.

2000 soldiers dead.
2000 soldiers never coming back.

Probably more than 100,000 Iraqi's are dead. Children have been slaughtered, their hands blown off, their parents exploding in front of them, toddlers eyes gauged out by shrapnel. We've all seen the pictures.

Am I being overly dramatic? I don't think so. The 16 words and Condi’s mushroom cloud were over dramatic. The bloody drama on the ground in Iraq really happened. The B-grade horror movie Bush screened for us about WMD was a lie...

- a criminal fraud under 18 USC 1001
- a criminal conspiracy to commit fraud under 18 USC 371.

The Felony Murder Rule.

FUTURE STATE COURT CONVICTIONS OF THE BUSH CABAL FOR MURDER OF US SOLDIERS UNDER THE FELONY MURDER RULE CANNOT BE PARDONED BY THE PRESIDENT.

The President's pardon authority is only applicable to crimes against the United States, not state court convictions. State Governors can pardon state convictions, but it's not as likely to happen... especially in blue states.

From Wikipedia:

The felony murder rule ... is a legal doctrine according to which anyone who commits, or is found to be involved in, a serious crime (a felony), during which any person dies, is guilty of murder.This applies even if one does not personally or directly cause the person's death. For example, a getaway driver for an armed robbery can be convicted of murder if one of the robbers killed someone -- or got killed in some jurisdictions -- in the process of the robbery, even though the driver was not present at and did not expect the killing. In jurisdictions that also have the death penalty, felony murder usually qualifies as a capital crime...

To "qualify" for the felony murder rule, the felony must present a foreseeable danger to life, and the link between the underlying felony and the death must not be too remote. If the receiver of a forged check has a fatal allergic reaction to the ink, most courts will not hold the defendant guilty of murder.

There are two schools of thought concerning whose actions can cause the defendant to be guilty of felony murder. Jurisdictions that hold to the "agency theory" admit only deaths caused by the agents of the crime. Jurisdictions that use the "proximate cause theory" include any death, even if caused by a bystander or the police, provided that it would not have occurred but for the felony.

Apply the felony murder rule to the Niger forgeries:

The Bush administration makes a premeditated decision to fix the intelligence around the policy to scam war support from:

- the American people
- elected representatives
- the military

Congress votes to approve the war resolution and appropriations are granted to fund the war, all based on a fraudulent pack of lies.

Over 2000 soldiers are now dead.

The Niger documents have no credibility whatsoever and nobody in our intelligence divisions, State Department or the Pentagon ever really believed these were real.

How could they? They can read. The documents are a sick horrific joke.

Under 18 USC 1001 and 18 USC 371, the Bush administration is guilty of fraud and conspiracy to deceive the country, military and elected representatives into supporting the war with money and manpower.

Each of the 50 states has lost men and women because of this fraud. Many of those states use the "proximate cause theory" of the felony murder rule. Under the Niger fraud fact pattern, Bush administration officials who fraudulently made the case for war in Iraq had the direct intention of putting soldiers in peril knowing many would be killed in battle.

If they are guilty of felony fraud and conspiracy, district attorneys in those states which follow the "proximate cause theory" of the "felony murder rule" could indict those Bush administration officials who are guilty of violating 18 USC 1001 and 371 for the deaths of soldiers who were residents in each respective state.

Furthermore, each soldier's death is a different crime and no double jeopardy would apply from state to state because each death is a separate felony murder. If the neocons are found not guilty in one state, that does not stop any other state from bringing a separate indictment for the loss of their own residents.

STATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION?

Since the murders did not occur in any of the states, for a state court to have authority to prosecute Bush administration officials, each state would have to show that they have "State Criminal Jurisdiction" over the defendants. The controlling Supreme Court precedent for establishing "State Criminal Jurisdiction" is STRASSHEIM v. DAILY, 221 U.S. 280 (1911).

