June 6, 2010 4:53 PM
Former FBI and CIA terrorism fighter Nada Prouty was herself accused of aiding terrorism, but in her first interview, she denies she was anything other than a patriot. Scott Pelley investigates her case.
The Case Against Nada Prouty
Taking down a cartel, Why are glasses expensive?, Lionel Messi 43:27 June 16, 2013
Lionel Messi and the ascent of Barca soccer 13:23 June 16, 2013
Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? 13:01 June 16, 2013
Taking down Colombia's "super cartel" 13:03 June 16, 2013
60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends
Soccer academy La Masia: A model for the U.S.?
June 16, 2013
Drug traffickers' vehicle of choice
June 16, 2013
Summer Series: My favorite 60 Minutes story
June 16, 2013
Big changes for the 2012-2013 season! Watch the current week's episode for FREE up to a week after it airs or subscribe for access to all shows, classic episodes and more!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
See all 81 CommentsWhat was there to refute? Im sorry your fictional story failed to provide any real facts or truth. However you did a very good job of trying to lead the average person with your story as if they where 3rd grader's. Very telling of a potential anti-social personality type jrlamb, not to mention very insulting to people in general.
As far as being a supporter of Nada Prouty, absolutely! I am 100% behind her all the way to Justice! The real question is how did I become a supporter? Am I family? a former co-worker? a neighbor? Someone she has convinced too rally support for her, or that came into this with a already biased opinion? No! None of the above. She would not play the same games you or others might. I watched 60 minutes the first time.I had never heard her name before then. I became interested because I seen something in her I'm not use to seeing in media... Truth, innocence, purity, honesty, integrity... I still wasn't sure, so I dug and researched and researched some more, and when I was done, there was no doubt left in my mind,based on facts and truth, she was railroaded, sabotaged, trashed in the most dishonorable ways thinkable. I shared my findings with some friends, law enforcers,service men/women, some politically active individuals, and those that rarely show interest in matters such as this, and across the board they shared and confirmed my own findings and feelings, based on the truth's that are there for all to see jrlamb. Yes there is a ocean of propaganda and media attacks slandering her name, her honor, her accomplishments, and yes it can be overwhelming. But the Truth is all there despite it, and if I found it,so has a multitude of others.
I recognize your text book tactic's there jrlamb of trying to discourage and belittle me and suggest to the readers there is no support behind Nada, by suggesting "I don't think you changed the minds or hearts of anyone.", when the reality is, if you truly believed that statement, you would not be wasting your time here trying to further discredit Nada Prouty. Why would you care? What is it to you? Now that's a real good question isn't it! As you can pick me out as a supporter of Nada Prouty, jrlamb,we can also pick you and yours out. I have read and reread certain individuals expressions... We all have our own choice words and phrases that are telling of who we are, or at least where we stand. You are invested in discrediting Nada, and you try and cover it with more tactics like mis-spelling her name,like you have had no prior knowledge or interest in her, when you know full well what her name is, and how to spell it. You have been invested in keeping her down for to long not too.
I and many others are invested as well jrlamb. Invested in educating others about the truth and in-just done to Nada Prouty, and supporting her in regaining her citizenship, and exposing those that sabotaged her and hopefully get them fired and imprisoned. The numbers are growing in support for Nada by the day jrlamb. The truth can not and will not stay hide. We are also invested jrlamb... To see real justice done for Nada Prouty.
As far as wishing me luck with my crusade, thanks, but I don't believe in luck,I believe in truth.Its the truth that puts me and others standing firm behind Nada and that is where we will stand until justice is done for her.
HOLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
(Supposed) sleeper cell/ Former inmate 75369-053
www.rmj.name
Since first hearing of this case, I have personally committed myself to doing as much as possible to work with others to see that her citizenship is returned, so that she can be fully, and publicly vindicated . . . as she so richly deserves.
Again, my greatest respect and gratitude to your organization for keeping this matter in the light.
The contents of the document have not been disclosed but again, no person, not even the prosecution, has ever claimed or demonstrated the document was related to her family in any way. jrlamb is inventing facts that simply don't exist. It is clear from court documents it was an FBI document not a CIA document, so jrlamb has those "facts" wrong as well. That also puts lie to his claim there was CIA "sleight of hand" in her categorical exoneration from the CIA. I don't imagine a Federal Agency is going to try playing "sleight of hand" on a Federal Judge. Finally, the exoneration document was provided by CIA to the prosecutor, Nada didn't produce it and I expect CBS located it in the public record. From what I can see the FBI ACS system is an unreliable mess based on the DOJ IG reporting I have reviewed, I encourage folks to Google "FBI ACS system and IG report" before they form any final judgments on misdemeanor viewing. The Judge in her case also went to great length to note she did not print the document or mishandled classified information in any way--I can't imagine him saying that in the public record if the FBI had any information showing she did wrong as jrlamb's invented narrative implies.
jrlamb and other posters inventing facts claim Nada's lawyers would have seen the evidence against her in the process of "discovery" that accompanies a trial. But the prosecutors extorted a plea out of Nada, so discovery never happened. Based on her story, I think the American people need to see a bit of discovery though, those are public servants who did this, with public money, and I for one think we are owed a lot more facts from the government.
