Wouldn't it be perfectly simple for the CIA to issue a statement saying she wasn't covert, if she were misrepresenting herself?

Kevin, the CIA authorized the Committee to use those terms--classified, covert and undercover.
It's not just Valeri making that claim.

I thought the whole reason Fitzgerald was appointed in the first place is because the CIA raised a stink about her outing and requested an investigation?

I think Fitzgerald's problem was that the best case against the VP etc. was that, once they were apprised she was a CIA agent, they were obligated under normal procedures to find out whether she was covert before blabbing her name all over the press. And that's kind if iffy for criminal liability. Just the ticket for impeachment, however, one might think.

Good to hear it straight from her. Of course, this all put to rest years ago -- except in the fevered little minds of Republicans -- by the very fact that the CIA referred this to Justice Department in the first place.

Well she was careful in answering the question each time it came up and acknowledged she did not know if the legal conditions for prosecution for leaking her identity were met.

Certainly, there will need to be some explanation for her view of her status and the CIA's actions to protect that status versus what both Novak and the CIA have previously described as the CIA's actions.

It may be that Fitzgerald could not have won a case based on the law, but that fact that he didn't even try to prosecute such a case suggests there is some space between Plame's description of her status and that of other legal experts.

I thought Fitzgeral's reasoning for not pursuing IIPA charges had less to do with the definition of 'covert' (CIA would not have referred the case to justice, if it was) and more to do with 'intent'. the IIPA specifies that the release of information to harm the US is a crime. To harm the US is a difficult intent to prove and I dont think that that was even anyone's intention. To harm her, yes. to intimidate wilson, yes. To make an example out of them, yes. But to harm the US, I really doubt it.

Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. When will you learn? She's lying, and if Fitzgerald hadn't been a partisan Democrat out on a witchhunt he would have indicted Wilson for outing his own wife by writing that Op-ed. AND he would have determined she was never covert.

And both of them would have been charged with treason, and the GOP would still control the House. It's a liberal witch hunt, and you're just falling for it.

So sad.

This "Was she covert?" controversy was utterly bogus from the get-go. The only reason it got so much play was that the right figured out it was a lie they could repeat endlessly knowing CIA would not want to make a definitive statement contradicting it. But anyone with a working brain could see she'd been covert until Rove & Co. outed as political payback against Joe Wilson.

Patrick Fitzgerald decided he couldn't win a case against any of the Plame leakers merely for leaking her name. Maybe that was because he decided she didn't qualify as "covert" under the very specific legal requirement of the IIPA Act. Maybe it was for other reasons.

The Corner explains why Patrick Fitzgerald knew why he would LOSE if he prosecuted someone for leaking she was covert.

Link

""My covert status "was not widely known on the Georgetown cocktail circuit"

"Plame included that line in her testimony a few minutes ago. A former CIA officer emails me:"

"The covert status of CIA officers should not be known AT ALL to non-cleared persons or to ANY ONE on the "Georgetown cocktail circuit.""

"Will someone on the panel think to ask her to name those few on the Georgetown cocktail circuit who were aware of her covert status? And to ask how they became aware of that? From hints that she and Wilson provided, perhaps?"

Who has a link to that George H.W. Bush quote about outing CIA officers?

The Oedipal shit going on in George W. Bush's peabrain is overwhelming sometimes.

Kevin, I don't understand what you are saying. Is or was there any doubt in your mind at this point about Plame's covert status?

If she is confirmed now as covert, doesn't that underscore the seriousness of Libby's obstruction of justice in investigating the outing? Doesn't it also indicate that the odds are more probable that Fitzgerald could not bring sufficient evidence to make conviction likely against those he really believes to have done so because of the obstruction of Libby (and all the roadblocks and delays by the WH plus the clear organized effort to discredit and derail this investigation by the GOP spin machine) than the idea he didn't because she never qualified under the relevant Act(s)? Indeed, as I have said many times before, if she did not qualify this investigation would likely not have happened, let alone gone as far as it did.

