Over at the so-called “liberal” LA Times, PNAC signatory Max Boot, who doesn’t seem to understand that the reason Scooter Libby and the rest of his neocon buddies are in trouble is because they smeared Joe Wilson and his wife back in 2003, is continuing the vicious lie campaign.
We all know that Boot and his cohorts live in the State of Denial and that they are a hopeless cause with their truth-deflecting armour but you have to wonder how, if they continue to add 2 + 2 and get 6, they could ever hope to realize their dream of US global domination at all costs.
Here’s what Boot is spewing in his column titled “Plamegate’s Real Liar”:
Plame doesn’t seem to fit the act’s definition of a “covert agent” — someone who “has within the last five years served outside the United States.” By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president’s chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn’t a crime.
Bullshit.
The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn’t work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.
Bullshit.
The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium.
Bullshit.
it was Mrs. Wilson who “had suggested his name for the trip.” By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.
Bullshit.
Boot then goes on to cherry-pick quotes from the Senate Intelligence Committee Report to back up his smear on Wilson. No surprise – the ability to cherry-pick is one of the qualifications listed in the neocon job description.
He then concludes:
So much for the lies that led to war. What we’re left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn’t a crime.
I hope Joe Wilson has a good lawyer who is collecting all of these press clippings in preparation to drag liars like Boot into court.
If you missed Larry King’s interview with Joe Wilson on Tuesday nite, you can read the transcript here.
(The views expressed in this piece are my own and not those of the site’s owner, in case you want to sue someone, Mr Boot. Just try it. I dare you. – catnip)
Nice job, catnip — helpful summary. Nice not to have to go to their sites! What the right is beginning to recognize is the same thing we knew yesterday when the news about Reid first surfaced: this is the watershed. This is the moment in which the Republicans are now clearly ridiculous, corrupt, and none too too smart.
FYI: The word you meant (I think!) is cojones. “Cajones” are big boxes, or drawers as in chest of drawers,or sometimes coffins. Another word which is often used — a little more slangy than cojones — is “huevos.” And I bet there are another hundred or two…
I once labelled some refuse containers at work “basuco” instead of “basura,” as we were asked to do by the cleaning service. (I think all progressives should know Spanish. Especially here in the Rockies and Southwest.)
I have no idea what synapse fired there, but I know where it came from: my old college roommate from Colombia used to teach us all the slang. “Basuco” is a Colombian term for an early form of crack cocaine.
oops lol
Wonder how much Boot was paid to write that pack of lies? Hope it is enough to cover the impending lawsuit from Wilson. How do they sleep at night for Cripes sake?
and am reading his book here. The book is huge, and fascinating.
When he first hit the speaking circuit, he was furious. I think he’s calmed down some — who could keep that up?
I just started his book too…I mean just started. Hope it is as fascinating as you say LookingUp. It’s a big hummer. I saw Joe last night at the National Press Club live and he was outstanding.
or saw it on TV?
Saw it on tv…sorry for the miscomminication. I was pretty tired last night when I wrote that.
I was just curious!
The views expressed in this piece are my own
I must say that I appreciate the berevity and contempt in your responses to what is unmitigated bullshit.
This isn’t even an attempt at journalism, it’s as pathetic as Bob Woodwards disgusting whining on Larry King the other night. Offensive to the reader, offensive to the consumer who purchased the newspaper. Bullshit, indeed. Mr Boot is welcome to sue all of us.
(If I were charged with investigating just which ‘journalists’ had been paid by the Bush administration to propagandize on the their behalf I would be paying close attention to several people at the moment, Mr Boot being one of them)
You have to wonder why newspapers even allow this kind of bull anymore about Joe Wilson. They’re all just starting to apologize for misleading the public with the Bush WMD propaganda claiming they failed their readers. Maybe 4 years from now they’ll apologize for printing crap like this too.
He does – Christopher Wolf of Proskauer Rose. He should be in good hands. He is counsel for Richard Raymen and Steven P. Hansen – the gay couple whose image was used by USA Next in their smear campaign against AARP early this year. The case, BTW, is slowly winding it’s way through the Court System.
Boot, like others are obtuse on purpose again I see, by insisting that the only pertinent factor in this investigation of a covert CIA agent being outed is an indictment on Plame’s cover being blown. He blithely ignored everything Fitzgerald said about the indictment of Libby on how the Special Counsel has found a widespread campaign at the highest levels of government to reveal her identity to the press, and that he has been prevented from determining what law to apply to Libby, and potentially, other leakers . As an attorney you know that this is just Fitzgerald’s opening gambit to find out what really happened.
