http://www.slate.com/id/2158157/entry/2158492/

He says Ari did not tell him that Wilson’s wife worked at CIA and that he learned it from Matt Cooper later in the day. Reputedly Matt learned it from Karl Rove–this would fit nicely into the Libby contention that he is being set up…or not.

In any case, I think that Dickerson will be called by the defense since he has come up in testimony and may be able to bolster the defenses theory that Libby is being setup…which doesn’t, however, explain why memory lapse was the earlier defense…oops.

Interesting how Jeffress asked Ari is ‘one other person was in ‘ear shot’ of Bartlett’s venting instead of asking, was ‘one other person “there” (Bush) Ari can’t attest to the former but probably could to the latter.

Yes, exactly who was sitting in the cabin within earshot of Bartlett’s shout?

Bush, Rice (who then goes and says to reporters that they should look into who sent Wilson), and others?

Sparkles the Iguana @ 118

Re the CPD (operatives) vs. WINPAC (analysts) distinction:

At some point this will have to be explained to the jury, IMO, because Judy Miller’s notes from her date(s) with Libby say that Libby told her Plame worked for WINPAC:

In her account, Miller made clear that while she could not recall if Libby had ever identified Wilson’s wife by name, he did in fact tell her in a two-hour breakfast meeting on July 8, 2003—six days before columnist Novak disclosed to the world Plame’s name and her role as an operative at the agency—that Wilson’s wife worked at WINPAC, which stands for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control, a CIA unit that tracks unconventional weapons. Miller testified that she assumed that meant Wilson’s wife worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.

http://www.time.com/time/magaz…..13,00.html

Is WINPAC subsumed by CPD?

No, very different animals. On occassion the CPD (which is in the Directorate of Operations) will acquire FIELD INTELLIGENCE that would be passed on in reports to WINPAC.

But the Directorate of Intelligence is not involved in Field Collection of Intelligence. They evaluate it, integrate it with other data, and make judgments regarding validity.
THEY ARE ANALYTICAL.

The Directorate of Operations are th “spooks”…those that make contact with sources in the field, spy, or are involved in operations that interrupt or infiltrate the activities of “bad guys”.

The COUNTER-Proliferation Division would be involved in gathering the raw information on WMD’s, particularly as they relate to the spread of nukes, biological and chemical weaponry to rogue nations and terrorists. They would also be involved in Operations to stop the flow of materials or information to these groups, working sometimes with other Operations groups of allied foreign powers.

The interception of the boat of centrifuge and other highly tooled machine parts from Malaysia, via Pakistan, to Libya was a CPD operation.

The two Divisions may interact, usually by meetings or at the behest of the Director CIA or other Sr. CIA Officers. For example, after Cheney told his CIA briefer that the CIA needed to look further into the reports of 500 tons of yellowcake that were rumored to have been sold by Niger to Iraq, the briefer requested that the CPD and WINPAC provide more specific info. that might verify this. Both Divisions thought that the agency could obtain more info. if the Agency sent someone with contacts in govt at the time of the reported “deal”.

Here is where I get a bit confused, though. I think that in WINPAC there are non-CIA analysts as well. There are folks in it from the INR (State Department Intelligence)…so it’s somewhat of a multi-agency group.

Someone in the CPD requested that Plame approach her husband to undertake a mission similar to one he had done in 1999, where he was sent to Niger to investigate another rumor that IRANIAN officials had contacted Nigerien Gov’t Officials about obtaining “yellowcake”. On that occassion Wilson actually established an actual contact. In addition he discovered that PAKISTAN had also approached Niger about smuggling in Uranium. So apparently, Wilson, and his sources had some level of credibility with people in the CPD and CIA analysts in WINPAC.

Wilson was escorted to his “meeting” by Plame (who didn’t stick around…but a second-hand INR report said she “convened” the meeting). There seems to have been some fairly Senior folks in the Directorate of Operations, there, such as the head of Africa Operations, perhaps McLaughlin, and several WINSPAC representatives.