No, she was covert, as I have said for years now the evidence to support that was out there for those more interested in the truth/reality than in political spin like our Trolletariat. Well, I have to step away from my computer for a few hours; it will be interesting to see what the Trolletariat spews in this thread in the meantime since many of their talking points just got dealt fatal blows. How does it feel to be proven to support treasonous behaviour oh our Trolletariat, does it give you that warm tingly feeling only betrayal and treason can evoke in modern conservatives?

FEH!

I also think it's a mistake to get caught up in whether she was "covert" as that term is defined in the IIPA or other statutes, or whether any crime was committed. Her testimony establishes clearly that she, and the CIA, thought it important for identity and status as a CIA operative to be kept secret, and that secrecy was destroyed by the Bush White House for -- whatever reason you care to ascribe to them -- their own political gain, not the good of the country. It's that simple, and that reprehensible. What more does one need to say?

For whatever reason, Patrick Fitzgerald decided he couldn't win a case against any of the Plame leakers merely for leaking her name.

Fitzgerald himself stated that because of Libby's lies, he was unable to determine the facts of the leak. I would trust the prosecutor's explanation before I would trust the morons on The Corner or the fools who trust them.

It may be that Fitzgerald could not have won a case based on the law

Yup. This is based on the very strict, very narrow law. You must prove intent. This makes the law virtually impossible to prosecute.

This does not imply that:
there is some space between Plame's description of her status and that of other legal experts.

With her testimony and the CIA's authorization to use those terms makes, now, her status at the time of Novak's artical unimpeachable.

Waxman beat you to it, Old Hat. Began the hearing with the George I quote.

Has anyone noticed that the need to respond to Al or Am. Hawk has entirely disappeared?

like Andrea Mitchell revealed

Would that be the same Andrea Mitchell that said the American people want Bush to pardon Libby, despite several polls showing the opposite by a 2-1 margin? That Andrea Mitchell, or is there another one, AmHawk?

But anyone with a working brain could see she'd been covert until Rove & Co. outed as political payback against Joe Wilson.
Posted by: jimBOB

Bingo.

Shit, sorry David, I ruined your point. I take it back!

Kevin, I believe that General Michael Hayden confirmed for the committee that she was covert. Would that be good enough for you? I have this on authority of a not completely clear liveblog of the hearing, so check it out.

No, she was covert, as I have said for years now the evidence to support that was out there for those more interested in the truth/reality than in political spin like our Trolletariat. Well, I have to step away from my computer for a few hours; it will be interesting to see what the Trolletariat spews in this thread in the meantime since many of their talking points just got dealt fatal blows. How does it feel to be proven to support treasonous behaviour oh our Trolletariat, does it give you that warm tingly feeling only betrayal and treason can evoke in modern conservatives?

Hmmm....spew, spew, spew...there was no crime committed.

How do I know? Hmm...

A prosecutor spent over two years looking at all the evidence and, with all of the prosecutorial powers and grand jury access and millions in resources and staff...and didn't charge anyone with a crime.

Now, I don't know what that says to the peasants, but it says to me that...there wasn't anything worth prosecuting. And, I'm sorry, but in America that usually means you can't keep sitting there in a pile of your own stink and stew and keep claiming someone broke the law.

It's due process, people. Deal with it.

Kevin
At Fitz's press conference after the verdict he specifically stated that she was covert. So why the question on your part about her status?

I don't think they said to themselves "Let's ruin a CIA agent's career to get her husband." Even if they had done that it would have been hard to prove it.

I think they wanted to embarass Wilson by saying "his wife got him the job." (I heard a wingnut call the local morning show to call him a "pansy" who lets his wife run his life). The best offense against Democrats was questioning their "manhood."

They were reckless about Plame. They didn't bother checking her status, or figured it didn't matter, or just didn't care. Fitzgerald may not have had a *criminal* case, but he knew that the whole thing stunk to high heaven.

There's a world of difference between "criminal according to statute, and provable to boot" and "highly unethical and immoral and probably impeachable."

