text:
Back by popular demand, do not miss this season Daybreak Windbreakers!
82 Gm 100% polyester fabric with interior water resistant coating
Waterproof Pressure Resistance: 600 mm
matte finish eyelets and zippers
#4 zipper with zipper pull & rubber zipper pull tab
fine mesh hood liner
three panel hood
tightening toggle at waistband
elastic cuffs
Sold Out
Old Glory. Honor the country you love in the all new Old Glory t-shirt design. 7.0 oz., 55/45 cotton/polyesterSplit-stitch double-needle sewing throughoutView full product details
"Fight the good fight of faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called and about which you made the good confession...View full product details
Foundations. America was set upon the foundations of Faith, Family, and Freedom. Now you can celebrate these foundations in our all new foundations design! 6.5...View full product details


text:
This page can be viewed at http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a093003johnsonrosenstiel
This is a scalable context timeline. It contains events related to the event September 30, 2003: Plame Wilson Again Confirmed as Covert Agent; Reporter Says Novak Acted as Instrument of 'Republican Revenge' in Outing Her. You can narrow or broaden the context of this timeline by adjusting the zoom level. The lower the scale, the more relevant the items on average will be, while the higher the scale, the less relevant the items, on average, will be.
Valerie Plame, a young CIA case officer working in the Europe Division at the agency's Directorate of Operations following a tour in Greece (see Fall 1985 and Fall 1989), decides on a risky career move—becoming a NOC, or Nonofficial Covered Officer. As reporter Laura Rozen will later explain: "Becoming a NOC would require Plame to erase all visible connections to the US government, while, with the help of the agency's Office of Central Cover, developing and inhabiting a plausible new private sector career and professional identity that would serve as useful cover for her to meet and develop potential sources of intelligence value to the agency without revealing herself as an agent of the US government. It also meant giving up the protection of diplomatic status should her covert activities be discovered." "A NOC has no overt affiliation with the US government," Plame will later write. "If he was caught, the United States would deny any connection." The CIA accepts her as a NOC candidate, and in order to distance herself from her former association with her former "cover" career as a junior State Department officer in Athens, Plame begins pursuing double graduate degrees in international affairs and European studies. She studies at both the London School of Economics and at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, where the entire curriculum is taught in French. By 1996 she is ensconced in an apartment in Brussels, where she begins a "career" as an energy executive and secret NOC. She has a far wider range of potential contacts within the corporate world as an apparent private citizen, and her new assignment introduces her to the world of weapons proliferation, WMD, counternarcotics, economic intelligence, technological developments, and counterterrorism. (Wilson 2007, pp. 332-333)
Bill Harlow, a CIA spokesman, has a conversation with conservative columnist Robert Novak regarding Novak's plans to reveal the CIA status of Valerie Plame Wilson in a forthcoming column (see July 14, 2003). Novak has learned of Plame Wilson's identity from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage (see July 8, 2003), and has already spoken to White House political strategist Karl Rove (see July 8 or 9, 2003). Harlow will testify about his conversation with Rove to the grand jury investigating the Plame Wilson leak in 2004. In speaking with Novak, Harlow warns as strongly as he can without revealing classified information (i.e. Plame Wilson's covert status) that Plame Wilson did not authorize her husband's mission to Niger (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002) and Novak should not reveal her name or CIA identity. After their conversation ends, Harlow checks with other CIA officials, and confirms that Plame Wilson is an undercover operative. He then calls Novak back and reiterates that her name should not be used (see Before July 14, 2003). Harlow does not tell Novak that Plame Wilson is an undercover operative, because that information is classified. Novak will ignore Harlow's warnings and reveal Plame Wilson's name in his July 14 column. In an October 2003 column, he will minimize Harlow's warnings, writing that an unidentified CIA official (Harlow) "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that [she] or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name" (see October 1, 2003). (Pincus and VandeHei 7/27/2005)
Government officials, most likely with the CIA, ask conservative columnist Robert Novak not to publish the name of covert agency official Valerie Plame Wilson in an upcoming column (see July 14, 2003). Two government officials will testify in February 2004 that they made the request (see February 2004). The officials warn Novak that by publishing her name and CIA affiliation, he risks jeopardizing her ability to engage in covert work, damaging ongoing intelligence operations, and risking sensitive overseas intelligence assets. According to the officials, Novak is told that Plame Wilson's work for the CIA "went much further than her being an analyst," and that publishing her name would be "hurtful," could stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize her overseas sources. (Waas 2/12/2004) One of the officials will later be identified as CIA spokesman Bill Harlow. (McClellan 2008, pp. 173-174) Plame Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson, will later write: "Lamely attempting to shirk responsibility, Novak [will claim] that the CIA no 'was a soft no, not a hard no.' On the wings of that ludicrous defense, he soared to new heights of journalistic irresponsibility." (Wilson 2004, pp. 347)
Conservative columnist Robert Novak, after being told by Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and White House political guru Karl Rove that Valerie Plame Wilson is a CIA officer (see July 8, 2003), writes a syndicated op-ed column that publicly names her as a CIA officer. The column is an attempt to defend the administration from charges that it deliberately cited forged documents as "evidence" that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from Niger (see July 6, 2003). It is also an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson, Plame Wilson's husband, who had gone to Niger at the behest of the CIA to find out whether the Iraq-Niger story was true (see 11:00 a.m. July 11, 2003). Novak characterizes Wilson's findings—that an Iraqi deal for Nigerien uranium was highly unlikely—as "less than definitive," and writes that neither CIA Director George Tenet nor President Bush were aware of Wilson's report before the president's 2003 State of the Union address where he stated that Iraq had indeed tried to purchase uranium from Niger (see 9:01 pm January 28, 2003). Novak writes: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials [Armitage and Rove, though Novak does not name them] told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me." Wilson's July 6 op-ed challenging the administration's claims (see July 6, 2003) "ignite[d] the firestorm," Novak writes. (Novak 7/14/2003; Unger 2007, pp. 312-313) Novak also uses the intelligence term "agency operative," identifying her as a covert agent and indicating that he is aware of her covert status. Later, though, Novak will claim that he came up with the identifying phrase independently, and did not know of her covert status. (Waas 7/19/2005)
Asked Not to Print Plame Wilson's Name - Novak will later acknowledge being asked by a CIA official not to print Plame Wilson's name "for security reasons." Intelligence officials will say they thought Novak understood there were larger reasons than Plame Wilson's personal security not to publish her name. Novak will say that he did not consider the request strong enough to follow (see September 27, 2003 and October 1, 2003). (Allen and Priest 9/28/2003) He will later reveal the CIA official as being agency spokesman Bill Harlow, who asked him not to reveal Plame's identity because while "she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment… exposure of her agency identity might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad." In 2008, current White House press secretary Scott McClellan will write: "This struck Novak as an inadequate reason to withhold relevant information from the public. Novak defended his actions by asserting that Harlow had not suggested that Plame or anybody else would be endangered, and that he learned Plame's name (though not her undercover identity) from her husband's entry in the well-known reference book Who's Who in America." (McClellan 2008, pp. 173-174) McClellan will note, "Whether war, smear job, or PR offensive gone haywire, the CIA took the leak of Plame's name very seriously." (McClellan 2008, pp. 174)
Plame Wilson Stricken - According to Wilson's book The Politics of Truth, his wife's first reaction is disbelief at Novak's casual destruction of her CIA career. "Twenty years of loyal service down the drain, and for what?" she asks. She then makes a checklist to begin assessing and controlling the damage done to her work. She is even more appalled after totalling up the damage. Not only are the lives of herself and her family now endangered, but so are those of the people with whom she has worked for 20 years (see July 14, 2003). (Dean 5/12/2004) In 2005, Joseph Wilson will tell a reporter: "[Y]ou can assume that even if 150 people read the Novak article when it appeared, 148 of them would have been the heads of intelligence sections at embassies here in Washington and by noon that day they would have faxing her name or telexing her name back to their home offices and running checks on her: whether she had ever been in the country, who she may have been in contact with, etc." (Alexandrovna 7/13/2005)
Intimidation of Other Whistle-Blowers? - In 2007, author Craig Unger will write: "The implication from the administration was that the CIA's selection of Wilson was somehow twisted because his wife was at the CIA. But, more importantly, the administration had put out a message to any and all potential whistle-blowers: if you dare speak out, we will strike back. To that end, the cover of Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA operative specializing in WMD, had been blown by a White House that was supposedly orchestrating a worldwide war against terror." (Unger 2007, pp. 312-313)
Outing about Iraq, Not Niger, Author Says - In 2006, author and media critic Frank Rich will write: "The leak case was about Iraq, not Niger. The political stakes were high only because the scandal was about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a CIA operative who posed for Vanity Fair. The real victims were the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprits—the big enchilada, in John Ehrlichman's Nixon White House lingo—were not the leakers but those who provoked a war in Iraq for their own motives and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from the fight against those who did attack America on 9/11, and had since regrouped to deadly effect.… Without Iraq, there never would have been a smear campaign against an obscure diplomat or the bungled cover-up [that followed]. While the Bush White House's dirty tricks, like [former President] Nixon's, were prompted in part by a ruthless desire to crush the political competition at any cost, this administration had upped the ante by playing dirty tricks with war." (Rich 2006, pp. 184)
