CIPA Fun, One

by emptywheel

So Jeff Lomonaco and I were trying to figure out the best place for us to meet face to face after having emailed obsessively on the Plame case for two years. We thought of the best place to meet: at Prettyman Courthouse so we could read through the CIPA filings submitted last year in the case. This post will lay out some general items of interest. In a follow-up later this weekend (or maybe Monday), I'm going to talk about how the CIPA materials support the argument that Dick Cheney was trying to launder the information he had learned on June 10, 2003--information on DOD and State's interest in the Niger intelligence, and information on Valerie Plame's identity--so he could publish it. But first the general points.

Dorn Tidbits
Marilyn Dorn from the CIA wrote several statements over the course of the CIPA process describing the information that CIA needed to protect. In one of those, she provides the answer to a question bandied about for some time: whether the CIA did a damage assessment or not on the Plame leak. Dorn writes:

The CIA has not undertaken a “damage assessment” in this case. In accordance with its standard policy, the CIA does not conduct a formal damage assessment to determine the actual damage to national security caused by an unauthorized disclosure while a criminal investigation or production of the matter is pending.

In other words, CIA didn't do an assessment, but that doesn't mean there was no damage. Rather, they simply didn't do an assessment because they don't, when there is a criminal investigation pending.

But Dorn does provide the following details, none of which are surprising, but describe some of the damage:

The CIA disestablished certain entities that had provided cover support to Ms. Wilson, such as providing cover backstopping. These cover entities also provided cover support to other CIA personnel. These CIA personnel were notified of the potential compromise of their identities and were moved to other cover entities. The CIA notified cover providers whose clandestine relationships with the CIA were potentially compromised by the Wilson leak.

 

In other words, when Novak good and burned Brewster and Jennings in Fall 2003, a bunch of people had to get new cover.

Dorn also explained that CIA could not reveal either pseudonyms or cryptonyms used by CIA agents.

One CIA intelligence method that is relevant to the present case is the use of pseudonyms, which are employed in internal communications, including e-mail, to protect the identity of certain CIA employees. The CIA has redacted pseudonyms from the responsive documents to protect this important intelligence method from disclosure and compromise.

Not a surprise, really. But it provides one explanation why Ted Wells called Plame "the wife" for so long. Unfortunately, that means the CIA won't let us find out whether the Valerie Flame that Novak and Judy Miller used is another name Valerie Wilson used.

Interestingly, Dorn was inconsistent about how many names the CIA would redact. In her first mention, she described three agents whose psuedonyms she would redact.

We also seek to substitute the true names of three individuals for the classified pseudonyms and cryptonyms redacted from several documents provided to the defense.

But later, Dorn describes two individuals the CIA would substitute (though I should go back and check this--maybe these two are two she wanted to redact entirely).

Two of these people may be the two JTFI people whom Grenier called for information on Valerie and the Niger trip. The third may well be Valerie.

And if there's any question, still, whether Valerie was covert, one could read through the extensive discussion in the CIPA filings to see what could be discussed. But this little bit would provide a little hint:

I also discussed certain classified cover issues relating specifically to Ms. Wilson’s covert status at the CIA.

Hmm. You think maybe if the cover issues relating to Valerie's status remain classified, her status itself should have remained classified, too?

And finally, I'll leave you this tidbit as a teaser for the next post. Here's something the government describes redacting:

Certain redactions relate to what appear to be requests made by the Vice President of the intelligence community. … The redacted information in those documents relates to a tasking originating from the Office of the Vice President…

As we'll see in the next post, OVP was looking for information quite aggressively in June 2003. You know--the information they subsequently claimed they didn't know.

 

Comments

[Frank Probst]

I've always thought that the whole "damage assessment" story was just absurd. The CIA may not have done a formal "damage assessment", but they sure as hell assessed the damage. And they immediately to action to get people out of harm's way. The fact that they aren't going to fill out the formal paperwork until Dick Cheney is dead and buried doesn't mean that there wasn't a big scramble at Langley when Novak's column came out.

[Ishmael]

EW - tantalizing post! Re the "Valerie Flame" name - it seems dubious to me that this would be a CIA pseudonym for Valerie Wilson - my pet theory on the "Valerie Flame" note by Judith Miller was that Scooter said "Flame" instead of "Plame" to provide some cover to Scooter having heard the name elsewhere from other reporters instead of actually getting the real stuff from Cheney - sort of like the Telegraph party game. You may appreciate this as an EngLit type, but sometimes I get so into the weeds on this stuff that I actually thought of the the old "p" to "f" sound shift from Grimm's Law, if I recall correctly from my linguistics courses. :)

[Ishmael]

OT for a lazy Friday afternoon - the picture of you and JL at the Prettyman Courthouse going through filings, I couldn't help but think of the iconic scene in All the President's Men where Woodstein are in the Library of Congress reading room, and the camera pans upward to show all the concentric circles around them as they see how big this Watergate stuff really is.... I can't wait to see who plays you in the movie, Marcy! :)

[emptywheel]

LOL, Ishmael

It was really really pathetic, honestly (though I'm not saying Woodward and Bernstein haven't looked pathetic from time to time). We were like crack addicts in there, going over the filings. "Hey look at this!!" "Hey, here's something!!"