Boot insists that without an indictment on the disclosure of Plame’s covert job at CIA means that there is no problem, no harm, no foul.
Fitzgerald’s investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative by Bush administration officials is not merely a probe into whether the disclosure violated the IIPA, and if the conditions are not met, then no crime has been committed.
As Victoria Toewnsling and other right wing hacks have on distorting the authority of Fitzgerald’s investigation Boot attempts to narrow its scope to an investigation of if a single law has been broken.
Fitzgerald’s mission is not conditioned or restricted in any such manner.
“The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Patrick:
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; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General’s authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of “Special Counsel” in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
Sincerely,
s James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General”
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf
Boot’s and the rest of the right wing chorus insistence that the Special Counsel and courts have not determined the state of Plame’s covert status with respect to the IIPC guidelines is merely a misdirection in this affair. Plame’s classified, covert status is not in question according to the overarching mission and plenary powers of Fitzgerald’s authority to investigate the unauthorized disclosure of Plame’s employment with the CIA.
Fitzgerald is authorized to investigate the disclosure under any law relating to this, not only the IIPC. Narrowing as Boot has the subject of the pertinent laws with respect to this investigation only to the IIPC is fallacious. It is nothing more than a cheap trick to demand the application of the terms of a law that is difficult to enforce in effort to avoid legal retribution. The Special Counsel is not under any such mandate to do so.
The federal courts, in granting the grand jury authority to jail Miller did not decide their cases upon the requirements of the IIPC but on broader legal issues. When one says that the courts did not address the issue of Plame’s covert status according to IIPC guidelines, who said that they did or had to?They rejected the amicus brief claim that Plame was not covert and for the intents of the broader terms of the investigation the courts have decided that her status was classified and covert.
The amicus brief filed by Victoria Toewnsling on behalf of Miller attempted directly to short circuit the investigation by forcing the courts to apply the guidelines of the IIPC on the covert status of spies to the investigatory powers of Fitzgerald and the grand jury. This was merely a ploy to force the courts to apply the strictest guidelines to Plame’s covert status at CIA.
The courts rejected this ploy, and Fitzgerald stated that in the indictment of Libby. The laws pertinent to his mission include statutes other than the IIPC on national security matters.
Espionage Act of 1917
Title 18, Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, 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, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, 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, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or
control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, 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, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer –
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.
(h)(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall
forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of
State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds
the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign
government, or any faction or party or military or naval force
within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the
United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes
of this subsection, the term ”State” includes a State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a
conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the
defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p)
of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)-(p)) shall
apply to –
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
(C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to
such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts
from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining
after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by
law.
The Reagan Administration used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute Samuel Morrison in 1984, and there Morrison merely leaked photos of the Soviet Union’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that even if a leak might be prompted by “the most laudable motives, or any motive at all,” and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.
Title 18, section 371:
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
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.
Fitzgerald has already mentioned that there was a concerted effort to reveal Plame’s classified employment to the media.
What counts as “fraud” under the statute? Simply put, “any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.” Would telephoning or meeting with reporters to reveal a covert CIA asset whose identity would be compromised fit this description? Highly likely.
Title 18 Section 641.
Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his
use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or
disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the
United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any
property made or being made under contract for the United States or
any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to
convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled,
stolen, purloined or converted –
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed
the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than one year, or both.
The word ”value” means face, par, or market value, or cost
price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent
Most relevant for this situation, Jonathan Randel’s indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641
This law prohibits theft (or conversion for one’s own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it was used in the Randel case to cover just such leaks.
Libby, et. al. may be able to claim that they did not know they were leaking “classified information” about a “covert agent,” but there can be no question they did not understand that what they were leaking was “sensitive information.” The fact is Karl Rove called it “double super secret background” when describing it to Matt Cooper and suggests clearly that Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (that by definition is sensitive).
The District Court Judge’s statement to Jonathan Randel, who was imprisoned for two years because of being found guilty under this statute: “Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country,” the judge observed. The judge concluded the leak of sensitive information was “a very serious crime.”
The risk posed by the information Libby and Rove leaked is multiplied many times over. It occurred at a time when the nation was at war over weapons of mass destruction. And Libby and Rove were risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert in Valerie Plame.
The accusations that Wilson lied were made by only three senators on the SSCI in an “additional view” appendix of the SSCI report, All nine Democtaic Senators and six of the nine Republican Senators refused to sign that appendix signed by Roberts, Bond and Hatch; party hacks all.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-
301/roberts.pdf
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
Wilson rebutted with verficiation these charges in several places.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index_np.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56501-2004Jul16.html