Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. ...

[Snazzy]

Prosecutors Are Said to Have Expanded Inquiry Into Leak of C.I.A. Officer's Name

By DAVID JOHNSTON and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

Published: April 2, 2004


ASHINGTON, April 1 — Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.

In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself.

The expansion of the inquiry's scope comes at a time when prosecutors, after a hiatus of about a month, appear to be preparing to seek additional testimony before a federal grand jury, lawyers with clients in the case said. It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/politics/02LEAK.html

[Snazzy]

1. Locked thread original

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x458771

[Snazzy]

2. Heavily slanted and NYT--what's with that?

(was trying to post this to the locked thread--think I had a better title too)

Nice that there appears to be movement, but let's pick apart this story a bit--it is the first coat of whitewash, you'd think it came from NYP not NYT:

improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer

--implies you can properly disclose. No.

which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally

--"Rarely used," implying that somehow disclosure of our covert CIA operatives maybe happens all the time, and we're just barely bothering pursuing this one, must be partisan motives. When in actuality it's "rarely used" because most American citizens have enough common sense and fear of prosecution to not blow the cover of our CIA agents. Maybe also it is "rarely used" because the crime of treason covers the subject pretty damn well.

It is not clear whether the renewed grand jury activity represents a concluding session or a prelude to an indictment.

--Concluding session meaning finding no wrong doing? Sounds awfully optimistic; how often do GJ's convene and say "hey, no problem."

The broadened scope is a potentially significant development that represents exactly what allies of the Bush White House feared when Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself from the case last December and turned it over to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.

Republican lawyers worried that the leak case, in the hands of an aggressive prosecutor, might grow into an unwieldy, time-consuming and politically charged inquiry, like the sprawling independent counsel inquiries of the 1990's, which distracted and damaged the Clinton administration.

-- Is that really what they feared? How about fearing criminal conduct and treason. But let's get Clinton into the mix! And hey, where's equal time? What do the democratic lawyers say? It's also a bit beyond a leak case--although that is common shorthand. Leak case is about documents usually. This is something entirely different, although the shorthand can't be blamed on just the NYT.

Democrats have accused the White House of leaking his wife's name....

--Only Democrats? How about, "Facts suggest that the White House leaked...."

It could be a crime to disclose information from such a document, although such violations are rarely prosecuted.

--How about "It is a crime...." There are actual laws, there are lawyers. NYT has access to both. No "could" about it.

it is unclear whether Mr. Fitzgerald has made any decisions about whether to go forward or drop the case.

--This is the third suggestion that it may just disappear. Magic! Unclear, but let's keep running it up the flag pole anyway.

...he may be facing a problem if he declines to prosecute.

--Make that four. It goes on to conclude suggesting twice more there may be no indictments and helpfully suggesting a legal way for Fitzpatrick not to indict anybody and save his skin.

--------

So what, these are Judith Miller's interns or something? Hard to get more biased in the librul paper of record without uttering keyword Chalabi. The reporting takes what could be a fascinating investigative story of corruption or at least a factual recount of the investigations of the White House and more or less wishes it away. No soup, oops, I mean Pulitzer for these guys.

Saving grace if you with just one ellipses added:

"Some officials spoke to F.B.I. agents ... at bars near the White House."

Fjord!

[DeepModem Mom]

6. Please send your comments to the NYT --

[Occulus]

9. ROFL

"Oh, dear," said the fox, as he hungrily eyed the henhouse interior. "There seem to be too many birds."

Like they'll listen.

[DeepModem Mom]

15. The print press is not a lost cause....

in my opinion. I find slanted, lazy journalism all the time in the print press, but I also find valuable, and sometimes even courageous, pieces every day in LBN from the NY TImes, Washington Post, and LA Times.

[countmyvote4real]

7. Snazzy, you rock. The NYT might as well be the WHT these days.

I no longer buy or purchase their whore newsprint. It's not worth it. Not even for a crossword puzzle.

[Stephanie]

12. I cancelled.

Brooks was the last straw.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Democrats can be so irritating, as the NYT authors seem to imply.

(snip)
But in this case, being investigated in the heat of a closely fought presidential election, Democrats have been watching carefully for any sign that the prosecutor has favored the administration. Should Mr. Fitzgerald bring the case to a close with no indictments and no public explanation of his decision not to prosecute, he would almost certainly be subject to intense criticism from Democrats.
(snip)

They stop just short of using the time-honored "Democraps" or the feeble, yet sly "DemocRATS" from Republican "wordsmith" Alex Castellano.