[Frank Probst]

Didn't Fitz have to file a response to Team Libby today?

[Ishmael]

EW - having spent many afternoons at courthouses prior to trials, going through files that can fill whole rooms, I can certainly sympathize with you! I always found it helpful to be unfailingly courteous to the registry staff, because they can make your life a living hell if they don't like you - "Oh, that file is in the judge's office", or "Sorry, the index is off-line" or "the photocopier is out of order". Regular gifts of coffee and donuts to the staff were very helpful!

[nolo]

frank -- in fact, it is due today,
but it looks as though pacer, in
texas, images the local (d.c.)
servers around one a.m. on every
[business?] morning, so if fitz filed
near the 4:30 p.m. filing cut-off
time this afternoon, we won't see
it imaged onto the main pacer server
until around one a.m. fri-night/sat-morn. . .

and i just checked -- no updated
docket yet. if you want to follow
along, the case is docketed as 07-3068
in the appellate court; 05-394 in judge
walton's trial court. . .

can you tell i am all-a-buzz, waiting?

i am. p e a c e

[big brother]

To Probst I think playing Libby's role down with a linguistic twist may be out of character for he seems more deliberate and would be direct in his outing making the nescesity for obstruction, not being a very forward seeing group, that this would nevr get where it has gotten. They are guilty as sin. Our job is to prove it. EW is on it like feathers on a wing moving fast. i can't wait fotr the next post. Wish I could help but thank you all supporters of the rule of law.

[nolo]

. . .how the CIPA materials support the argument that Dick Cheney was trying to launder the information he had learned on June 10, 2003 -- information on DOD and State's interest in the Niger intelligence, and information on Valerie Plame's identity -- so he could publish it. . .

you KNOW i'll be waiting for this
one -- and linking it immediately
into my little 'lecton-shanty-by-
the-saragosa-sea. . .

he he!

great teaser here EW. . .

[emptywheel]

I'm working on Fitz' filing--should have something up in about 1/2 hour.

[Outahere]

The devil's in the details.

[P J Evans]

Ishmael

That sounds like genealogists and county clerks. (Be nice to them, and they'll let you look at the stuff in the back room.)

[mk]

And it's interesting, via Froomkin, I think, that Cheney's refusal to allow National Archives to vet his use of classified materials dates from 2003.
All roads lead to Dick, indeed.
Missed your posts, but I didn't need to worry -- you were still on the case, emptywheel! Look forward to more soon.

[nolo]

Docket as of June 22, 2007 1:05 am Page 2

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

07-3068 USA v. Libby, I. Lewis

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

I. Lewis Libby

Defendant - Appellant

Docket as of June 22, 2007 1:05 am Page 3

you.are.killin'.me.here.EW.

can't see fitzs' filing yet
at the federal court of appeals
for the d.c. circuit, via
ye' olde PACER, yet -- thus the above.

arrrgh. i.will.wait.

[Mimikatz]

I think the pseudonyms are things like Curveball rather than just altering one letter, but then I'll freely admit my entire knowledge of tradecraft comes from spy novels.

All roads do lead to Cheney. He's ripe for a Big Time expose.

[Swopa]

I think the pseudonyms are things like Curveball rather than just altering one letter...

You'd certainly hope so. But ya never know.

[earlofhuntingdon]

I have to agree with the comment that CIA may not have done a "damage assessment" as bureaucratically defined, but should certainly have done a field assessment: extracting some resources, re-assigning others, letting or being unable to prevent others from taking the fall, etc. Everything from people to telephones, web addresses, data bases, car and company registrations, drops, you name it. To have failed to do so would have been criminally negiligent and plain stupid.

They have a ballpark figure on the direct and indirect damage caused by leaking Plame's background, but won't tally it up so that they don't have to hide it from Big Dick and his moles.

[pow wow]

Awesome initiative, emptywheel and Jeff! Good going. [I took the post at first to say that you were thinking of doing this sometime in the future, before it dawned on me that you've already been down there in the Prettyman trenches combing through the formerly-sealed stuff, including this Dorn material that is not otherwise available on-line.]

There would have been a good deal more to access, if Libby had taken the stand and the rest of the CIPA-released material had gone into evidence. As it was, the Intelligence Community only "provisionally declassified" a large part of the material in order to get through CIPA (and past graymail), and thus much of that material was subsequently withdrawn back into classified, redacted land post-trial, after Libby chose not to testify and as a result much of the painstakingly-developed, provisionally-declassified CIPA material relating to Libby's allegedly otherwise-"consumed" state of mind wasn't admitted into evidence at trial (so filings and hearing transcripts discussing those specifics would remain redacted as well).