Elevating Profile of Controversy - In 2008, McClellan will write, "By revealing Plame's status, Novak inadvertently elevated the Niger controversy into a full-blown scandal." (McClellan 2008, pp. 173)
Newsday reports on the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson by a news columnist based on information leaked by two administration sources (see July 14, 2003). In an article titled "Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover," reporters Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce note that CIA officials confirm that Plame Wilson "works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity—at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak." (Phelps and Royce 7/22/2003) It will later be determined that Royce and Phelps's source is probably a single official, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow (see 5:25 p.m. June 10, 2003, 5:27 p.m. June 11, 2003, (July 11, 2003), and Before July 14, 2003). (United States District Court for the District of Columbia 9/27/2004 ) Shortly thereafter, other reporters learn that Plame Wilson was not only an undercover agent, but had what is known as NOC—"nonofficial cover" status (see Fall 1992 - 1996). NOC agents usually operate overseas, often using false identities and job descriptions. NOCs do not have diplomatic protection and thusly are vulnerable to capture, imprisonment, and even murder without official reprisals or even acknowledgement from the US. Vanity Fair reporter Vicky Ward will write in January 2004: "A NOC's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of this vulnerability, a NOC's identity is considered within the CIA to be, as former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, 'the holiest of holies.'" (Ward 1/2004) Plame Wilson's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, refuses to confirm his wife's covert CIA status, but says that her outing is part of a concerted effort to attack critics of the administration's intelligence failures (see July 21, 2003). Wilson recently revealed that the administration's claims that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger were false (see July 6, 2003). Current and former CIA officials are outraged at Novak's column, and the apparent leak from the administration. Former CIA Near East division chief Frank Anderson says, "When it gets to the point of an administration official acting to do career damage, and possibly actually endanger someone, that's mean, that's petty, it's irresponsible, and it ought to be sanctioned." A current intelligence official says that blowing Plame Wilson's cover puts everyone she ever dealt with as an undercover CIA operative at risk. Her husband agrees: "If what the two senior administration officials said is true, they will have compromised an entire career of networks, relationships, and operations." Furthermore, if true, "this White House has taken an asset out of the" weapons of mass destruction fight, "not to mention putting at risk any contacts she might have had where the services are hostile." (Phelps and Royce 7/22/2003) In 2007, Plame Wilson will reflect: "Not only was it very rare for the agency to validate that an officer was undercover, no matter what the circumstances, but no one from the agency had told me that my undercover status would be confirmed. It would have been nice to at least get a heads-up from someone at work." (Wilson 2007, pp. 147)
Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador to Gabon who has played a key part in discrediting the Bush administration's attempts to claim that Iraq tried to purchase weapons-grade uranium from Niger (see July 6, 2003)), is interviewed for the PBS Frontline episode, "Truth, Consequences, and War." The interview will be broadcast in early October 2003.
Trip to Niger - Wilson confirms that the CIA sent him to Niger in February 2002 to find evidence either supporting or challenging claims that Iraq tried to purchase weapons-grade uranium from that nation (see Shortly after February 13, 2002 and February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002). Wilson notes that the CIA officials who sent him to Iraq "said that the Office of the Vice President had raised questions about this report, and they'd asked them to look into it" (see (February 13, 2002)), but he personally had no contact with anyone in that office.
Reactions to Claims of Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal - Wilson recalls being bemused by President Bush's assertion that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from an African country, but accepted the possibility that he was not referring to Niger, but another African nation that also mines and sells uranium (see January 28-29, 2003). Wilson says the issue became a concern to him when the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that the documents used for the Iraq-Niger claims were obvious forgeries (see March 7, 2003), and the State Department admitted to being gulled by them (see March 8, 2003). He says, "Now, when the State Department spokesman said that, I was moved to say on a news program that I thought that if the US government looked into its files, it would find that it had far more information on this particular subject than the State Department spokesman was letting on" (see March 8, 2003). Wilson calls the decision to allow Bush to make the claim in his State of the Union address (see Mid-January 2003 and 9:01 pm January 28, 2003) irresponsible. "You allow the president of the United States to use information that did not even pass the threshold for an Italian news magazine [Panorama—see October 9, 2002]? You allow him to use that information in the most important speech that he makes in his tenure?"
Correcting the Record - Wilson denies that his decision to write an op-ed for the New York Times exposing the falsehood of the White House claims (see July 6, 2003) was political. Instead, he says, it was "a response to what appeared to me to be a series of misstatements on the part of senior administration officials." Wilson notes that the White House had many opportunities to set the record straight without his intervention, but chose not to. He made pleas to the White House through his friends at the State Department and friends of senior administration officials to be honest about the claims (see January 29, 2003 and March 8, 2003). Wilson reiterates his feelings that the Iraq invasion was outside the bounds of the various United Nations resolutions constraining Iraq's behavior, and that Iraq could have been successfully contained by continuing UN efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime. There were no provable links between Iraq and Islamist terrorism, there was no provable imminent threat to the US or the Middle East from Iraq, and allegations that Iraq had committed genocide could have been addressed through the UN's Genocide Convention.
Blowing His Wife's CIA Identity - Wilson concludes by addressing the leak of his wife Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA official (see June 23, 2003, July 7, 2003, 8:30 a.m. July 8, 2003, July 8, 2003, 11:00 a.m. July 11, 2003, 8:00 a.m. July 11, 2003, Late Afternoon, July 12, 2003, 1:26 p.m. July 12, 2003, July 12, 2003, and July 14, 2003), and notes that while he won't confirm that his wife is a CIA official, to publicly expose such an official is a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (see July 16, 2003). It was an attempt to intimidate others, Wilson says: "I think it was a signal to others, that should you decide to come forward, we will do this to your family as well. It was just very sloppy." He adds that if his wife is indeed a CIA official, "if it's a real violation, [it will] cause a lot of pain in our national security apparatus, because at a minimum—the assertions were that she was a CIA operative working in the weapons of mass destruction programs. So if those assertions are true, what this administration has done is they've taken a national security asset involved in a program to which they give high priority, off the table, and to protect whose career? What political objective is so important… that you take a national security asset off—not to shut me up, but to… [shut] others up. That would be the only conclusion I could come to. If you read the story in which this assertion was made, the assertion adds absolutely nothing to the story, nothing. It is not germane, it is not relevant." The interviewer says, "All's fair in love and war," and Wilson responds: "When you're an administration that comes to office on a platform of restoring dignity and honor to the White House, and you act in such a dishonorable and undignified way, then you really do descend to that 'all's fair in love and war' status. I think in that case it's important to point out how duplicitous some in the White House are." (PBS Frontline 10/9/2003)
The Washington Post publishes an article stating that in July, two White House officials had leaked the name and CIA employment status of Valerie Plame Wilson to at least six reporters, and told the reporters that Plame Wilson had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger (see June 23, 2003, July 7, 2003, 8:30 a.m. July 8, 2003, July 8, 2003, 11:00 a.m. July 11, 2003, 8:00 a.m. July 11, 2003, Late Afternoon, July 12, 2003, 1:26 p.m. July 12, 2003, and July 12, 2003). The article is based on a leak of information by a "senior administration official." Such an explosive leak is relatively rare from the Bush administration. Reporters Mike Allen and Dana Priest report, "It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another." Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official says the leaks of Plame Wilson's identity were "[c]learly… meant purely and simply for revenge." The leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish [Joseph] Wilson's credibility." (Allen and Priest 9/28/2003; Leopold 4/14/2006) The "senior administration official" will later be revealed to be State Department official Marc Grossman (see May 29, 2003, June 10, 2003, 12:00 p.m. June 11, 2003, and October 17, 2003). (Leopold 4/14/2006)
'1x2x6' Theory - Author and blogger Marcy Wheeler, covering the Plame Wilson leak and the subsequent perjury trial of Lewis Libby (see October 28, 2005) for the blogs The Next Hurrah and later Firedoglake, later writes that the Allen/Priest report states the "1x2x6 theory" of the leak, in which one anonymous source tells Allen and Priest that two senior White House officials called at least six Washington reporters to discuss Plame Wilson's CIA status. Wheeler will note that one of those Washington reporters, Robert Novak, has denied being the White House's "willing pawn" who leaked Plame Wilson's identity when the other reporters refused (see July 14, 2003, September 29, 2003, and October 1, 2003). Wheeler will write, "Novak's October 1 column was designed to refute the incredibly damaging quotes from the 1x2x6 source that clearly indicated the leak was planned." She will speculate that the single anonymous source for Allen and Priest may be Secretary of State Colin Powell, but she will state that she is by no means sure, and has no proof of her speculation. (Marcy Wheeler 8/29/2006)
Poor Reasoning - Wilson will later write that he is pleased to learn that "there was at least one Bush official who believed the conduct of his colleagues was 'wrong.' I was disappointed to read that he or she evidently judged it so not because it was a betrayal of national security but because it was beside the point and had done nothing to damage my credibility. Would the leak have been okay if it had really impeached my character and sent me skittering into some dungeon reserved for critics of the Bush administration?"