It's good to see the completely off-base and fiendishly contrived remarks highlighted by Snazzy. You really wonder just what level of work they were able to accomplish questioning FBI agents in bars. Some professionalism, right?

Maybe we could meet them in bars and find out what they learned.

Snazzy should send his/her remarks in the post to the paper. Absolutely.

[Babel_17]

17. Well done and insightful analysis

I agree, you should send this in.

Tiniest of cavils: "improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer

--implies you can properly disclose. No."

I agree with you but the other examples strike me as much more egregious. IMO an honest person could easily be guilty of that ambiguous sentence construction. Just my 2 cents.

[damnraddem]

23. But when all of this is said and done, it's still ...

bad news for the Bushistas. The NYT just hasn't found the proper way to spin the eau de fecal material.

[frank frankly]

29. fantastic analysis

thank you so much! i swa some of that, too, but couldn't find the words to describe it like you did.

[Snazzy]

31. Thanks!

And thanks to all for the comments.

It is the same thing everyday, although sometimes more flagrant than others. Read in-between the lines! Everyday. Annoying that NYT is closer to being our friend than not, catches hell for that sometimes, but has stories with such an obvious admin. slant. (And when they make it to this paper, people do take it as gospel.)

And yeah, write them. I do. (Just got something back from the public editor and a reporter on dif. story). Less than a mea culpa or something public, but they heard me.

Seems like the closer a story could come to identifying the real problem, and in this case point to actual criminal and obvious offenses, the more likely it will be caged in journalist wishy-wash--add almost legal disclaimers, plausible loopholes for both sides, reporter and subjects. This was worse, much like the NYT's Sanger on Clarke yesterday. Both gave the republican telling and not much else. This Plamegate piece even editorializes about how the admin can extract itself in a way that these reporters could live with. Both front page articles just made stuff up. A bad trend at NYT.

Part of it has to be just bowing to the times (no pun intended). It seems everybody in the press somehow has had their sense of middle so slanted to the right, they do not see such obvious hyperbole. Who are the "republican lawyers" and why does the NYT know what they are thinking? If I meet a guy in a bar, and he's a republican lawyer, is that enough? Does he speak for all republican lawyers? Apparently so.

How about getting people on the frickin' record. You'd think with all the scandals of people just making up stories (notably at the NYT), front page news would step away from as much unattributed and nebulous conjecture as possible.

Watch for the buzz terms--"republican lawyers worried"--what bs. Journo-speak used to be cooler, you'd read "the rudy faced politician" and, if you knew the code, you knew that meant the reporter thought he was a drunk. "Republican lawyers worried" hides such a multitude of journalistic sins, but mainly it's spin and cover your ass at the same time.

[rwenos]

3. Time for a Special Prosecutor?

The beauty of grand jury proceedings is it's all cross-examination; no lawyers, no privileges (even Constitutional ones), and the prosecutor who impanels the grand jury can leak whatever they want.

You say, "BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL! NO PROSECUTOR WOULD EVER LEAK GRAND JURY TESTIMONY!"

Didn't stop Ken Starr, did it?!

We can only hope they screw Rove for outing Plame.

[Occulus]

10. As an aside,

we need to get rid of grand juries, or allow the defense to cross-examine the prosecutors.

Oh, but wouldn't that last be fun to see? I'm sure we'd learn of all kinds of Constitutional violations.

That doesn't make the defendant innocent. I'm just after transparency in the process. If I could turn to the Supreme Court Channel, I would when there's a case of interest to me. Now, there's a good use for the public airwaves.

[damnraddem]

24. No, this SCOTUS might rule as you wish for this investigation ...

but state that no precedent was being set for any others.

[Stephanie]

4. Indictments, Frog Marches forthcoming

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

A couple weeks back a legal memo fell into my hands from the sky. And it suggests that even the facts Rove has apparently admitted to put him in clear legal jeopardy.