The Dorn CIA material referenced here sounds like part of one or more of the multiple CIPA Section 6(c) Intelligence Community declarations to the Court that justified and explained the need, in accordance with the government's motion(s), for summaries, substitutions and redactions of ruled-relevant classified information. The government had to labor to walk Judge Walton back from admitting a lot of classified evidence wholesale as he seemed to be inclined to do after his extremely-deferential-to-Libby Section 6(a) ruling (before which Dorn also made at least one declaration). It was on top of, and in accordance with, the last of those Dorn/IC CIPA 6(c) declarations that Fitzgerald attached his 12/7/06 CIPA 6(c)(2) affidavit that Robbins is now claiming to be of such grave import as to be reversible error to the benefit of Libby (not to mention to the benefit of Libby's fellow graymail-privileged defendants who would be similarly protected by the small, cozy handful of CIPA-authorized 'interest-conflicted' affidavit signers at the top of Main Justice).

[jane hamsher]

What, no pictures?

[MayBee]

One CIA intelligence method that is relevant to the present case is the use of pseudonyms, which are employed in internal communications, including e-mail, to protect the identity of certain CIA employees

Did she use a pseudonym in her internal emails about her husband Joe going to Niger?
If she did travel under a pseudonym, publishing her real name couldn't have been very hurtful. In that case, publishing her picture would cause the damage.
"Flame" sounds to me like it came from a phone conversation, rather than a face-to-face meeting (where you can see lip formation) or a reading of a name. OTOH, Fleischer's Plam-ay sounds like a reading of the name.

[emptywheel]

Sorry Jane--it's a courthouse, after all. So no pictures. But you can well imagine, it was almost as pathetic as two furniture junkies getting a fix.

[Jeff]

It was really really pathetic

What?!?! I saw concentric circles in the drop-ceiling four feet or so above our heads. And for the record, when the pictures are revealed, I'm the Bernstein-looking guy.

If she did travel under a pseudonym, publishing her real name couldn't have been very hurtful. In that case, publishing her picture would cause the damage.

Wow, this is a stretch. Let's imagine for the moment that she traveled under a pseudonym only throughout her career. You don't think publishing the information that she was married to Joe Wilson would have been a problem. You think everyone would have to wait around for Vanity Fair to publish a picture?

Furthermore, your own logic in the service of getting the Wilsons for something or other comes back to bite you. Because according to your logic, wouldn't Novak's publication, in October 2003, of one of the firms she used as a front - Brewster-Jennings - be really bad in light of your claim? And indeed, wouldn't it be bad in any case for any of the other CIA officers using it as any kind of cover?

Let's note in passing that Novak did not publish her real name. Her real name was Valerie Wilson. He published Valerie Plame.

But in any case, I think it's worse than you imagined. As the unclassified summary of her work and cover history indicated, she sometimes worked overseas in true name and sometimes in alias. (Always under cover.)

[Jeff]

it was almost as pathetic as two furniture junkies getting a fix.

Dude, what's with all the abuse this evening? Pathetic this, pathetic that. And I notice a common denominator here in your various axes of patheticness.

[MayBee]

Wow, this is a stretch. Let's imagine for the moment that she traveled under a pseudonym only throughout her career. You don't think publishing the information that she was married to Joe Wilson would have been a problem. You think everyone would have to wait around for Vanity Fair to publish a picture?

It was Joe Wilson that first published she was married to Joe Wilson. So if that's the problem then yes, as soon as he attached himself publicly to CIA work and her name was attached to his- anybody checking out the latest CIA guy would have found her as well. Then suddenly there's the name of a woman that's traveled to your country to discuss aluminum tubes? That does seem to me to be a bit of a tell, yes.

Furthermore, your own logic in the service of getting the Wilsons for something or other comes back to bite you. Because according to your logic, wouldn't Novak's publication, in October 2003, of one of the firms she used as a front - Brewster-Jennings - be really bad in light of your claim? And indeed, wouldn't it be bad in any case for any of the other CIA officers using it as any kind of cover?

Again, she published the Brewster Jennings information herself. I have no idea how bad the release of that name actually is, because it's hard to know exactly how it was used. Subsequent reports showed that it was easy to find to be a fraud, and that NOCs are supposed to have *real* companies as cover.
If an employee for Columbia University is outed as a NOC, nobody suspects all of Columbia University to be a CIA front company.

If she's traveling under a fake name, then I think attaching the real name of Valerie Plame to her fake company was a problem as well.

But in any case, I think it's worse than you imagined. As the unclassified summary of her work and cover history indicated, she sometimes worked overseas in true name and sometimes in alias. (Always under cover.)

The idea that the CIA thinks it's good trade craft to sometimes work overseas (yet in the same field) under her real name and sometimes under a fake name is indeed worse than I thought.

[P J Evans]

The idea that the CIA thinks it's good trade craft to sometimes work overseas (yet in the same field) under her real name and sometimes under a fake name is indeed worse than I thought.

If she isn't meeting the same set of people every time, it might not be a problem at all.

You might also want to consider that no one outside the agency would have known which name was real and which was a pseudonym, if Libby and his good buddies in Washington hadn't spilled the beans.