Brewster Jennings. Not domestic?

* in my post about BJ apparently running an domestic op, I quoted Madsen:

"A U.S. intelligence source stated that "Grossman's name was all over the FBI wiretaps in 2001" and the name "Brewster Jennings" first became known to the FBI counter-intelligence agents from these intercepts."

I had in mind this conversation between Larisa and Miguel from April:

Larisa

The reality is that even the mechanics make no sense because a CIA cover cannot be operating within the US, FBI counter intelligence would have been the cover operating at that party. Anything discovered by CIA cover agents operating within the States is not only illegal, it would not be allowed in court. So it sort of defeats the purpose.

Miguel

-Is it possible that FBI/CIA were conducting a joint monitoring of the nuclear traffick from the US via Turkey to Pakistan and other countries (Iran?). It would seem to me complete folly to have 2 separate CIA and FBI counterproliferation teams that did not communicate with each other (especially when some of the nuclear black market material is originating from the US).

Larisa replied:

Short answer is they could be allowed to run a joint op, with proper authorization.

So with that background, I figured that if Madsen was correct, and FBI CI first learned of this op when they heard the wiretaps, then I figured that there was maybe a problem - ie that a CIA domestic op was probably illegal.

Yesterday, Simon sez:

"Not entirely sure of your use of the word 'domestic' here???"

I was presuming that BJ was investigating the ATC - which was primarily on domestic soil.

Viget added:

"Did you point out the FBI's CI ignorance presumably because CIA domestic ops are illegal?

Maybe there were other divisons of the FBI that were working a joint op with BJ (as part of the large corruption investigation that sibel's intercepts are related to?), and CI wasn't in the loop for some reason?

Another possibility is that it wasn't BJ running any domestic ops, but the targets of the CI investigation (Grossman among them) that were talking about BJ running ops in another country?

Presumably the FBI CI isn't privy to all CIA cover mechanisms, only those that they need to know about for purposes of domestic operations.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily get that BJ was running domestic ops from that snippet you quoted. Only that FBI CI had never heard of/didn't know that BJ was a CIA cover mechanism until they intercepted these communications. Which is as it should be, you know, with sensitive compartmentalized information and what not."

Good questions all - I'm not exactly sure how it plays out. It could be that there was 'a joint op, with proper authorization' - but that FBI CI (for whatever reason) wasn't aware of it. It could be that BJ was only 'operating' offshore... Most likely (I now realize) is that it was actually FBI CI that was running the operation on ATC/AIPAC - and BJ wasn't involved domestically - which, incidentally, would add weight to Larisa's statement that Plame wasn't on duty when she was met Wilson at the ATC.

For some background, this from Sibel's 911Comm letter to Tom Kean

The public has still not been told of the intentional obstruction of intelligence. The public has not been told that certain information, despite its relevance to terrorist activities, is not shared with counterterrorism units. This was true prior to 9/11, and it remains true today. If counterintelligence receives information about terrorism that implicates certain nations, semi-legit organizations or the politically powerful in this country, then that information is not shared with counterterrorism, regardless of the consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents have cited "direct pressure by the State Department."

Here's Sibel emphasizing the CI aspect:

"The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations."

And as I noted previously:

As I've previously mentioned, I have never really understood the distinctions, nor the significance, that Sibel makes when she talks about counter-intelligence (CI) and counter-terrorism (CT) and so on. Thankfully she explained it to me.

Counter-Intelligence regularly monitors groups - such as embassies, groups like AIPAC and ATC, and anywhere else that they think that they need to keep an eye on. If they find something nefarious, and they have jurisdiction (i.e. not embassies or foreign diplomats), then CI will refer the case to the relevant part of the FBI - be it narcotics, counter-terrorism, criminal etc.