'Smear Campaign' Readied Well before Wilson Published Op-Ed - Wilson muses over the implications of the article. He concludes that if two White House officials had conducted such a large media campaign, "there must have been a meeting to decide on the action to take" (see June 2003). And because of the timing, the officials involved must have had the information on Plame Wilson "well before the appearance of my article on Sunday, July 6" (see July 6, 2003). How did the two officials learn of his wife's status? he wonders. Was there a breach of security? Was the revelation of his wife's identity inadvertent or deliberate? "Whatever the answers to these questions," he will write, "I knew for certain that the initial disclosure of her status, whether deliberate or inadvertent, was the first damaging act, before the calls to all the journalists were placed.… [A] plan to attack me had been formed well before [the publication of his editorial]. It was cocked and ready to fire as soon as I crossed the trip wire and wrote about what I hadn't found in Niger. My [editorial] triggered the attack, but I was not the only target of it. Now my wife was in their sights, as well. What then happened was not a case of the loose lips of an overly ardent junior defender of the administration flapping to one reporter, but an organized smear campaign directed from the highest reaches of the White House. A group of supposed public servants, collecting salaries paid by American taxpayers and charged with defending the national security of the country, had taken it upon itself to attack me by exposing the identity of a member of the CIA's clandestine service, who happened to be my wife. Revenge and intimidation had been deemed more important than America's national security for these co-conspirators." (Wilson 2004, pp. 385-387)
Conservative columnist Robert Novak, who first publicly outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA agent (see July 14, 2003), denies being fed the information of Plame Wilson's identity by White House officials (see June 13, 2003, July 7, 2003, July 8, 2003, and Before July 14, 2003). The subject arose when he was inquiring about her husband's trip to Niger (see July 6, 2003), Novak says. Shortly after the leak, he said of Plame Wilson's identity, "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me" by White House officials (see July 21, 2003). However, Novak's story is now quite different. He says of the outing: "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. When I called the CIA in July, they confirmed Mrs. Wilson's involvement in a mission for her husband on a secondary basis… they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative (see Before July 14, 2003 and February 2004), and not in charge of undercover operatives. So what is the fuss about, pure Bush-bashing?" (Waas 2/12/2004; New York Times 2006; Waas 5/25/2006) The same day that Novak issues his denial, he tells White House political strategist Karl Rove, one of his sources, that he will protect Rove from the Justice Department's investigation into the leak (see September 29, 2003).
PBS hosts a live discussion with former CIA analyst Larry Johnson and journalist Tom Rosenstiel on the exposure of Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA official (see July 14, 2003). Columnist Robert Novak initially told reporters that the White House "gave" him the information about Plame Wilson (see July 21, 2003), but is now claiming that he had to "dig for" that information (see September 29, 2003). Novak also asserts that Plame Wilson was a "mere" CIA analyst and not a covert operative (see Fall 1992 - 1996), and admits that CIA officials asked him not to reveal her identity (see (July 11, 2003) and Before July 14, 2003), though he says they never indicated that doing so would endanger her or anyone else. Johnson says: "To hear Bob Novak parsing words like a Clinton lawyer defining sex is outrageous.… They took the initiative to divulge the CIA officer's name. And that is outrageous."
Confirmation that Plame Wilson Was Undercover - Johnson confirms that Plame Wilson is indeed an undercover CIA official, saying: "Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not, as Bob Novak suggested, a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal."
Novak Did 'a Really Dangerous and Terrible Thing' - Rosenstiel calls Novak's assertion that the CIA didn't warn him of any danger in leaking Plame Wilson's name "weak," and adds: "Bob Novak has done a really dangerous and terrible thing. If you are going to get involved in something like this where you're bumping up against breaking the law, as a journalist you have a civil disobedience test you have to meet. What's the public good of this story? What's the—balanced against what's the danger to the people involved publishing the story. The third part of the test is, is it necessary in telling the story to do this or is there another way to do it, do you need to divulge this person's name, in other words, to convey the information you think is of the public interest? This doesn't meet any one of those three tests. It's not of overriding public interest. Novak may be really just an instrument of Republican revenge here. Whatever the public good is of the story is far overwhelmed by the danger to this woman and her network of operatives. And it's gratuitous. You could have told the story without her name." Johnson adds: "This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted (see August 12, 2003): to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this."
Most Reporters Thought Story 'Lousy - Asked why six reporters were told of Plame Wilson's identity and five chose not to publish it (see September 28, 2003), Rosenstiel says that the five reporters' decision "tells us that the majority of reporters involved thought this was a lousy story." It was "[i]mproper to identify and actually maybe the story itself just didn't rise to the level of being much of a story. Frankly, it's difficult to see how this information discredits Wilson. I can see how it intimidates him but I don't think it necessarily discredits his research into the Niger claim." (Smith 9/30/2003)
Former US Attorney Joseph DiGenova says that it will be almost impossible to prove that the person or persons who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA status to reporters violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The leaker or leakers would have had to have received the information in their official capacity, got the information from someone with official clearance, and done so in defiance of agency efforts to keep the employee's name a secret, DiGenova says. For someone to overhear the name of a covert agent and relate it to someone else is not a violation, he adds. Moreover, he claims that Plame Wilson's CIA status was well known. "A lot of people knew that [Plame Wilson] worked for the CIA," he tells a Fox News reporter. "People outside of the government knew that she worked at the agency. They did not know probably, that she worked in WMD—weapons of mass destruction—and was doing undercover work. But in order for it to be a crime, you must know that is what she did." (Fox News 2/11/2004) Plame Wilson's covert CIA status (see Fall 1992 - 1996) has been described as highly classified and known to only a few (see September 30, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, and January 2004), and her exposure as a serious breach of national security (see Before July 14, 2003, July 14, 2003, October 3, 2003 and October 11, 2003).
A news article by the New York Sun claims that a June 2003 memo from then-Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman never indicated that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA official, or that her status was classified in any way (see June 10, 2003 and July 20, 2005). (Contrary to the Sun's reporting, Plame Wilson was a NOC—a "non-official cover" agent—the most covert of CIA officials; see Fall 1992 - 1996, July 22, 2003, and September 30, 2003). The Sun bases its report on a declassified version of a memo provided to it through the Freedom of Information Act. The memo was drafted by the State Department's head of its intelligence bureau, Carl Ford Jr., in response to inquiries by Grossman. Grossman sent the memo to various White House officials, including the then-chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby. Previous news reports have indicated that the memo was notated to indicate that the information it contained was classified and should not be made public, but according to the Sun, the paragraph identifying Plame Wilson as a CIA official was not designated as secret, while the other paragraphs were. Robert Luskin, the lawyer for White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, says the memo proves that neither Libby, Rove, nor any other White House official broke any laws in revealing Plame Wilson's CIA status. The Sun also asserts that the memo proves Plame Wilson was responsible for sending her husband, Joseph Wilson, to Niger to find the truth behind claims that Iraq was trying to clandestinely purchase Nigerien uranium, an assertion Wilson calls "absolutely inaccurate" (see February 19, 2002, July 22, 2003, October 17, 2003, and July 20, 2005). (Gerstein 4/17/2006) The CIA requested that Plame Wilson's identity not be divulged (see (July 11, 2003) and Before July 14, 2003), and the agency as well as former officials have acknowledged that the damage done by the disclosure of Plame Wilson's covert CIA status was "severe" (see Before September 16, 2003, October 3, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, October 23-24, 2003, October 29, 2005, and February 13, 2006).
Former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who became the target of a White House smear campaign after he publicly criticized the government's push for war with Iraq (see June 2003, June 3, 2003, June 11, 2003, June 12, 2003, June 19 or 20, 2003, July 6, 2003, July 6-10, 2003, July 7, 2003 or Shortly After, 8:45 a.m. July 7, 2003, 9:22 a.m. July 7, 2003, July 7-8, 2003, July 11, 2003, (July 11, 2003), July 12, 2003, July 12, 2003, July 18, 2003, October 1, 2003, April 5, 2006, and April 9, 2006), receives a standing ovation from the audience at his appearance at the Yearly Kos convention in Las Vegas. The convention is a group of bloggers and citizen journalists, mostly liberals and progressives, organized by the Daily Kos Web site. About a thousand convention goers gather to hear Wilson speak during one of the day's panel discussions. Wilson says he will not be intimidated by what he calls a White House campaign to obscure lies told during the run-up to the war in Iraq. "We must and we can stand up to the schoolyard bullies and insure that these decisions on war and peace and other major issues are undertaken with the consent of the governed," he says. Wilson goes on to say that the indictment of former White House official Lewis Libby (see October 28, 2005) and the disclosures about the case that have come in subsequent court filings have vindicated him against critics who claim he lied or misrepresented the facts surrounding his 2002 mission to Africa (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002 and July 6, 2003). "As facts emerge, of course, the dwindling number of those who still believe the thesis of 'Wilson is a liar, or has been discredited,' are either victims of the ongoing disinformation campaign or the willful perpetrators of it," he says. Wilson affirms that neither he nor his wife, exposed CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson, intend to run for elective office. "I can assure you that neither she [nor] I intend to do anything other than return to our private lives," he says.