jrlamb claims Nada was involved in a complex marriage fraud costing tens of thousands of dollars. The person she married claimed (via his wife) in a Detroit Free Press article that he never received any payment because the effort was so disorganized and haphazard. As a 19 year old I don't imagine her efforts were that sophisticated, but that doesn't excuse them. She admitted in her interview she made a mistake, and the statue of limitations ran on that mistake. jrlamb's preposterous suggestion that faking a marriage to keep from going back to a country in the midst of brutal civil war is the same as robbing a bank or murdering someone speaks for itself. From a simple facts basis, there isn't a statue of limitations on murder so at least half of the debate about Nada's case wouldn't apply. Using prosecutorial powers to extort a plea deal that reverses the intent of the statue of limitations is a grotesque twisting of the law and its intent. The statute of limitation is itself a law and part of the federal code and using clever lawyering on the part of the prosecution to sidestep its intent won't win any admiration from me. Especially if those lawyers' record of service is zero and they are attacking an unquestioned warrior who has put their life on the line for the United States.
Given the work Nada did, jrlamb's suggestion she go to the press doesn't seem very realistic. From what I can see, she tried to stay in the shadows and resolve this matter as quietly as possible. Read the stories from 2007, they try and make her out to be some kind of clerk. I am sure she was bound by all kinds of secrecy agreements, and she has continued to respect them despite the treatment she has received. Do we really want to "deport her" as jrlamb suggests to determine if she can continue to protect those secrets while being tortured by the very terrorists she fought on behalf of the United States?
Lastly, the 60 Minutes story presented this as a story of overzealous prosecutors striving to make a case against an innocent woman. Not really, Nadia did have the potential to be a sleeper agent. Her lying about accessing that computer gave them more smoke to look at and wonder if there was fire. If Nadia hadn?t done the sham marriage and lied regarding accessing confidential information what could the ?overzealous? prosecutors actually do to her. Nadia said her co-workers pulled away from her. So what? If the prosecutors created a hostile work environment file a civil suit. Complain to her CIA supervisors about the harassment. Complain to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Complain to the Attorney General himself. Go to the press if you have to. Nadia did this to herself.
What I would do is give her a medal for her service to the country. This would have nothing to do with why she is in trouble but gotta give Nadia her due. Then ban her from ever working for the Federal Government again unless its teaching new FBI and CIA recruits about how to detect liars. Then deport her.
First, according to the story, Nadia was accused of unauthorized access of a secure database. Her purpose in doing this was to access an investigation where she was not part of the investigative team. She wanted to find out what was going on regarding her sister and her sister's husband and what the Justice Department thought regarding Nadia's connection to the couple and a possible terrorist link. Nadia's reason for pleading guilty to that charge? All the money it was going to cost her and her family to fight the charge. But Nadia now says she didn't do the crime. Never happened. In watching Nadia being interviewed I concluded she was lying. Why?
Proving this charge is pretty easy for the government. Imagine Nadia being interviewed by an investigator. "Nadia, we have time records that show you signed in, clocked in, scanned your thumb print etc. on the day in question at the CIA facility so we know you were at work. We also have videotape of you arriving at work and leaving at the end of the work day." Nadia, after you arrived at work you accessed your computer. We know this because we searched your computer. There is your security password and your login code. Five minutes after you logged in you accessed the confidential information. There is the time you accessed it, how long you searched around the information, and the time you exited the file. Nadia, no one else would have any reason to access that information. It was you."
Nadia is asking the public to believe the FBI approached her and her attorney and said "Nadia we want you to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. You accessed unauthorized confidential information." Nadia and her attorney then said, "Well FBI, what evidence do you have?" The FBI said, "Nothing really. We have an empty folder. We can't prove any of this. This is just our opinion and we want to look good with a high profile catch." Nadia's attorney then said, "Nadia, you had better plead guilty to what they want then. I can't defend against that!" My God! Nadia then said, "You are right. I can't afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this case. I had better plead guilty after a judge asks me in court, under oath, whether I understand the charges against me and if I know that I am admitting guilt. Maybe later I can appear on 60 Minutes and say that I made a mistake and didn't do the crime.?
You will notice Nadia produced a letter from the CIA indicating that she had been cleared and exonerated. Slow down and think about it. Exonerated about what? She was exonerated regarding her having any involvement with a foreign entity or terrorist group. Good for her. A little bit of slight of hand though. She didn?t plead guilty to that charge. Where is the letter exonerating her regarding the access of unauthorized information? It was a CIA computer. Where is that letter Nadia?
Second, the 60 Minutes story made it seem like is was simply a youthful indiscretion regarding her sham marriage at 19 years of age. Really? She was an adult. This wasn?t a case of someone dropping off some paperwork and Nadia signing it and later having regrets. Nadia was part of a criminal conspiracy involving three sham marriages. Nadia had to meet with her sham ?husband,? learn everything she could about him, then go in front of an INS Officer and repeatedly lie about her relationship with this man. She had to repeatedly lie, verbally and in writing, over a period of at least several months if not longer while she was pulling off this scam. Such a scam would have costs tens of thousands of dollars to pull off. The sham husband has to be paid. Nadia wasn?t accused of shoplifting a stick of gum.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
See all 81 Comments