The following Michigan Bar Association publication discusses Oliver Wendell Holmes' decisive opinion in that case:

THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS TEST

In 1911, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court in Strassheim v Daily, a case that arose in Michigan and is still cited today as authority for the proposition that a state may exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed outside the territorial boundaries of a state. In Strassheim, the Supreme Court stated:

"[A]cts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the state should succeed in getting him within its power."

To satisfy the minimum requirements for an exercise of criminal jurisdiction over out-of-state conduct, there must be (1) an act occurring outside the state, which is (2) intended to produce detrimental effects within the state, and (3) is the cause of detrimental effects within the state. Unlike the jurisdictional analysis in civil cases, the "minimum contacts" analysis does not apply when determining criminal jurisdiction. In criminal cases, the analysis focuses on the intent of the defendant and the effects within the forum state.

Under the Iraq war fact pattern, "the act" was the fraudulent use of fake intelligence by a conspiracy of neocons to "trick" Congress into approving the war resolution and providing appropriations for the war.

"The act" also caused thousands of patriotic young men and women to enlist in the military to protect their country.

"The act" was "intended" to produce the "detrimental effect" of taking soldiers form the states they were residing in and putting them on a battlefield in Iraq. Can you think of a more detrimental effect? The "fraud" to bring the country to war was "the cause of the detrimental effect".

"But for" the fraudulent intelligence conspiracy, the funds and other approval of our elected representatives would not have been granted. No money, no war, no deaths in Iraq. It's really a very simple analysis.

Many people are sitting in prison for convictions under the felony murder rule. It's not obscure. And being a rich white collar criminal neocon fascist millionaire hawk does not protect you from prosecution as far as the law is concerned.

Soldiers are dead from every state in the union.

The intelligence used to get them into Iraq, in this case the Niger documents and various ancillary intelligence, was clearly bogus, so bogus that anyone reading this and having no experience with WMD Intel knows beyond any doubt, not just that the Niger documents were bogus, but why they were bogus.

Our Pentagon, State Department and White House was duped?

Tell it to Fitz. Tell it to the jury. Get the f**k out of here. This is just insulting.

The officials in Niger who had the power to make the deal with Iraq were not the signatories to the fake memorandum. There was no money trail, and Niger didn't have the goods to begin with, "it had all been pre-sold to Niger’s Japanese and European consortium partners."

This wasn't incompetence, it was malicious fraud.

We have 50 jurisdictions. We have 50 shots at justice. We can't let these crimes go unpunished or they will happen again.

2000 soldiers are dead. 2000 felony murders. 2000 trials in the states of this nation.

Presidential pardons are not available to convictions attained in these states.

Indictments under 18 USC 371, and 1001 are just as important (perhaps more so) as indictments under the Espionage Act because those indictments will lay the groundwork for state court "felony murder" prosecutions.

Pardons of the underlying federal felonies will not shield the perps from prosecution in the state courts.

Before you start to believe ****'s gone off the deep side here, I suggest you review the provisions of the Patriot Act which allow for prosecutions and the death penalty for those found guilty of nebulous forms of terrorism even though the so called "terrorists" don't intend to kill or even hurt anyone.

This was clipped from the ACLU Web Site :

Even more troubling, the draft bill is not content to create fifteen new death penalties, but also contains language that sweeps in any violation of state or federal law that is committed under the definition of domestic or international terrorism contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2331. As a result, activities that (1) involve “acts dangerous to human life,” (2) are a violation of any state or federal law, and (3) are committed in order to influence government or the population by intimidation or coercion become death-penalty eligible if death results. Arguably, this definition could fit some protest activities, such as those used by Operation Rescue, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or Greenpeace. For example:

* If protesters at Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, a military bombing range unpopular with local residents, cut a fence to trespass on the military’s bombing range, and a bomb killed one of the demonstrators, a prosecutor could charge the survivors with an eligible crime for which the sentence could be death.

* If Greenpeace activists attempted to block an oil tanker entering a port to protest the company’s safety record, and a member of the tanker’s crew drowned attempting to ward off the activists’ boat, the protesters could be charged with a crime for which the sentence could be death...

Under this provision, protesters could be charged with the death penalty as the result of a tragedy.