First, a brief note about the memo: this is not a memo that is in any way a product of the investigation itself. The facts it discusses are exclusively ones which have appeared in media reports. I'm not a lawyer so I cannot myself vouche for the strength of the arguments advanced in the memo. (They certain seem, to my non-legal mind, to press for an interpretation which yields legal jeopardy.) But it was prepared by lawyers with the proper professional expertise to compose such a memo and interpret the statutes and precedents in question. Finally, this memo is not the product of any political campaign or organization. Not that it would matter particularly, but it's not.

Now to the memo.

The essential argument is that the law, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, does more than simply prohibit a governmental official with access to classified information from divulging the identities of covert operatives. The interpretation of the law contained in the memo holds that a government insider, with access to classified information, such as Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further deseminating the identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it.

[loudsue]

11. That is SOOOO kewl!!!

:bounce: That means that Rove is guilty NO MATTER WHAT!! NO MATTER WHAT!!! Because we ALL know the little weizel talked openly about it on the news after it was published/broadcast....we all saw it. Slam dunk!

Not only that...but didn't Rice and Cheney say something about it on the news?

Let's take bets on how many of 'em will take the perp walk.

My bet: maybe one. But even if Rove is that ONE, it's worth it. He needs to be in jail...he can run the white house from there, like the rest of the mafia do it.

:kick::kick::kick:

[damnraddem]

25. Oh, you're relying on mere facts, whereas ...

Dubya-appointed judges rule based on RW spin.

[calimary]

28. Rove is, after all, the one who told Chris Matthews that Wilson's wife

"is fair game."

Yep.

What strikes me as really lovely about this is - if KKKarl Rove is tied up with a BIG legal headache, that will beautifully pull his attention and focus away from the business at hand: getting bush re-selected, and smearing everybody who'd get in the way. Give him too many fires to put out, ALL OVER THE PLACE, but MOST importantly, IN HIS OWN BACK YARD!!! If HIS ass is lookin' like grass, he's NOT going to be able to put bush's interests first. And he's probably not gonna feel like it, either. He'll be too busy trying to keep himself outta jail.

[calimary]

30. Okay, guys, rev up those emails and speed dialers...

(FROM DUer bigtree – 3/2004) Use the responses to strike back at the attacks, here and elsewhere.

“MEET THE PRESS”: [email protected]

MSNBC-Phone: [phone]

Opinions: mailto:[email protected]

News: mailto:[email protected]

Letters to the Editor: mailto:[email protected]

MSNBC on the Internet
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
________________________________________________________________

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500

CNN TV: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv /

CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom /
_________________________________________________________________

[email protected]

Readers' Representative Office: http://www.latimes.com/services/site/la-comment-readersrep.story

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
[phone]

The Times Orange County
1375 Sunflower Avenue
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1697
[phone]

Los Angeles Times
Valley Edition
20000 Prairie Street
Chatsworth, CA 91311
[phone]
Los Angeles Times
Ventura County Edition
93 S. Chestnut Street
Ventura, CA 93001
[phone]
_________________________________________________________________

New York Times:

To Write The Publisher or President: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#o

Letters to the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html#a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
E-mail to [email protected] .

OP-ED/EDITORIAL
For information on Op-Ed submissions, call [phone] or send article to [email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected] . To write to the editorial page editor, send to [email protected] .

NEWS DEPARTMENT
To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail [email protected] or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.
The Editors
[email protected]
[email protected]

The Newsroom
[email protected] ; [email protected]
[email protected] ; [email protected]
[email protected] ; [email protected]
[email protected] ; [email protected]

PUBLIC EDITOR
To reach Daniel Okrent, who represents the readers, e-mail [email protected] or call [phone].

TO WRITE THE PUBLISHER OR PRESIDENT

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman & Publisher:
[email protected] .

Janet L. Robinson, President & General Manager:
[email protected] .
_________________________________________________________________

USA Today:

Letters to the Editor: http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=1...

USA TODAY / USATODAY.com
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22108-0605
_________________________________________________________________

Washington Post:

How can I contact Washington Post writers?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit a letter to the editor?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I submit an Op-Ed piece?
http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

How do I contact the Ombudsman?: http://washingtonpost.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/washingtonpost.cfg/php/endu... *&p_li=

The Washington Post
1150 15th Street Northwest
Washington, DC 20071
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
__________________________________________________________________

More:

National Newspapers: http://newslink.org/--news.html

Television by state: http://newslink.org/stattele.html

Radio by State: http://newslink.org/statradi.html

Networks-

Radio: http://newslink.org/netr.html

Television: http://newslink.org/nett.html

(CBS) 60 Minutes:

ADDRESS:
60 Minutes
524 West 57th St.
New York, NY 10019

PHONE: [phone]

TRANSCRIPTS: 1-800-777-TEXT

VIDEOTAPES: 1-800-848-3256

CBS “60 Minutes” email info:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/60minutes/main3415.shtml - go to the bottom of the page and click on "feedback" and you're in.