That's why we're having the hearing......reckless endangerment of a covert CIA operative.

Morat20: "So sad."

Or, in your case, Sade.

Does anyone else pick up a weird undertone of distrust of, well, Fitzgerald I guess in Kevin's last few posts on this topic? It is almost as if he _wants_ to buy into the Radical efforts to discredit the Libby prosecution, but he keeps getting pushed back (or pulled back from the edge) but factual evidence.

Cranky

Personally, I think the definition of "Covert" was not the actual reason why no one was charged with the crime of leaking her name.

As far as I understand the law, the law in question requires not only that a person leak a name, but that they do so with the intent of harming the National Security of the united states. In other words, you're also required to prove intent.

Had the first person to leak her name been Libby, Cheney, Rove, etc., I think they might have been able to be prosecuted for that crime because they were clearly doing the leaking deliberately. However, as far as I can tell, Armitage was the first to leak her ID, and he did so fully by accident. So if the leak happened by accident, Fitz would have been unable to prove intent.

> A prosecutor spent over two years looking at all
> the evidence and, with all of the prosecutorial
> powers and grand jury access and millions in
> resources and staff...and didn't charge anyone
> with a crime.

Well, he charged Irving Libby with five crimes; the jury of Libby's peers (really his superiors if you ask me) convicted him on four of the five and per their account had voted 9-2 to convict on the fifth.

Cranky

Isn't DJ right? If memory serves, Fitzpatrick charged Libby with obstruction precisely because Libby's obstruction made it impossible to pursue the issue of who leaked her identity. Doesn't this allow us to presume that that issue was worth pursuing (i.e. that a crime had been committed)?

Kevin,

This is getting really annoying. Fitzgerald had already stated that he couldn't prosecute on the Plame outing BECAUSE OF LIBBY'S PERJURY!!!!!

Several posters have pointed this out every time you claim otherwise.

Why do you insist on repeating this already disproven line?

If you look at the way the law is written, it is almost impossible to convict under it, because one has to know what the perpetrator was thinking.

As commenters have noted, Fitzgerald himself clearly stated thet Plame was covert. A few times. Balto above is more correct, and I think the problem was also that Fitzgerald had to show the leaker KNEW that she was covert at the time she was outed. Cheney probably knew this, but he did not leak outside of those who could here such info. One would think Libby knew, but maybe he didn't--I don't think 'reason to know' cuts it. But who knows.

> This is getting really annoying. Fitzgerald had
> already stated that he couldn't prosecute on the
> Plame outing BECAUSE OF LIBBY'S PERJURY!!!!!

I would guess it is actually a bit more subtle than that: Fitzgerald was not willing to indict Cheney unless his case was airtight 5x beyond a reasonable doubt because he takes his oath to uphold the Constitutional seriously. It might still have been possible to bring a weak case against Cheney, but Libby's perjury blocked the airtight case that was the bar for indicting a Vice-President.

Cranky

We haven't heard the last from the Libby jury. Any day now, they are going to return indictments and verdicts against Plame, Wilson, and Fitzgerald.

As ducks go, she's pretty.

Well, he charged Irving Libby with five crimes; the jury of Libby's peers (really his superiors if you ask me) convicted him on four of the five and per their account had voted 9-2 to convict on the fifth.

So because Mr. Libby had a bad memory and was tricked into saying things that TV's very own pancake-eating goofball, Tim Russert, could then lie about in open court, that's why there was a non-crime committed here that wasn't actually prosecuted?

You liberals are delusional.

What good does it do now? Really I dont see how these hearings go anywhere unless there are pending criminal investigations. Waxman can conduct all hearings he wants, but it does not serve to uncover the truth. Fitzgerald did a terrible job in my opinion by allowing Rove to retract his lies 5 times. If Rove was indicted, the whole thing would have exploded big time. Scotter is unknown person to Americans so his indictment/conviction did not matter much.