For every draconian repression these bastards have installed to make us more docile, there exists an equal and opposite opportunity to use their stuff against them.

It's very encouraging to see the Espionage Act take precedence over the IIPA in both the main stream media and blogospehere, and the fourth estate now seems up to speed on the plenary authority Fitzgerald wields over t-gate offenses.

Our next chore is to bring the felony murder rule to the attention of the blogosphere. This is best done by comparing it to the provisions of the Patriot Act which are cited above. It will be very hard for the neocons to attack this theory of prosecution since the relevant provisions of their precious Patriot Act were inherited directly from the felony murder rule concept.

There are 50 states.

50 shots at justice.

2000 felony murders.

Spread the law.

COMING SOON

Analysis of Joe Wilson's statements and actions leading up to his July 2003 Op Ed piece. When put under the microscope, Wilson's actions are suspect.

AND THIS...

Analysis of the coming Bush 41 influenced take over to "cleanse" 43's adminstration.

As selected members of the military industrial complex come in to faux "scold" the neocons and replace them, don't be fooled (...by Scowcroft and Poppy).

It's fall now (i.e., time for some to take the fall.) And they turn (on each other) together because they're roots are connected.

They're playing to a script. We'll get you ready for the final act.

TREASONGATE: Comey Clarifies Fitzgerald's Plenary Authority

2005-10-22T07:17:00.000-07:00

On August 8th, 2005, I wrote a very detailed legal analysis explaining why Fitzgerald cannot "legally" be fired by Bush or anybody in the DOJ as the "Special Prosecutor" for Treasongate offenses. I explained that Fitzgerald wears two hats, US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois AND Special Prosecutor for the Plame leak investigation. As US Attorney he can be fired at any time by Bush.

As Special Prosecutor he cannot be fired. Why? Read my August 8th, 2005 article for the detailed answer including extensive links.

The short version goes something like this:

Fitzgerald's plenary authority was delegated to him by acting Attorney General James Comey. Two official DOJ letters were used by Comey to establish Fitzgerald as the "Acting US Attoney General" in this matter. That means he is effectively the Attorney General for this case and he doesn't have to answer to anybody.

OK, but even the Attorney General can be fired by the President. This is true. So why can't Bush fire Fitzgerald even if Fitz is the Acting Attorney General with plenary authority?

That's where the Government Accountability Office (GAO) comes in. The DOJ made a very extensive argument to the GAO that Fitzgerald has all of the power of an Independent Counsel (like Ken Starr when he was investigating Clinton). Even though the Indepenent Counsel law has expired, DOJ argued that under this set of facts and this unique delegation of power from Comey to Fitzgerald, the GAO should recognize Fitzgerald as having all the power of an Independent Counsel so that unlimited funds could be released to Fitzgerald so this investigation could be properly conducted.

The GAO bought this argument and granted the funds on this basis. Read the GAO decision here.

How does this effect the possibility of Fitzgerald being fired?

If DOJ and the GAO both agree that Fitzgerald has all the power of an Independent Counsel then Fitzgerald cannot be fired because under the Independent Counsel law, an Independent Counsel could not be fired.

Bush and DOJ cannot "legally" fire Fitzgerald. But they can try to illegally fire him. However, they are already on the record, via the zealous arguments by DOJ to the GAO, insisting that Fitzgerald should be treated like an Independent Counsel operating under the expired Independent Counsel law.

For the DOJ to turn around and now argue that Fitzgerald does not have that power would be the same as admitting they flat out lied to the GAO and all of their arguments are bullshit. Fitzgerald, were he to fight the DOJ after illegally firing him, would dismantle them in court with their own arguments and legal citations. He wouldn't even have to come up with one single argument defending himself, DOJ (and by extension Bush) has already made his case to the GAO.

Yesterday, Fitzgerald launched his own web site as Special Counsel. It's very interesting to see that the first three documents listed at the site are the three letters on official DOJ letterhead from Comey delegating plenary authority to Fitzgerald.