At Wilson’s briefing/interview there was debate and discussion about the benefit of the mission with the INR folks in WINPAC stating that Wilson’s trip would be redundant (with what the State Department could already find out from Nigerien officials), and because the Nigeriens would likely be unlikely to reveal information if they were themselves involved, or conversely would want to curry favor with the US and say what they felt the US Administration might want to hear.

Basically it was agreed that Wilson would go, and meet his contacts from PREVIOUS NIGERIEN GOVERNMENTS, but only (at Wilson’s request…obviously a man unwilling to step on diplomats toes) if the US Ambassador in Niger agreed.

So while WINSPAC interacts with the CPD the latter is by no stretch of the imagination a subordinate to the analytical wing. The CPD is very much under the auspices of the Directorate of Operations.

BTW Given that Plame was the one to actually INITIATE the first mission by he husband back in 1999, some have speculated that means that she was either involved in CPD interdiction or intelligence gathering in either IRAN or PAKISTAN.

J The first newspaper story that came out with her name in it was Novak’s column. It had had her name as Plame. If you had read that, it would be natural you might mispronounce. Some might pronounce Plamay and some Plame?

Wild speculation, but I wonder if that’s the reason why Judy Miller’s notes had ‘Valerie Flame’: ‘Plame as in flame’, not ‘Plam� as in… um, Plam-ay’?

I’m only at 107 so far, but the most logical conclusion to draw from the mispronunciation “Plamay” is that he heard someone pronounce it like that. But, who? Someone oughta ask him.

Bob in HI

Rich at 18 — Because Judge Walton already ruled on pretrial motions that Valerie Plame Wilson’s status is not relevent to the charges for which Libby was indicted — obstruction, false statements, and perjury. Its outside the scope of the charges. But having it come out of the mouth of the witness unasked, it’s going tobe hard for the jury to put that fact out of their minds — especially piggybacked onto the testimony that Craig Schmalls (the CIA briefer) gave on what he told both Libby and Cheney about the detrimental effects that outing a covert agent could have on that agent, her network and the assets that agent was running in the field.

As Walton said the statement can only go to the state of mind of this witness (and I imagine others). It might seem to a juror that if Fleisher drew the conclusion that Plame was “covert” that others with even more information may have had reason to CONCEAL their leak or (rather than ask for immunity) obstruct the search for justice.

As they always say in those TV dramas…”Goes to motive, yer honor!”

But I can also see that Ari’s testimony might raise issues as to whether it might be reasonably construed that those who were aware of Plame’s status in the Counter-Proliferation Division (i.e. those more familiar with National Security issues) would reasonably have inferred that Plame was COVERT or in a highly protected classified status.

Here’s a quote for the pigology, one that sadly references the spirit of politics:

“Never try to teach a pig to sing. You waste your time and you annoy the pig.”

But in this case the “pig in the poke” has been taught to sing! :-)

Amazing what those Irish accordion players can do!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 31

Rich at 18 — Because Judge Walton already ruled on pretrial motions that Valerie Plame Wilson’s status is not relevent to the charges for which Libby was indicted — obstruction, false statements, and perjury. Its outside the scope of the charges. But having it come out of the mouth of the witness unasked, it’s going tobe hard for the jury to put that fact out of their minds..

That’s the point, isn’t it? They all can dance around the issue – but don’t you think the jurors are going to want to know about this? Isn’t it the Elephant in the room, no matter what the judge says? This information is out there – even if they don’t allow any witnesses to talk about it.

Could defense use this as grounds for a mistrial?

Bob in HI

Richmond @ 106

Dammit – edit

If you’re impying that Richmond is a troll, you’re mistaken. If you’re not, then *I’m* mistaken.

not at all implying that Richmond is a troll. sorry if I offended. I am learning so much here (thank you to all!) that I worry that others are too. There is no precedent for this type of thing … I guess I’m just a worrier.

See what happens when you put ‘em under oath.
Cheney, Rove, and Novak next, please.