As far as I understand the law, the law in question requires not only that a person leak a name, but that they do so with the intent of harming the National Security of the united states. In other words, you're also required to prove intent.

I don't believe you have to have that intent under the IIPA, but rather under the Espionage Act.

I just skimmed the thread, and it really doesn't look as if anybody has gotten it right. Well, I know the answer.

The IIPA does NOT require intent to harm the United States. Whoever said that has it mixed up with the Espionage Act, which is another law that could conceivably have been used in that case--if not for the sticky little intent to harm detail (although, even for the Espionage Act, I think there can be a serious question of "intent to harm" if, even though one might harbor the most salutary of ultimate motives, one implements those motives by taking actions designed in the short run to out a covert agent, thereby harming our intelligence capabilities).

Sorry for all those extraneous words without providing the answer that I promised, but here it is: the IIPA does not require intent to harm, but it DOES require that the accused "know[] that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent." Obviously, you can't know that you're identifying a covert agent unless you know that the agent is covert.

Therefore, it would've been absolutely necessary for Fitzgerald to PROVE that the leakers knew that Plame was a covert agent in order for him to be able to prosecute. And since the leakers were all insiders who pretty much all fell either into the "clamming up" group or the "outright lying" group, it was not possible for him to get any proof about what the leakers knew. In this case there was no Kyle Sampson helpfully explaining everyone's motives in a series of e-mails.

This is exactly what Fitzgerald was talking about at his indictment press conference when he said:

If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that. And you'd wonder whether or not the person just reared back and decided, "I've got bad blood with this batter. He hit two home runs off me. I'm just going to hit him in the head as hard as I can."

You also might wonder whether or not the pitcher just let go of the ball or his foot slipped, and he had no idea to throw the ball anywhere near the batter's head. And there's lots of shades of gray in between.

* * *

FITZGERALD: And what you'd want to do is have as much information as you could. You'd want to know: What happened in the dugout? Was this guy complaining about the person he threw at? Did he talk to anyone else? What was he thinking? How does he react? All those things you'd want to know.

* * *

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

Her comment about widely known as around Georgetown was a tag to Andrea Mitchell's idiotic, and retracted, comment. (How stupid can some people be?)

Fitzgerald didn't prosecute because of the difficulty in showing intent. Intent. Intent. Intent. There'd have been no investigation if she wasn't covert. The CIA would have known. The judges who approved Fitzgerald's authority would have known.

Intent. Intent. Intent.

Personally, I would have gone after the lot of them for recklessness. Recklessness suffices for conscious intent in most crimes.

It seems there are a lot of rocks being turned over at the moment.

I wonder if there are new witnesses or email caches that might get the ball rolling again.

Really I dont see how these hearings go anywhere unless there are pending criminal investigations.

The hearings allow the Congress to explore what was done, the propriety of the actions, and who is responsible for any wrongdoing in ways that aren't limited to the narrow terms of the criminal law.

They can also lay the groundwork for sanctions against officials that are either legally or practically insulated from criminal prosecution, in any case.

This is Alger Hiss two. Lefties will be arguing about this, with absoluely no one else listening, in 25 years. The movie will open in DC and will be seen by the same audience that went to see Brokeback Mountain. Molehill exaggerates its importance, except to Scooter Libby who is the only victim. Bush should have cleaned out the CIA after 9/11 and this is their payback to him for not ridding the place of dead wood.

Nicely explained, Trickster.

Unless your really really stupid Fitz layed out to the world That Bush Cheney and Rove are all guilty,But because of the way the law is written and the fact that Libby lied there was no way to convict.But quite obivious the ar tratiors.

The law has some caveats that make prosecution difficult:
…Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States…

... he didn't even try to prosecute such a case suggests …. Hacksaw at 1:23 PM

…like Andrea Mitchell revealed… American Bawk at 1:30 PM

…but it says to me that.….. Norman Rogers at 1:41 PM

The liberal media has blown the Plame case far out of proportion. If, in fact (a big if) she was covert, then the media is complicit in ensuring that far more terrorists know about it than would have if they'd buried the story. The media are the real traitors here, and so are all the commenters here who keep this case alive.