Whoops, did I say three letters? Yes, I did. But, in my original article of August 8th, 2005 I only mentioned two letters.

GREEK CHORUS: "Spook, why didn't you mention three letters?"

Because at the time I wrote the article only two delegation letters existed.

However, four days after my article was published (August 8th, 2005), Comey issued a third delegation of authority to Fitzgerald. This letter was issued on August 12, 2005. And it only came to my attention yesterday when it was published at Fitzgerald's new web site .

Apparently, since the original delegation letters were issued, and the GAO decision came down, Comey was finally able to answer the question of whether he, or anybody taking his place at DOJ, could fire Fitzgerald or revoke his authority. And Comey has decided that Fitzgerald's authority cannot be retracted or modified .

I quote Comey's letter of August 12, 2005 , written just before he resigned, delegating to his replacement the authority of deputy Attorney General:

"In the attached correspondence to Patrick Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, dated December 30, 2003, and February 6, 2004, I delegated to Mr. Fitzgerald all of the authority of the Attorney General, with respect to the Department's investigation in the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a Central Intelligence Agency employee's identity. By virtue of the authority vested in me as Deputy Attorney General under the law...I delegate to you all of my authority as acting Attorney General with respect to that investigation and Mr. Fitzgerald's service as Special Counsel, as dilineated in that correspondence. This delegation to you in no way retracts or modifies the scope of the prior delegations of authority to Mr. Fitzgerald."

By Citizen Spook
citizenspook@hotmail.com

FURTHER COMMENTS ON TREASONGATE FOR OCTOBER 22, 2005

The Neocon psychos are starting to crack up real bad. It's incredble to see Bill Kristol arguing today that the Special Prosecutor should not use the laws of this nation. If you haven't seen it, have a look at Kristol's latest, entitled -- Fitzgerald's Moment .

He argues that Fitzgerald should prosecute any violations under the IIPA, perjury or obstruction, but that any use of the Espionage Act (i.e. 18 USC 793 and 794) would be evidence that Fitzgerald is overreaching his mandate and would equate to prosecutorial misconduct.

Hey Bill, get a freakin' life. Everybody in the White House signed a non disclosure agreement agreeing to follow the laws of this nation and 18 USC 793 and 794 are clearly listed. Here's what it says Billy boy:

"I have been advised and am aware that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation of violations of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 Title 18 United States Code, the provisions of Sections 783 (b), Title 50, United States code, and the provisions of the Intelligence identities Prosecution Act of 1982."

Notice how 18 USC 793 and 794 are listed BEFORE the IIPA which is last on the last. If your neocon cronies didn't want to sign it, that was their prerogative. They wouldn't have been given the confidence of the American People and they wouldn't have been hired for security clearance positions and we'd all be a hell of a lot safer today.

You damn neocon waterboy. Get the hell off my planet you bushy haired evil empire crony son of a bitch. How dare you.

I challenge you to show me where in Comey's official DOJ delegation of authority it says Fitzgerald is limited to the IIPA? Read the damn letters, Billy boy.

It's been you and your cronies who have been pounding the podium for the IIPA with David Corn and Joe Wilson giving the assist.

But you don't make the laws and you don't dictate to the American people what laws you would prefer your cronies be prosecuted under.

Sorry, too bad. Don't let the cell door hit you in the ass on the way in fellas (and ladies).

The AIPAC indictments were brought under the Espionage Act and I didn't see Mr. Kristol whining that those poor lobbyists were victims of prosecutorial abuse.

Just because you don't like the law, doesn't make the law go away. You've backed the wrong team Bill. And furthermore, you've been outed as a knee pad wearing neocon fixer. Now, get the hell out of my blogosphere you freak of nature.

ATTENTION: Firedoglake and Antiwar.com .

I have been reading these two blogs and I find them to be very insighful. I've quoted Justin Raimondo previously and I find his reporting to be extremely sharp. I would appreciate if the readers of this Blog could bring my article of August 19th, 2005, IN CAHOOTS -- How The White House, Wilson, Novak, Corn and Plame Conspired for Treason to their attention.