— Domani Spero
[twitter-follow screen_name=’Diplopundit’ ]
Late on November 6, WaPo published the following Robin Raphel story:
U.S. diplomat Robin Raphel under investigation as part of counterintelligence probe http://t.co/G0veewqThH
— Dave Seminara (@DaveSem) November 7, 2014
Here is a link to the NYT story:
Counterintelligence Agents Search State Department Pakistan Expert’s Home and Office http://t.co/ofFZFGPaPU
— New York Times World (@nytimesworld) November 7, 2014
On November 7, an unnamed official cited by the Associated Press said the FBI investigation was related to access to classified materials:
Re: Robin Raphel: “One of the officials said the FBI investigation was related to access to classified materials” http://t.co/qdQjEeZuq7
— Shashank Joshi (@shashj) November 7, 2014
NYT did a follow-up report over two weeks later reporting that an eavesdropping on a Pakistani official led to the Raphel inquiry:
Wiretap ignited espionage investigation of US diplomat Robin Raphel. Classified info discovered in her house. http://t.co/c50U0B7qSr
— Matt Apuzzo (@mattapuzzo) November 21, 2014
A follow-up report from WaPo includes a statement from Amy Jeffress, Ambassador Raphel’s attorney (she is also the former chief of the National Security Section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia).
“Ambassador Raphel is a highly respected career diplomat who has dedicated her life to serving the United States and its interests,” said Amy Jeffress, Raphel’s attorney and the former chief of the National Security Section in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. “She would never intentionally do anything to compromise those interests. She, and we as her counsel, are cooperating with the investigation, and we are confident that she will be cleared of any suspicion.”
Robin Raphel’s lawyer says client dedicated to U.S. and would never intentionally compromise those interests. http://t.co/dsezsYRYr0
— Adam Goldman (@adamgoldmanwp) November 22, 2014
What do we know about this case? Below is a list of “known” items out there according to media reports:
- The federal investigation reportedly is part of a counterintelligence probe.
- Ambassador Raphel’s security clearances reportedly was withdrawn.
- She reportedly was placed on administrative leave last month, and her contract with the State Department was allowed to expire.
- The FBI reportedly searched her Northwest Washington home, and her State Department office also was examined and sealed.
- Agents reportedly “discovered classified information” during a raid at her home.
- In an intercepted conversation this year “a Pakistani official suggested that his government was receiving American secrets from a prominent former State Department diplomat,” reportedly setting off the espionage investigation.
- Apparently,Ambassador Raphel has not been told she is the target of an investigation, and she has not been questioned according to her spokesman.
- Ambassador Raphel now has a lawyer.
- Over two weeks after the original report surfaced, she has not been formally accused or charged with a crime. Since she has not been formally charged, she has no way to defend herself from allegations.
The Indian media has had a field day with this investigation, throwing in a bunch of name calling, and well, it looks like she is considered a national nemesis over there. The view from Pakistan (read this) is thoughtful and more wait and see. We’re also now starting to see Raphel’s name being linked to Hillary Clinton; she has been described as a “close Clinton family friend,” a “Hillary donor” and a “powerful Clinton ally.”
In any case, we understand from a source inside the building that the FBI would “never investigate” a State employee without coordinating with Diplomatic Security’s Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence. Apparently, there is an FBI liaison in DS/IC to assist with the sharing of case information but whatever role Diplomatic Security played in this case, the bureau is not advertising it.
We’ve compiled a list of the things we don’t know about this case and the questions we have:
- According to WaPo, two U.S. officials described the investigation as a counterintelligence matter, which typically involves allegations of spying on behalf of foreign governments. Who are these officials and what are their motive for leaking a counter-intel probe to the news media?
- The investigation reportedly is ongoing; does the media spotlight not jeopardize the investigation?
- According to NYT, it is unclear exactly what the Pakistani official said in the intercepted conversation that led to this investigation. Apparently, it is also not/not clear “whether the conversation was by telephone, email or some other form of communication.” Does this mean all
discretediscreet Pakistani officials in the U.S. now are limited to discussing their lunch menu and tourist opportunities in their host country to using tin can telephones for official subjects?
- Who is the Pakistani official? Was he/she aware that USG agents were eavesdropping? If he/she/they were not aware before of the eavesdropping, are they aware now? We’re seriously perplexed, how is this helpful?
- We understand that by the time a case like this goes overt, the government has all the information it needs. It is not not apparent if that is the case here. If we presume that the USG went overt because it has all the evidence it needs, how come there are no charges to-date?
One of our most sacred principles in the United States is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The government not only must charge an individual suspected of a crime, it also must prove,beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged. That has not happened here.
Despite what the Indian media says, and even if Pakistani officials in the U.S. now are using tin-can telephones to communicate, the current status of the Raphel case amount to allegations from unnamed officials, and an ongoing investigation. That is far from clear evidence of guilt.
* * *
Updated on 11/25/14 at 1546 PST to correct grammatical errors and for clarity.