*************
So because Mr. Libby had a bad memory and was tricked into saying things that TV's very own pancake-eating goofball, Tim Russert, could then lie about in open court, that's why there was a non-crime committed here that wasn't actually prosecuted?

You liberals are delusional.
*********************

Oh my goodness, round and round and round he goes. Normally I ignore Norman's idiocy but this one had me laughing so hard, I just had to post.

I think this quote proves that Norman is a satire troll; a mole whose mission is making wingnuts and wingnettes look like idiots. Btw, this is about as difficult as making Karl Rove smarmy - or Bill Clinton horney or getting W to wet his whistle.

Just now on C-Span Henry Waxman destroyed Victoria Toensing on the question of Plame being covert. She was!

Unless your really really stupid Fitz layed out to the world That Bush Cheney and Rove are all guilty,But because of the way the law is written and the fact that Libby lied there was no way to convict.

Thankfully, we don't live in stupidtown, which is where you found the matchbook that had that comment scrawled upon it.

We live in America, and if you think a crime has been committed, you prosecute the person who did it and you have a trial.

Did anyone get prosecuted? No. Was there a trial? No. Therefore, in a country where there is a thing called the rule of law, you can't very well go around proclaiming someone guilty when they weren't charged with a crime and where there wasn't a trial.

I realize this confuses some of you simpler peasants out there, but trust in what your uncle Norman tells you--if someone goes to trial and is found guilty, then you can call them "guilty." If they don't, you can't.

The DCIA back then (George Tenet) thought she was covert. The current DCIA also said she was covert. But what would they know? After all - Jonah Goldberg is the expert on everything.

The other thing, skanky as it is, but as came out in the Libby trial, Bush DECLASSIFIED Plame's identity. He already had created an executive order giving him the right to do this, and this is what they did to support their leak. They knew exactly what they were doing and also how to skate by.

Shorter Mike K: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Wouldn't it be perfectly simple for the CIA to issue a statement saying she wasn't covert, if she were misrepresenting herself?

If memory serves me right, the CIA itself authorized a statement that she was, in fact, covert to be entered into the record.

As well, Plame was testifying under oath, so if she were misrepresenting herself, she could be charged with perjury and lying to the Feds just as Libby was.

What about the theory -- which both saves the phenomenon, and is parsimonious to boot, like all good theories -- that Plame was burnt not to make Wilson look pussy-whipped, but because she wouldn't play ball with an OVP-based black op to insert WMD into Iraq after the invasion, to retrospectively justify what is after all by Nuremberg standards a war crime? And that Brewster-Jennings needed to be rolled up because it wouldn't look the other way?

The 'let's make Wilson look hen-pecked' is a disproportionate, and pretty weak, motive for a breathtakingly stupid action.

Hey Norman. ;0

You tell 'em.

LOL

They can also lay the groundwork for sanctions

Sanctions? What sanctions can one branch of govt issue against another?

BTW: You should read the last few Washington Post editorials on your hero Joe Wilson. This is pure comedy. The house is making an ass of itself for the whacky left. Next there will be impeachment hearings featuring big Joe Wilson

I notice a few comments about while a crime is not provable in court, it is grounds for Impeachment. WRONG. The Constitution clearly states the defendant must be found guilty of a crime by the Senate. In other words, the House can vote for an Article of Impeachment, but Senate must agree by a 2/3 majority that a crime has, indeed been committed.

I believe Impeachment is in order for many members of the Administration. However, it would do no good without clear proof of guilt of the defendants. To those who cry, "Impeach Now!", I say to wait. The WH is imploding, which may well lead to the evidence necessary to convict. If it doesn't, however, let's leave Impeachment out of the picture. Their public record will hurt them: an unsuccessful bid to Impeach will will only help them, as it did for Clinton.

Thanks, Gregory.