Former CIA Agent Reaffirms Damage Done by Plame Wilson's Exposure - One of Wilson's panel colleagues, former CIA agent and State Department official Larry Johnson (see September 30, 2003, October 3, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, and October 23-24, 2003), says partisan Republicans have lost sight of the gravity of what he believes was a deliberate campaign to expose Plame Wilson's status for political reasons. "How it is that conservative Republicans can excuse what is nothing short of treason is beyond me," he says. Johnson describes himself as "a lifelong conservative." He reiterates his earlier statements that Plame Wilson was not publicly known as a CIA official before being "outed" by columnist Robert Novak (see July 14, 2003). "Valerie Plame, Valerie Wilson was an undercover CIA officer until the day her name appeared in Robert Novak's column," Johnson says. Libby's lawyers have said they have witnesses who will testify that Plame Wilson's CIA affiliation was known outside the government, but they have not identified those witnesses. Plame Wilson's exposure did "damage… to the intelligence operations of the Central Intelligence Agency and ultimately to the security of this nation," Johnson tells the audience. White House political strategist Karl Rove, whom Wilson once said should be "frog marched" out of the White House in handcuffs (see August 21, 2003), should have his security clearance revoked and be fired, Johnson says, regardless of whether he is indicted.
Journalists: Media Did Not Do Its Job in Covering Story - Another panel member, the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin, says journalists have become so preoccupied by the jailing of fellow reporter Judith Miller (see October 7, 2004) that they have lost sight of the broader story. "The really sad moment for journalism here is, faced with this incredibly important story, reporters didn't go out and develop sources for this story," he says. "This is a hell of a story." Froomkin calls Miller "a humiliated and discredited shill," presumably for the Bush administration. Fellow panel member Murray Waas of the National Journal says most major news outlets have not adequately covered the story. "There's no reporter for any major news organization covering it even one or two days a week," he says. "I don't know why." Waas says that perhaps some editors have ignored the story because it involves leaks to reporters at those same news outlets. "Their own role is so comprised that they hope it just goes away," he says. (Gerstein 6/10/2006)
Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official under the Reagan administration, reiterates and expands on claims made by her fellow conservatives (see Late August-Early September, 2006, September 2-5, 2006, September 5, 2006, September 5, 2006, September 6, 2006, and September 7, 2006) that the admission by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage of his leaking of CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson's identity to a reporter (see June 13, 2003 and July 8, 2003) exonerates accused perjurer Lewis Libby (see June 23, 2003, 8:30 a.m. July 8, 2003, 2:24 p.m. July 12, 2003, and Late Afternoon, July 12, 2003). "Mr. Armitage is responsible for one of the most factually distorted investigations in history," Toensing writes. Toensing again asserts, as she has in the past, that Plame Wilson was not a covert official (see November 2-9, 2005 and November 3, 2005), though Plame Wilson's covert status has been affirmed many times (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, and September 6, 2006). She also echoes previous claims that Plame Wilson's husband, Joseph Wilson (see July 6, 2003), is responsible for exposing his wife's covert identity. (Toensing 9/15/2006)
Columnist Robert Novak, a recipient of several White House leaks regarding covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson (see July 7, 2003, July 8 or 9, 2003, (July 11, 2003), and Before July 14, 2003) and the author of the column exposing Plame Wilson (see July 14, 2003), publishes a column in the conservative Weekly Standard attacking the authors of Hubris, a book that identified former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage as the original leaker of Plame Wilson's identity (see June 13, 2003, July 8, 2003, September 6, 2006, and September 7, 2006).
Attacks Co-Author of Book - Novak focuses primarily on "stereotypical leftist activist" co-author David Corn, whom he accuses of engendering the entire Plame Wilson identity leak investigation with a column questioning the propriety of Novak's exposure of a covert CIA official (see July 16, 2003), and writes that Corn and other "enemies of George W. Bush" used the investigation to try to "bring down a president" (Bush). Now, Novak writes, Corn is in the ironic position of having co-authored a book "that has had the effect of killing the story." (Novak credits co-author Michael Isikoff, not Corn, with discovering the Armitage leak.) To regain traction, Novak writes, "Corn has been frantic… to depict an alternate course in which [White House official Karl] Rove, [former White House official Lewis] Libby, and Vice President Cheney attempted, by design and independently, to do what Armitage purportedly accomplished accidentally." Armitage's leak was a gossipy "slip-up" that occurred simultaneously with what Corn and Isikoff called "a concerted White House effort to undermine a critic of the war," former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Novak says the "conspiracy theory" of a White House effort to denigrate and smear Wilson is specious (see June 2003, June 3, 2003, June 11, 2003, June 12, 2003, June 19 or 20, 2003, July 6, 2003, July 6-10, 2003, July 7, 2003 or Shortly After, 8:45 a.m. July 7, 2003, 9:22 a.m. July 7, 2003, July 7-8, 2003, July 11, 2003, (July 11, 2003), July 12, 2003, July 12, 2003, July 18, 2003, October 1, 2003, April 5, 2006, and April 9, 2006), and calls the book's detailed recounting of the misdeeds of the White House surrounding the Wilson smear and the Plame Wilson exposure "tiresome." Novak dismisses Hubris as little more than "an unmitigated apologia for the Wilsons."
Justifies Own Cooperation with Prosecution - He goes on to justify his repeated (and unreported) testimonies before the Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury (see October 7, 2003, February 5, 2004, and September 14, 2004), saying since Fitzgerald already knew who his sources for the Plame Wilson leak were (Libby, Armitage, and CIA official Bill Harlow), "there was no use in not testifying about them," and he "feared facing the same legal juggernaut that sent Judith Miller of the New York Times to jail" (see July 6, 2005).
Claims Plame Wilson Not Covert - Novak says that no one—Armitage, Libby, Rove, nor himself—could be prosecuted for outing Plame Wilson because she "was not a covert operative under the terms of the law" (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, and September 6, 2006).
Exposes White House Source - Novak concludes the article by identifying former White House press aide Adam Levine (see February 6, 2004 and October 26, 2005) as the source for the "1x2x6" articles published by the Washington Post (see September 28, 2003 and October 12, 2003). (Novak 9/23/2006)
The defense in the Lewis Libby trial presents as its second witness Washington Post reporter and managing editor Bob Woodward. Under questioning by attorney William Jeffress, Woodward testifies that he learned of Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA status from former State Department official Richard Armitage (see June 13, 2003). After winning a ruling by Judge Reggie Walton over objections from the prosecution, the defense plays an audio tape of Woodward's discussion with Armitage, where Armitage revealed Plame Wilson's identity to him and told him, incorrectly, that Plame Wilson was an "analyst" for the agency (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, September 6, 2006, and March 16, 2007). Woodward notes that the only reason he is testifying about his discussion with Armitage is because Armitage "requested" that he do so, and adds that Libby, too, has given him permission to discuss their conversations. He goes on to note that he did not write about Plame Wilson for the Post or for his book. Woodward adds that while he interviewed Libby many times for his book Plan of Attack, he believes Libby never discussed Plame Wilson with him (see June 23, 2003 and June 27, 2003). "There's no doubt that Libby didn't say anything," Woodward says. (Apuzzo 2/12/2007; Apuzzo 2/12/2007; Marcy Wheeler 2/12/2007; Marcy Wheeler 2/12/2007; Leonnig and Goldstein 2/13/2007; Lewis and Shane 2/13/2007; MSNBC 2/21/2007; Washington Post 7/3/2007; BBC 7/3/2007)
Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, writes an op-ed for the Washington Post structured to imitate a legal indictment. Toensing asks if anyone can explain "why Scooter Libby is the only person on trial in the Valerie Plame [Wilson] leak investigation?" (The Washington Post, which publishes the op-ed, does not disclose Toensing's own ties to Libby's defense—see March 23, 2005. (Toensing 2/18/2007) Neither does it disclose the longtime personal relationship between Toensing, her husband Joseph DiGenova, and columnist Robert Novak, who outed Plame Wilson—see July 14, 2003. (Wilson 2007, pp. 292) Neither does it disclose Toensing's frequent criticisms of the investigation, including her position that the CIA and/or Joseph Wilson is responsible for outing Plame Wilson, and her belief that the entire trial is invalid (see November 2-9, 2005, November 3, 2005, November 7, 2005, and September 15, 2006).) Toensing dismisses the arguments laid out by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, lied to grand jurors (see March 5, 2004 and March 24, 2004) in order to keep secret a White House conspiracy to besmirch the reputation of White House critic Joseph Wilson (see July 6, 2003). Toensing calls the Libby indictment a "he said, she said" case based on conflicting testimony from other people. She proceeds to lay out her own "indictments":
Patrick Fitzgerald - for "ignoring the fact that there was no basis for a criminal investigation from the day he was appointed," for "handling some witnesses with kid gloves and banging on others with a mallet," for "engaging in past contretemps with certain individuals that might have influenced his pursuit of their liberty, and with misleading the public in a news conference because… well, just because." Toensing argues that Fitzgerald should have known from the outset that Plame Wilson was never a covert agent, and if he didn't, he could have merely asked the CIA. Toensing writes, "The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status." Toensing is grossly in error about Plame Wilson's covert status (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, and September 6, 2006). She also insinuates that Fitzgerald has two conflicts of interest: one in prosecuting Libby, as Fitzgerald investigated the Clinton-era pardon of financier Marc Rich, who was represented by Libby, and another in moving to jail reporter Judith Miller for refusing to provide evidence (see July 6, 2005) because Fitzgerald had subpoenaed Miller's phone records for another, unrelated prosecution. Toensing questions Fitzgerald's grant of immunity to former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer (see January 29, 2007), and complains that Fitzgerald allowed NBC News bureau chief Tim Russert to be interviewed with his lawyer present (see August 7, 2004), while columnist Robert Novak "was forced to testify before the grand jury without counsel present." She concludes by accusing Fitzgerald of "violating prosecutorial ethics by discussing facts outside the indictment during his Oct. 28, 2005, news conference" (see October 28, 2005).