***********ALSO NOTE: www.takebackthemedia.com – for the most comprehensive, extensive list of media contacts. ****************************************
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Washington Office*
Tel: [phone]
Fax It is vital to get these criminals under oath.
: [phone]

email: [email protected]
AL FELZENBERG, DEPUTY FOR COMMUNICATIONS National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Office: 202-401-1725 Cell: 202-236-4878 Fax: [phone]"

[email protected]

And don't forget your reps in Congress:

www.senate.gov

http://www.house.gov/writerep/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally , PLEASE NOTE MY SIG LINE – TO CALL YOUR REPS, TOLL FREE!!!

[The_Casual_Observer]

5. Rove passed this whole thing off as "summer folly"

Strange that the wheels have continued to slowly grid away.

[Blaze Diem]

8. Glad to see this thread back...Perhaps the Plames have supporters ..

within the CIA..I see Drudge also mentiones this inquiry..?? I'm hoping this thing will continue to reach the publlic interest and make its way to a fair and balanced Liberal Talk Show somewhere..Keep this alive and keep it growing...and the Plames indeed do have supporters of the law within the CIA.

Now does this mean Bob Novak may have a felony charge on his hands, since he was the only leaker to be identified?

"...centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself."

What exactly does this last line tell us, now. "charges peripheral to the leak itself."

Who should be squirming with regards to the last line of the paragraph? Can a GJury question Novak and what powers do they have that would exempt Novak from his "confidentiality" clause.

Any attorneys or law-savy posters able to clarify this?

Thanks
Blaze

[loudsue]

14. If the Grand Jury calls Novak, he HAS to tell them who leaked it...

This isn't like a courtroom where you can plead the 5th, or the 1st, or any other thing you'd hope to plead. They ask...he tells, or he's toast. I mean REALLY toast.

The way I see it:

1) Novak talks, and the bush mafia makes sure there's a car accident, or one of those instant terminal brain tumor problems (leaves no finger prints).

2) Novak DOESN'T talk, and the grand jury puts him in jail.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens. Either way, I think Novak is going down. That is well deserved, IMHO.

You don't say "no" to the Grand Jury.

:kick:

[Merlin]

19. Good questions all. And why the 1 month delay? Asscroft's illness?

I hope Loud Sue is right about Novak. It would be all kinds of joyous to see a picture of him in the hoosegow!

[damnraddem]

26. I read the 'charges peripheral to the leak' to refer to ...

the coverup in the WH. It's not at all clear that the law applies to the media, nor that if it does, that it would be upheld as constitutional. The law is focused on those privy to the information.

Still, Novak should be worried about becoming a pariah. He printed the information that put an intelligence officer, and all of her informants, in danger. Even if the media can do such things legally, professional ethics (were the media to exhibit them) would suggest that the media should not do such things.

[Snellius]

16. "Lying to prosecutors"? So what?

Unless you're a successful liberal celebrity from the Hamptons named Martha.

[damnraddem]

27. Hey, it was the coverup that brought down Nixon.

And that was right after, not right before, an election.

[sniffa]

18. drip drip drip

it appears the fLood warnings here in the northeast have spread to washington. :evilgrin:

[Stephanie]

20. Josh Marshall on Air America right now

Commenting on 9/11 Comm. - I expect he will get to Plame case

[peacetalksforall]

21. "charges peripheral to the leak itself" ?

I think the emphasis in on the words 'to the leak itself". In other words not to the person who picked up the phone or picked up the bill when they spoke to Novak, but

...possibly to the people who thought up the smear
...or the people who printed Novak;s column
...or?

I think (would like to think) that it is the first - go after the planners. Is that possible?

[damnraddem]

22. Watergate, Marthagate, time after time ...

it's not just the original infraction, it's the coverup that really rocks the boat. And in this case, the original infraction was stupid, horrible, and damaging enough to merit severe punishment.