Impeachment is the minimum action required. On FISA, on moving funding from Afghanistan to Iraq without authorization, on torture, etc. we see the same thing:

The law says 'don't do X'.
The president does X.
The president takes an oath to faithfully execute the law.

What the hell else are you supposed to do?

The CIA clearly decided that Plame-Wilson was covert when they refered the case to the Justice Department. I think the hypothesis that Fitzgerald decided that she was not covert has never been as likely as other possible explanations of his decision not to ask the grand jury to indict under the IIPA. A much more plausible explanation is that he decided that such an indictment would never have lead to a trial due to non co-operation by the Bush administration. The proof of covert status depends (obviously and by definition) on classified information (what covert missions where) which the Bush administration could have refused to release. Worse the defence could have demanded classified information (the Libby defence team demanded such information justifying the demand on the absurd grounds that they had to show he was a busy man). For a prosecution for outing Plame-Wilson, such information would definitely be relevant. Judge Walton (or whoever) would have to have agreed to their demand. The Bush administration would, of course, refuse to release the information. The judge would have to dismiss charges.

Even if positive proof of guilt was available to Fitzgerald, an indictment for outing Plame-Wilson would serve no useful purpose, since a trial would have been impossible. Therefore it would be stupid and improper, to ask a grand jury to indict. A belief that there is proof beyond reasonable doubt is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for an indictment.

The legal definition of covert agent may have caused prosecutorial difficulty as well.
(Dang, Trickster types faster and better than I.)

…Bush should have cleaned out the CIA after 9/11 ... ridding the place of dead wood. Mike K at 2:11 PM

…You should read the last few Washington Post editorials on your hero Joe Wilson. … rightist dim wit at 2:25 PM …

I notice a few comments about while a crime is not provable in court, it is grounds for Impeachment. WRONG. The Constitution clearly states the defendant must be found guilty of a crime by the Senate. In other words, the House can vote for an Article of Impeachment, but Senate must agree by a 2/3 majority that a crime has, indeed been committed.

bob in fl, I don't believe the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" has ever been interpreted to be coextensive with "crimes" as defined by federal (or even state) criminal codes. I have no doubt that the Senate could find the intentional leaking of a covert officer's name for political purposes to be an impeachable offense, even if for some reason all of the elements of a crime under the IIPA or Espionage Act had not been satisfied.

Did administration officials let out the identity of a covert CIA officer? Yes.

Did they do it deliberately? Maybe.

Did they *know* she was covert at the time? Probably.

Could you prove that in a court of law? Nope.

Was what they did wrong? I'd say.

Was it at the very least reckless? Can you think of a better word?

Doesn't outing a CIA agent hurt the security of the United States? Yup.

Doesn't ruining the career of someone who specialized in WMD seem especially foolish? Does to me?

Shouldn't someone lose their job over this? Yes. Even if they're the Vice President.....

Does the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard apply to impeachment? Is the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" restricted to common crimes? I think the answer to both is "no," so the failure to indict says nothing about the propriety of impeachment.

Scotian (hi, Scotian!) wrote: If she is confirmed now as covert, doesn't that underscore the seriousness of Libby's obstruction of justice in investigating the outing?

Yes, and Fitzgerald himself pointed out in public statements.

It never ceases to amaze me that the authoritarian Bush Cultists who call themselves conservatives defend this Administration for its actions -- and consider themselves "serious" about national security to boot!

Could you PLEASE be more wishy-washy, Kevin? Oh, my, you are a caution!

Both Novak and Libby were warned prior to leaking her name publicly that SHE WAS COVERT. Why, I wonder, would the CIA have referred the case to Justice. Do you ever wonder such a thing, Kevin?

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/waas-m-02-12.html

Kevin, the CIA authorized the Committee to use those terms--classified, covert and undercover.
It's not just Valeri making that claim.

Exactly. There's no question Plame was "undercover." There were questions as to whether Fitzgerald could "prove" knowledge (by alleged leakers of Plame's undercover/noc status, not just as an agency employee) and intent.