The CIA - "for making a boilerplate criminal referral to cover its derriere." The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which Toensing helped negotiate in 1982, was never violated, she asserts, because Plame Wilson was never a covert agent. Instead of handling the issue internally, Toensing writes, the CIA passed the responsibility to the Justice Department by sending "a boiler-plate referral regarding a classified leak and not one addressing the elements of a covert officer's disclosure."
Joseph Wilson - for "misleading the public about how he was sent to Niger, about the thrust of his March 2003 oral report of that trip, and about his wife's CIA status, perhaps for the purpose of getting book and movie contracts." Toensing writes that Wilson appeared on Meet the Press the same day as his op-ed was published in the New York Times, and told host Andrea Mitchell, "The Office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip there." Toensing accepts Cheney's denial of any involvement in Wilson's trip and his denial that he was ever briefed on Wilson's findings. Toensing argues that Wilson lied when he told other reporters that he was sent to Niger because of his "specific skill set" and his connections in the region (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002), and not because his wife sent him (see February 19, 2002, July 22, 2003, October 17, 2003, and July 20, 2005). Toensing uses portions of the Senate Intelligence Committee report to bolster her claim (see June 11, 2003 and July 9, 2004). She also challenges Wilson's assertions that his oral report on his trip was not classified (see March 4-5, 2002, (March 6, 2002), March 8, 2002, and March 5, 2002). And she accuses Wilson of "play[ing] coy" about his wife's CIA status.
The Media - for "hypocrisy in asserting that criminal law was applicable to this 'leak' and with misreporting facts to wage a political attack on an increasingly unpopular White House." Major newspapers have "highfalutin', well-paid" lawyers who should have known better than to let their clients call for special investigations into the Plame Wilson leak. The media has consistently "display[ed] their prejudice in this case."
Ari Fleischer - "because his testimony about conversations differs from reporters' testimony, just as Libby's does." Fleischer testified under oath that he revealed Plame Wilson's identity to two reporters, Time's John Dickerson and NBC's David Gregory (see 8:00 a.m. July 11, 2003). Dickerson denies it and Gregory refuses to comment. Fleischer testified he did not tell the Washington Post's Walter Pincus about Plame Wilson's identity, contradicting Pincus's own testimony that Fleischer did, indeed, ask repeatedly about the Wilsons (see January 29, 2007 and February 12, 2007). Because Fleischer "contradicted Pincus as materially as Libby contradicted Russert or Time's Matthew Cooper," he should be indicted as well. Instead, Fitzgerald gave Fleischer immunity in return for his testimony (see February 13, 2004). In that case, Toensing argues, Fitzgerald should indict Pincus insamuch as his testimony differs from Fleischer's.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage - for not publicly revealing that he was perhaps the first to leak Plame Wilson's name to the press (see June 13, 2003 and July 8, 2003). Armitage also discussed his FBI interview with his then-subordinate, Marc Grossman, the night before Grossman was due to meet with FBI investigators (see June 10, 2003).
The US Justice Department - for "abdicating its legal and professional responsibility by passing the investigation off to a special counsel out of personal pique and reasons of ambition." Both then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and his deputy, James Comey, could have asked the CIA to confirm Plame Wilson's covert status, Toensing writes. She also insinuates that Comey acted improperly in giving the investigation to Fitzgerald, "a former colleague and one of his best friends." (Toensing 2/18/2007)
Refutation - Toensing's arguments are refuted by former CIA agent Larry Johnson, who accuses Toensing of attempted jury tampering (see February 18, 2007).
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto joins his conservative colleagues at the National Review in calling the Lewis Libby trial verdict (see March 6, 2007) a "travesty" (see March 6, 2007 and March 6, 2007). Libby should never have been prosecuted at all, Taranto writes, and calls the courtroom proceedings a "show trial" that will allow "partisans of [war critic] Joseph Wilson [to] use the guilty verdict to declare vindication" (see June 2003, June 3, 2003, June 11, 2003, June 12, 2003, June 19 or 20, 2003, July 6, 2003, July 6-10, 2003, July 7, 2003 or Shortly After, 8:45 a.m. July 7, 2003, 9:22 a.m. July 7, 2003, July 7-8, 2003, July 11, 2003, (July 11, 2003), July 12, 2003, July 12, 2003, July 18, 2003, October 1, 2003, April 5, 2006, and April 9, 2006). Like the National Review writers, Taranto insists that the trial proved Libby's innocence, not his guilt; proved that Wilson, not the White House, lied about Iraqi WMDs (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002, Mid-January 2003, 9:01 pm January 28, 2003, and July 6, 2003); proved that Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert agent for the CIA (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, and September 6, 2006); and proved that no one from the White House leaked Plame Wilson's identity to columnist Robert Novak (see June 19 or 20, 2003, June 27, 2003, July 2, 2003, July 6-10, 2003, July 8, 2003, 7:35 a.m. July 8, 2003, July 10, 2003, (July 11, 2003), July 12, 2003, July 12, 2003, Late Afternoon, July 12, 2003, July 14 or 15, 2003, and July 17, 2003). The entire case against Libby was "a tissue of lies," Taranto argues. No one committed any crimes, he continues, and calls special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "an overzealous prosecutor, one who was more interested in getting a scalp than in getting to the truth of the matter." Libby could have avoided being prosecuted and convicted merely by refusing to "remember" anything under questioning, Taranto says, and concludes, "Therein lies a lesson for witnesses in future such investigations—which may make it harder for prosecutors to do their jobs when pursuing actual crimes." (Taranto 3/6/2007)
Former representative and Republican vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp (R-NY) recommends that President Bush pardon convicted felon Lewis Libby (see March 6, 2007). Kemp's column, printed in the conservative Web publication Town Hall, is not as vociferous in its condemnation of the Libby perjury trial and special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as some published by his conservative colleagues (see March 6, 2007, March 6, 2007, March 7, 2007, March 7, 2007, March 8-9, 2007, March 9, 2007, and March 11, 2007). Kemp begins his column by telling his readers that two jurors in the trial, Ann Redington and Denis Collins, have "endors[ed] a pardon," quoting Redington from her interview on MSNBC's Hardball (see March 8, 2007) and Collins from a column by the New York Times's Maureen Dowd (Collins's "endorsement" was a tepid "I would really not care" when asked if he would support a pardon for Libby—see March 8, 2007). Kemp writes of a pardon, "It's the right thing to do and it's the right thing to do now—anything less makes a travesty of our system of justice." Kemp echoes his colleagues' arguments that Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby for political reasons, particularly in an attempt to target Vice President Dick Cheney. He then notes that two previous presidents, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, have pardoned government officials who were targeted by special prosecutors—Bush in his pardon of convicted Iran-Contra conspirator Caspar Weinberger (see December 25, 1992) and Clinton's pre-emptive pardon of then-CIA Director John Deutch, who was under investigation for mishandling classified information on his home computer. Weinberger was facing the possibility of years of jail time; Deutch was negotiating with prosecutors for a guilty plea to a single misdemeanor charge. Kemp repeats debunked charges that the CIA did not treat Valerie Plame Wilson's status as either classified or particularly sensitive (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, September 6, 2006, and March 16, 2007) and also repeats his colleagues' charges that the government's witnesses had no better memories of key events than did Libby. Kemp concludes: "Most prosecutors would walk away from such a case—a case based on a faulty premise and focused on faulty memories months after the fact. President Bush would be well within presidential authority and past presidential practice if he were to rectify this travesty in the near future. My hope is he pardons Libby now!" (Kemp 4/3/2007)
Former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, found guilty of four felonies in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson (see March 6, 2007), is sentenced by Judge Reggie Walton to 30 months in jail, fined $250,000, and given two years' probation. The sentence is at the low end of the 30-37 month recommendation provided by prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (see May 25, 2007). Libby's plea for leniency is denied. An appeals court will refuse to allow Libby to remain free while he appeals the convictions. (York 5/29/2007; Washington Post 7/3/2007; BBC 7/3/2007) "Many defendants are first offenders, most defendants have family. We need to make clear that the truth matters and one's station in life does not matter," says prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. "We had to… chase down rabbit holes that he took us down by lying to us… [the jury had] to sort through this fun house of mirrors." Libby's attorney Theodore Wells argues that because of the "public humiliation" caused to Libby by the trial, and because of Libby's "exceptional public service to the nation," he should be given no jail time. Libby's co-counsel, William Jeffress, continues to insist that Plame Wilson was not covert, a position long since disproven (see Fall 1992 - 1996, Late 1990s-2001 and Possibly After, April 22, 1999, (July 11, 2003), Before July 14, 2003, July 22, 2003, July 30, 2003, September 30, 2003, October 11, 2003, October 22-24, 2003, January 9, 2006, February 13, 2006, September 6, 2006, and March 16, 2007), and attempts to assert that Libby did not actually expose her as a CIA agent, an argument again debunked during the proceedings. For himself, Libby speaks briefly, thanking the court for treating him kindly, and says he is ready for the sentence: "Now I realize fully the court must decide on punishment, and I hope the court will consider my whole life," he says. In pronouncing sentence, Walton says: "I've watched these proceedings with a sense of sadness because I have the highest respect for government servants. It is important that we expect and demand a lot of people who are in those situations. They have a certain high level obligation when they occupy that situation. In this situation Libby failed to meet the bar." (Roston 6/5/2007) Libby will spend no time behind bars (see July 2, 2007).
Home | About | Timelines | Forum | Development | Donate | Contact
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
Except where otherwise noted, the textual content of each timeline is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike

subset: commoncrawl


text: £18 Maternity Invisible Support Vest 324-510 Colour Black White Size Choose Size 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Size Choose Size 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Size Guide Add To Bag Notify Me Personalise & Add To Bag SHOP MY LOCAL STORE Add to Favourites What's this? Read More A must-have in your maternity collection, this invisible support vest is designed with feeding drop cups with clips, and adjustable straps for the perfect fit. Made from a soft fabric with stretch, plus lace detailing for a feminine touch. Machine washable. Main 95% Viscose, 5% Elastane. Inner 95% Cotton, 5% Elastane. Read More Read Less Price History Price History Date Price


text: WebIT 3 Report post Posted August 13, 2012 I recently migrated an online store to the framework theme. I used ECWID which uses java for all the products. The problem is I don't want to loose page rank from the old products which were all single posts. My plan is to leave the posts, but since the old paypal code will be removed, I'd like to do a call to action to give customers a quick way to get to the store. Can this be done in bulk for all blog posts or do I need to tackle the actual meta settings on an individual basis? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites


text:
As an American, when I picture the beginnings of civilization, I don't picture Neanderthals huddling together in caves. I picture the pilgrims landing on foreign soil, building log cabins to sustain themselves against the winter. With the hope of a new frontier to explore. It strikes me that we are in the same position when… Read More
Privacy is Dead: Now Where's My Inheritance – Part 2
In Part 1 of my Post, Privacy is Dead, I estimated that giving up Privacy in exchange for a number of benefits could be worth as much as $10,000 per year to an individual. While this isn't pocket change for most of us, for someone making minimum wage, this might represent 6 months of work. … Read More
Privacy is Dead: Now where's my Inheritance – Part 1
Privacy is Dead. It's not the first time you've heard this, surely. A private investigator, Sam Rambam was quoted as saying "Privacy is Dead – Get Over it" in 2006. In 2012, Huffing Post contributor Miles Feldman posed the question "Is Privacy Dead?" If it is, then we've been collecting our inheritance without knowing it… Read More
Instagram Apocalypse 2013
Everyone knows that the Mayans may or may not have predicted that the world will end on December 21, 2012. Experts are now saying that there is another major calamity awaiting right around the corner for those of us who survive on January 16, 2013. That's when Instagram's new privacy policy will take effect. There… Read More
Say goodbye to the Video Privacy Protection Act
If someone posted a video of me having sex on the internet, which admittedly wouldn't be very popular, I would sue them. Most likely I wouldn't become very rich and very famous. Not like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian. Lawsuits for violations of privacy like this have made millions. Privacy lawsuits aren't just limited to… Read More
Why don't Americans care about Privacy?
In my post from earlier this year, I commented on how Senator Leahy re-introduced his Personal Data Privacy Act…the same bill he has been submitted every year for the last 5 years. 5 months after the re-introduction of the bill this year, there is still no GOP support for Leahy's Privacy bill. By my count… Read More
What has Al Franken done for me lately, Part 2
Last week, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation held a hearing on Privacy and Information Security. Senator Rockefeller made a point of emphasizing his committee's jurisdiction over privacy and data security issues. I think this statement alone shows a rift in the Senate's perspective on Information Security in light of the newly formed… Read More
"Do-not-track Online Act of 2011"
This month, Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) introduced the "Do-not-track Online Act of 2011". Some interesting highlights from the proposed bill: there would be a fine of up to $16,000 per day that you are in violation with a maximum of $15,000,000 in civil damages available for all civil actions under the bill.The $16,000… Read More


text:
Palliative Care Provided to Older Adults in San Luis Obispo, CA
One of the largest generations in U.S. history is aging and includes more than 77 million older adults in the United States born between 1946 and 1964. Also commonly known as "Baby Boomers", the country's healthcare system is feeling the impact of this generation beginning to age. Older adults are more likely to develop serious illnesses or diseases as a consequence of aging, and thus are more likely to utilize the healthcare system than the general population. With developments in healthcare, new services like palliative care have emerged as a bridge between treatment and hospice. Today's elderly patients often choose palliative care, as it keeps them comfortable while still receiving life-sustaining treatment. Whether patients have terminal illnesses and need relief from symptoms or are receiving curative treatments, specialists trained in palliative care offer them choices and a better quality of life.
Symptom Discomfort is Reduced with Pain Management
Patients who are experiencing pain from disease progression or medical treatments or often turn to professionals at Wilshire Health & Community Services, Inc. for palliative care. Modern medicine can often extend the life of patients with serious illnesses, but the side effects of treatments are often devastating. For many years, older adults struggle living with pain, nausea, depression, and limitations caused disease progression and side effects of treatment. Palliative care provides comfort and quality of life in conjunction with life-sustaining treatment.
Palliative Care Offers a Better Overall Quality of Life
Many families and senior residents of San Luis Obispo who are struggling with decisions about their health care reach out to palliative care providers at https://www.wilshirehomehealthcc.org/contact/ and speak with professionals who offer alternatives. Older patients with serious illnesses can often live many more years with quality care and pain management; however, dealing with expenses, maintaining a positive outlook, and even coordinating doctors' appointments can be overwhelming. Per Today's Geriatric Medicine experts, trained palliative care teams will create comprehensive care plans that include patients and their families. Their goal is to anticipate, treat, and prevent suffering while providing quality treatment for disease or illness.
Older Adults Have a Choice in Treatment Options
Many older adult patients with serious illnesses follow traditional medical plans and go through treatments without knowing that they have options surrounding their treatment plans. Often, older adults will choose treatment plans that may give them the best chance at sustaining life, while not fully understanding the side effects associated with extending life. However, those who research palliative care at https://www.wilshirehomehealthcc.org/ are offered alternatives that include both treatment and pain management together. Professional healthcare providers can help them manage pain and symptoms in their own home. Even in the case where an older adult may have a terminal illness, palliative care allows for the patient to have quality of time and often enjoy whatever time remains. Not only does palliative care allow patients to feel better physically, but palliative care is also covered by Medicare and Medical. According to Money Magazine, typical medical costs for Medicare recipients in the last five years of their lives average $39,000 per person but do not always guarantee a better quality of life.
Patients May Continue Curative Treatments
Patients can choose palliative care at any point in their illnesses and continue their existing curative treatments. It is an invaluable tool that allows many to improve patient outcomes by decreasing pain and discomfort. Like palliative care, hospice care is another service that keeps patients comfortable, but in order to receive hospice care, a patient must be given a terminal diagnosis of six or fewer months to live.
Health care providers with special training can offer patients with serious illnesses palliative care that improves their quality of life. Home health care providers can help patients reduce stress and pain caused by disease and treatments.
Wilshire Home Health is a Central Coast agency committed to providing a high standard of health care and community support. The agency includes a team of professionals dedicated to helping clients and patients achieve the best possible quality of life.
Media Contact
Company Name: Wilshire Health & Community Services, Inc.
Contact Person: Owner
Email: Send Email
Phone: (805)547-7025
Address:285 South Street, Suite J
City: San Luis Obispo
State: CA
Country: United States
Website: www.wilshirehomehealthcc.org


text:
Stop Selling, Start Storytelling: how to build an Instagram community that buys, with Sam Burgess, Social Mouth founder
How can Instagram skyrocket your business? Right now, Instagram is arguably the most influential social media platform for brands. The emphasis on visuals is perfect for design businesses and engagement with brands on Instagram is ten times higher than on Facebook, 54 times higher than Pinterest, and 84 times higher than Twitter.
However, with 500 million daily active users and an average of 80 million photos shared every day, how do you stand out from the crowd? Are you creating beautiful content and getting nothing in return? Or seeing hundreds of likes but no extra sales?
- Los Angeles
- Wednesday Jul 11th, 2018 - 10:30am
- London
- Wednesday Jul 11th, 2018 - 18:30pm
- Kolkata
- Wednesday Jul 11th, 2018 - 23:00pm
- Sydney
- Thursday Jul 12th, 2018 - 03:30am
We cover:
- How to find your unique voice
- How to tell your story authentically.
- Tips on creating powerful & engaging content.
- How to garner meaningful and long-lasting connections with your audience.
- Methods to convert followers and likes into buyers.
Login to view this lesson. Not a Professional Member of The Sustainable Fashion Collective?
Find out more here or, click to enjoy our free articles before upgrading


text:
New 2020 JeepWrangler SPORT S 4X4 Sport Utility
- Stock: 2200776
- Fuel Economy
- 17.0/25.0 mpg City/Hwy
- Exterior Color
- Black Clearcoat
- Interior Color
- Black
- Body/Seating
- Sport Utility/4 seats
- Drivetrain
- four-wheel
- Engine
- 3.6 3.6L V6 24V VVT Engine Upg I w/ESS
*Over 4000 Vehicles to choose from!!
*Arrigo is Florida's #1 Volume dealer for 16 years and running!!
*Family operated for over 30 years
*FCA Certified Customer 1st Award Winner
* Why would you shop anywhere else???
Highlighted Features
- Wireless phone connectivity
- Exterior parking camera rear
- Steering wheel mounted audio controls
- Trailer sway control
Standard Specifications
- Driver door bin
- Driver vanity mirror
- Front beverage holders
- Passenger door bin
- Passenger vanity mirror
- Proximity keyless entry: push button start only
- Rear beverage holders
- Speed control
- Telescoping steering wheel
- Tilt steering wheel
- Front anti-roll bar
- Power steering
- Rear anti-roll bar
- Wheel size: 17"
- Radio data system
- Steering wheel mounted audio controls
- Wireless phone connectivity: Uconnect w/Bluetooth
- Basic warranty: 36 months/36,000miles
- Corrosion perforation warranty: 60 months/ unlimited distance
- Maintenance warranty: 24 months/ unlimited distance
- Roadside assistance coverage: 60 months/60,000miles
- Front center armrest: w/storage
- Front seats: bucket
- Manual driver lumbar support
- Max seating capacity: 4
- Rear seats: bench
- Rear seats Folding position: tumble forward
- Drive type: four-wheel
- Engine location: front
- Fuel economy city: 17mpg
- Fuel economy combined: 20mpg
- Fuel economy highway: 25mpg
- Fuel tank capacity: 17.5gal.
- Sequential multi-point fuel injection
- Variable valve control
- Approach angle: 41 deg
- Departure angle: 36 deg
- Ground clearance (min): 246mm (9.7")
- Ramp breakover angle: 25 deg
- Rear cargo: conventional
- Skid plates
- Trailer sway control
- Exterior body width: 1,875mm (73.8")
- Exterior height: 1,869mm (73.6")
- Exterior length: 4,237mm (166.8")
- Front hiproom: 1,369mm (53.9")
- Front legroom: 1,046mm (41.2")
- Front shoulder room: 1,415mm (55.7")
- GVWR: 2,268kg (5,000lbs)
- Interior cargo volume: 365 L (13 cu.ft.)
- Interior maximum cargo volume: 898 L (32 cu.ft.)
- Passenger volume: 2,936L (103.7 cu.ft.)
- Rear hiproom: 1,143mm (45.0")
- Rear legroom: 907mm (35.7")
- Rear shoulder room: 1,466mm (57.7")
- Towing capacity: 907kg (2,000lbs)
- Turning radius: 5.3m (17.3')
- Wheelbase: 2,459mm (96.8")
- Compass
- Delay-off headlights
- Display: analog
- Exterior parking camera rear: ParkView yes
- Front fog lights
- Front reading lights
- Low tire pressure warning
- Outside temperature display
- Rear reading lights
- Tachometer
- Trip computer
- Variably intermittent wipers
- 4 wheel disc brakes
- ABS brakes
- Brake assist
- Dual front impact airbags
- Dual front side impact airbags
- Electronic stability
- Ignition disable
- Integrated roll-over protection
- Occupant sensing airbag
- Traction control
Dealer Notes
* MSRP is the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of the vehicle. It does not include any taxes, fees or other charges. Pricing and availability may vary based on a variety of factors, including options, dealer, specials, fees, and financing qualifications. Consult your dealer for actual price and complete details. Vehicles shown may have optional equipment at additional cost.
* The estimated selling price that appears after calculating dealer offers is for informational purposes, only. You may not qualify for the offers, incentives, discounts, or financing. Offers, incentives, discounts, or financing are subject to expiration and other restrictions. See dealer for qualifications and complete details.
* Images, prices, and options shown, including vehicle color, trim, options, pricing and other specifications are subject to availability, incentive offerings, current pricing and credit worthiness.
* In transit means that vehicles have been built, but have not yet arrived at your dealer. Images shown may not necessarily represent identical vehicles in transit to your dealership. See your dealer for actual price, payments and complete details.
Price includes all costs except for taxes, registration, title, 159.95 electronic reg. filling fee and $ 799.95 dealer fee. The Arrigo price includes ALL factory incentives. Rebates are subject to change without notice. Prior sales excluded. Dealer installed accessories may increase actual cost. You must finance thru Chrysler Capital for bonus cash. All buyers may not qualify. Dealer not responsible for typographical errors or omissions. See Dealer for details.
New Arrivals
2020 Jeep Wrangler UNLIMITED S…
- $31,060
Quick Specs
- Sport Utility
- Black Exterior
- 2L I4 DOHC DI Turbo w/ ESS Engine
2020 Jeep Wrangler UNLIMITED R…
- $54,449
Quick Specs
- Sport Utility
- Blue Exterior
- 3.6L V6 24V VVT Upg I w/ESS Engine
2020 Jeep Wrangler UNLIMITED S…
- $37,419
Quick Specs
- Sport Utility
- White Exterior
- 3.6L V6 24V VVT Upg I w/ESS Engine
2020 Jeep Wrangler UNLIMITED S…
- $29,855
Quick Specs
- Sport Utility
- White Exterior
- 2L I4 DOHC DI Turbo w/ ESS Engine


text:
Page 36 of 36
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Docket Report – 1974 – PDF
Docket Report 1974 Cases worked on by Michael Ratner: Kinoy v. Mitchell – Government Misconduct – Pages 5-6
Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/477/375/1514/ Brief Fact Summary: A civil suit was filed against New York State officials and the local U.S. Attorney by a mother of a deceased former inmate and several other inmates of the New York's Attica Correctional Facility, after the…
Read more
Hess v. Schlesinger
http://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/hess-v-schlesinger The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) took on the case of Hess v. Schlesinger in 1973 because it concerned the treatment of women as an extension of their husbands. In this case, CCR challenged the constitutionality of the Marine…
Read more
Goodman v. Kehl
https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/f34ba6e727f9f267df893a3aa17e7abe Goodman v. Kehl was a case defending the right of a radio station manager to refuse to handover tapes.
United States v. United States District Court
http://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/united-states-v-united-states-district-court United States v. United States District Court, briefed and argued before the Supreme Court by CCR in February 1972, arose out of a federal conspiracy prosecution in which the government admitted wiretapping the defendant without a warrant. In making…
Read more
Ratner v. Chemical Bank
This is a case that Michael brought as a law student at Columbia University in 1969. http://www.stollberne.com/sites/www.stollberne.com/files/images/RatnerChemical.pdf http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/329/270/2596200/


text:
In september I got a phonecall from Carry, who was in need for new skirts. She told me that she had this skirt that she absolutely loves, but that's also needs a new version soon!
I love it when clients come with a loved garment that makes them feel fabulous and comfortable and I especcially love it when they trust me to make a garment that will give them the same feelings! Here's a short report on what I did for Carry!
Carry had this skirt she really enjoyed wearing so we decided on making a similar skirt. She had already purchased two fabrics that she liked before meeting me and I was lucky: she picked two gorgeous fabrics. One was a houndstooth wool (pied-de-poule in my neck of the woods) and the other one a beautiful winter white cashmere.
Here are pictures of the original skirt. As you can see it's a very basic skirt, consisting of 7 panels, one front panel, 4 side panels and two back panels. The skirt closes at mid back with an invisible zip. It was fully lined, without pockets.
Since the fabric of the orginal skirt had a lot of body and structure and the new fabrics where less structured, I decided upon underlining the skirt with a lightweight cotton batiste.
I didn't draft the pattern for the new skirts, but copied them from the original pattern pieces by putting the original skirt on top of a layer of pattern paper and pinning through the layers into the cardboard underneath the layer of pattern paper. After that it's a game of connect the dots! I learned this through the book: Patternmaking for a perfect fit by Steffani Lincecum. A great read if you want to copy all of your clothes!
Houndstooth Skirt
This version was made with fabric Carry bought in Italy. It's a beautiful wool that worked like a dream. It pressed beautifully and made making this skirt super easy!
Each skirt piece is underlined. The facings are underlined but I didn't add any extra interfacing. The seams are finished with my overlocker. The skirt is fully lined with a gorgeous (even though it's polyester!) stretch lining from Pauwels in Antwerp, to avoid it going up during thights-season!
The hem is done by hand, made extra easy by the underlining!
Winter White Cashmere Skirt
As far as pattern and construction goes, the same applies as with the first skirt. Carry bought the fabric in a fabric shop in Slovenia! A true international affair, these skirts.
The lining is the same as with the houndstooth version.
The only thing I changed after fitting, is adding the hook-and-eye to the top of the zipper. This pulls everything in a bit, making the skirt sit perfectly without Carry thinking it might fall off.
Carry was very happy with my work, happy client = happy me!
I can't wait to work with her again and add to her handmade wardrobe!
If you would like someting made exactly to your preferences & measurements, please contact me! I'd love to work with you and make you feel amazing. (Everyone deserves to feel amazing in what they are wearing!) Get started here!


text:
Green Day, Fall Out Boy, and Weezer, three of the biggest acts in rock music, announced they will be heading out on the road together for the first time ever on THE HELLA MEGA TOUR presented by Harley-Davidson. These iconic bands are coming to T-Mobile Park in Seattle on Friday, July 17th, 2020!
When: Friday, July 17th, 2020
Where: T-Mobile Park in Seattle
Tickets: On Sale Friday, September 20th at 10 AM


text:
Last week the Washington Post published an article about how MLMs are hurting female friendships. MLM stands for multi-level-marketing, sometimes called pyramid schemes.
A few thoughts from the article:
According to a report by Jon M. Taylor of the Consumer Awareness Institute posted on the Federal Trade Commission's website, less than 1 percent of MLM participants will profit, a far worse rate than for "legitimate small businesses," of which 39 percent are profitable over the lifetime of the business. "MLM makes even gambling look like a safe bet in comparison," the report states.
While the financial dangers of getting involved with an MLM are well-documented, the personal ones are harder to quantify but just as real. Namely: You could end up alienating every Facebook friend you ever had.
18.6 million Americans are involved in direct sales, and a staggering 74 percent are women.
These women are not setting out to annoy their friends. Many want and need flexible work options because of family or other responsibilities, but it's challenging to find a standard job that fits within school hours or an unusual schedule, especially if you've been out of the workforce a few years to care for a child or relative. MLMs exploit many fault lines around women and the economy — women remain underpaid in the workplace and undervalued as stay-at-home mothers. MLMs promise instant success, camaraderie with other women in a "team" environment and a career identity, trappings that standard jobs typically require years to develop.
My own experiences with MLMs:
– Growing up, my parents definitely gave me the impression I should steer clear of anything that had a whiff of downline, though I feel like they were also careful not to complain about MLMs or mock them. I assume they were careful because they knew people who were involved with MLMs.
– When I was a kid, my aunt and uncle sold Amway for awhile, but eventually stopped. I didn't live near them, but remember hearing about it. When I was older I asked them about it and they said they had no regrets — they loved the encouragement and sales training they felt they received.
– One of our wedding gifts was a screwdriver set made by Amway (from one of my in-law's friends, not my aunt & uncle). We still have it and use it.
– When I lived in Provo, going to BYU, I did freelance design work, and at one point designed an annual report for Usana, a Utah-based MLM that sells supplements.
– When Ralph was a baby, an acquaintance from our church congregation came over to pitch me and Ben Blair on Amway. We knew that's why she was coming over, and we knew we weren't interested, but we didn't want to be rude, and figured she could practice on us.
– A ton of MLMs are based in Utah — and therefore automatically connected to the Mormon church and the Mormon population. I don't really understand the history of that but it makes me sad and uncomfortable.
– I've been to dozens of parties for all sorts of MLM products. Whenever I can, I try to be supportive and buy something that I would really use. I don't feel like I've ever been recruited to a downline at these parties. I've just felt peer pressure to buy something.
– One of my neighbors in New York was an Avon lady. She would drop off a catalog and I would order things once in awhile. Again, there was never a mention of recruiting me to sell.
– I'm regularly approached by women who sell MLM products and hope I'll mention them on Design Mom. But I feel MLMs are damaging to women and have committed not to promote them.
My questions about MLMs:
– Is there such thing as a legitimate MLM? Is there one that's widely respected? Do they make the Fortune 500 lists? Are investors wary of MLMs?
– Is there a significant difference between direct selling and MLMs? Someone told me recently that Mary Kay counted as an MLM and I was surprised. I don't know why — I don't really know anything about the company and don't personally know any Mary Kay reps. I guess I just never heard about a Mary Kay downline, so I thought it was more about selling than recruiting.
I suppose I think the same thing about Avon and Tupperware; I think of those companies as focused on selling products, not focused on developing downlines. Am I way off here?
– It seems widely known that MLMs have sketchy reputations, and based on the numbers quoted in the article, it sounds like product sales aren't very successful in the longterm. So to me, it seems confusing why someone would create a product and then create an MLM structure to distribute that product. It seems like such a bad long-term business policy. I'm unclear on why so many companies choose to do business this way.
I feel a bit conflicted that I'm currently buying and using an MLM product.
I've been enjoying a nail product — it's basically a nail sticker but it's made out of nail polish. I really like how long the product lasts on my nails, that I can apply the decals whenever — even late at night — and don't have to disrupt my work day with an appointment. I like that I can remove them with regular nail polish remover.
I wish the designs were better. In fact, I thought about reaching out and pitching them to do a Design Mom series just so I could have options that I love the look of. But I learned they're sold through a downline, and I got creeped out.
The woman I know who sells them is awesome — a friend from church. She's never approached me about them or tried to push them on me. Instead, I approach her if I want some. I've bought about 10 sets of them so far, and I guess I feel okay about it because I know I actually like the product. But yes, I would much prefer if the company decided to restructure with a more traditional, non-MLM setup.
What about you? What are your experiences with MLMs? Have you ever bought an MLM product? Have you ever sold MLM products? Have you ever seen relationships damaged from MLMs? Do you agree with the Washington post article? I'd love to hear your thoughts.


text:
This is the 2nd post of the day, so if you haven't seen my earlier entry be sure to scroll down and have a look!
Hi everyone! sorry to get back so late with the winner of yesterday's card, but I had a super busy day at work and errands to run afterwards so I'm just getting to it!
The number random.org picked was 10, which makes Shawna the winner! Shawna, send me an e mail at firstname.lastname@example.com and let me know your mailing address and I'll send this right to you!
Thanks for all the comments!


text:
The LMSC had its annual meeting on Sunday Oct 26 and elected officers for the coming two years. Minutes will be posted in the next week or so, but here are the results of the election:
Chair: Dave Holland
Vice Chair: Denise Letendre
Secretary: Alice Phillips
Treasurer: Charlie Cockrell
The LMSC board would like to thank the departing officers for their fine service: Patty Miller (chair), Charlie Tupitza (vice chair), and Pam Dameron (secretary). We are very excited to have three new officers and to welcome Charlie back to another term as Treasurer.
Dave looks set to hit the ground running; here is a message from our new chair.
My name is Dave Holland and I'm pleased to serve as the new Chair of our LMSC. I have been involved with swimming since age 7, and with USMS since 1997, when I turned 30 and decided that I needed to lose 15 lbs. I live in Richmond, practice at NOVA, and compete with VMST.
First of all, if you do know what the acronym LMSC stands for, please let me know. I think it includes the word "local", which makes no sense to me, as we have more than a 1000 members throughout Virginia and part of West Virginia. Of course, Masters has its own rules and lingo that have always baffled the mind- you can live in Missouri and swim for Virginia Masters (and we encourage that, especially for relays), be married for 50 years and swim "unattached", or sign up for a meet as "one event" and swim 9 events. Go figure. Different strokes for different folks…
I did not run on a platform and I did not have an opponent. I was asked and initially said "no", and then was asked to be on a nominating committee. Our committee was not successful in finding someone who said "yes" with any umph to their voice, so here I am. I decided to step up for one simple reason- as an event director (Chris Greene Lake and Lake Moomaw), I have often found myself complaining about the fact that I couldn't find enough volunteers, or that within our LMSC, there's a handful of folks who are doing all the work, year after year. Many of us wear multiple hats. So, I've decided it's time to stop complaining and to start doing something about it! My first and most important task will be to introduce some new faces to the endless joys of administration, and to get more of you involved in volunteering and giving back to our great sport.
In terms of the vital administrative and financial organization of our LMSC, our house is in very good order. There is nothing to fix. We've had good continuity and strong leadership with a core group of committed officers who have put in tons of hours over the years. Thankfully, our very capable Charlie Cockrell will continue as Treasurer, Shirley Loftus-Charley will stay on as our diligent Registrar, and competent folks like Betsy Durrant, Chris and Heather Stevenson, and Jim and Patty Miller will keep serving in multiple capacities.
Our meet directors, including Craig Charley, Betsy Durrant, Nancy Miller, and Ginger Cyganiewicz, are unsung heroes who do a lot of behind-the-scenes work to offer us great events, year after year. Next time you go to one of our meets, seek them out and say "thanks". That will be the best and only payment they will get.
Additionally, I'm pleased that we were able to recruit some new faces to the board- Denise Letendre will be the Vice Chair, and Alice Phillips will serve as Secretary. They both have IQ's that are 30+ points higher than mine, so I plan on delegating all of the important stuff to them. I just have to remember their names.
In the next couple of years, with help from these great folks and hopefully some new folks like you, I will lead us with the following goals:
- Increase membership by 5%- Denise, assisted by Charlie Cockrell, Patty Miller, and Susan Bricken, are spearheading an effort to put more of our resources into Outreach. They will be communicating with the USMS national office, which has some exciting new outreach programs already in place in several other states.
- Increase the opportunities for competition by improving our current meets and adding some new ones. Craig Charley, who will also serve as our Coach's Chair, will lead this effort with help from Ginger and Susan Bricken, who would like to bring a new meet to the Christiansburg Aquatic Center.
- Communicate with and support the meet directors.
- Communicate with and support our coaches.
- Listen to your concerns and take action where necessary.
I'm looking forward to serving and representing you and our LMSC in the next two years. Please feel free to contact me with any suggestions or concerns.
Dave Holland


text:
As businesses grow, they often find that their local file servers have reached their end-of-life and they are now difficult to maintain. In an attempt to fulfill their document storage needs, these firms often opt for online public cloud services such as Google Drive or Dropbox, only to realize that these platforms are not scalable, have poor functionality and are prone to external attacks.
(April 25, 2011 – New York, NY) - DocuXplorer, one of the nation's leading providers of document management solutions software to small and medium sized businesses, today released the results of its 2011 Client Satisfaction Survey, the results of which detailed overwhelming approval of the software it provides, with nearly 97% of respondents indicating they were satisfied, very satisfied or extremely satisfied with DocuXplorer.
"We have always put tremendous value on the feedback our clients and customers provide," stated Mr. Wyman, spokesperson for DocuXplorer. "The results of this survey have clearly demonstrated the emphasis we put on providing the best quality document management software, and the highest levels of customer service and support we offer our clients around the world. Not only do we have some of the best satisfaction ratings in the industry but, in addition, 94% of our clients indicated they were likely to recommend DocuXplorer to a colleague, further confirming the value of our product."
In addition to surveying client satisfaction, the 2011 Client Satisfaction survey also queried clients about the features they would most like to see in future releases. The two most popular requests were the need for full text searches in Microsoft Office 2010 file types and for online training modules.
"Based on this feedback, we are now developing a solution in our next release to allow our clients to perform full text searches within all Office 2010 file types and have begun developing a series of online tutorials for new users to fully learn the extensive functionality of DocuXplorer," added Wyman.
Since 1995, DocuXplorer has provided thousands of its users with an end-to-end document management solution, including award-winning document management software, Consulting Services, Taxonomy Training and secure online backup of its client data. For more information, visit www.docuxplorer.com.
© 2020 Archive Power Systems Inc.
All rights reserved.


text:
Date: 15.03.2019 - 31.12.2020
Place: Jewish of Daugavpils and Latgale Museum, 38 Cietokšņa Street, Daugavpils
The exhibition "The Great Jews of Latgale" can be seen at the Jewish of Daugavpils and Latgale Museum. It is a permanent exhibition that includes five stands with information about 125 Jews who were born, worked, lived or still live in Latgale.
Information about Jews from Daugavpils, Rēzekne, Ludza, Krāslava, Jēkabpils (Krustpils), Līvāni and other towns of Latgale region is displayed. Therefore, this exhibition is meaningful not only for residents but also for visitors from other towns of the region, Latvia and other countries.
The exhibition was created as a part of the project supported by the Ministry of Culture and Latgale NGO Support Centre. The project was developed by Josifs Ročko, director of the museum and a member of the union "Memory and Help".
The exhibition can be seen by prior arrangement by phone: +371 29548760 or e-mail: email@example.com
Additional information: Jewish of Daugavpils and Latgale Museum