As the Post reported on July 27, 2005:

"[Bill] Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

I always apply the WICHDI rule in cases like this. That is, the "What If Clinton Had Done It" rule. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton's Administration had outed a CIA agent, purely for political reasons, whether he/she was covert or not? There is absolutely no doubt that the Republicans in Congress would have demanded and gotten a special prosecutor named and spent millions of our tax dollars investigating it. Abso-fuckin'-lutely no doubt.

It is now also very clear that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative, that she was outed purely for partisan political purposes and that she was not even present at the meeting at CIA headquarters when her husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to go to Niger to investigate the Saddam-yellowcake claim. Finally, and most tragically, it is very clear that America now has a political party - the GOP - that cares more about protecting one of it's own than in the safety and security of the American people. This is a sad, sad day for this Republic.

I don't doubt that Valerie was covert. I stilll wonder, however, about Joe. Since his trip to Niger was in 2/02, the SOTU was 1/03, the war began in 3/03 and he wrote his op-ed in 7/03, just what was he doing in the latter part of 2002? Was he not paying attention to what Cheney, Rice,Tenet, et al. were saying?
Fat lot of good he did by writing about the rationale for war being wrong after it already started. And yes, he did lie about several aspects of the debunking of the evidence.

Impeachment offenses do not have to be technically criminal. Start understanding that now, because if we get anywhere near impeachment hearings the first talking point will be "But what *crime* has he violated specifically?"

If a President spends his day munching cheetos and sitting on the sofa watching ESPN, guzzling a six-pack a day, you'd be hard-pressed to get him on felony charges. But you'd darn sure want to impeach him!

So she worked as an analyst at the cia headquarters. This isn't a covert job. I wonder what secret missions she was sent on and how did the cia expect to keep her identity secret. She may have commited perjury in her testimony.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means. There is no judicial reveiew of an impeachment proceeding or Senate trial.

notice a few comments about while a crime is not provable in court, it is grounds for Impeachment. WRONG. The Constitution clearly states the defendant must be found guilty of a crime by the Senate. In other words, the House can vote for an Article of Impeachment, but Senate must agree by a 2/3 majority that a crime has, indeed been committed.

Actually, it requires a finding by the Senate that bribery, treason, or other "high crimes and misdemeanors" have been committed, taking language from the provision of British law allowing for impeachment of officials. It is clear that in British usage of the time, the term "high crimes and misdemeanors", as applied in impeachment, included neglect or abuse of office or trust that did not rise to the level of an offense which could prosecuted as crime in the courts.

Its also worth noting that the "high" in "high crimes and misdemeanors" modifies both "crimes" and "misdemeanors", and refers to the offense being against the state rather than an individual (as in the archaic distinction between "petit treason" committed by a servant against a master, and "high treason" committed against the state.)

The scope of impeachable offenses is, by design, a political matter that Congress is free to address on a case-by-case basis. It is not, at all, limited to those offenses which can be prosecuted as crimes in regular criminal courts.

I always apply the WICHDI rule in cases like this. That is, the "What If Clinton Had Done It" rule. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton's Administration had outed a CIA agent, purely for political reasons, whether he/she was covert or not? There is absolutely no doubt that the Republicans in Congress would have demanded and gotten a special prosecutor named and spent millions of our tax dollars investigating it. Abso-fuckin'-lutely no doubt.

It is now also very clear that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA operative, that she was outed purely for partisan political purposes and that she was not even present at the meeting at CIA headquarters when her husband, Joseph Wilson, was asked to go to Niger to investigate the Saddam-yellowcake claim. Finally, and most tragically, it is very clear that America now has a political party - the GOP - that cares more about protecting one of it's own than in the safety and security of the American people. This is a sad, sad day for this Republic.

Does the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard apply to impeachment?

No, and even if it did, there is no one to review whether the Senate properly applied it as there is in a criminal trial. The Senate is the sole decider, under whatever standards it feels like applying, of guilt or innocence in an impeachment trial.

This is a meaningless debate. Conservatives are never going to believe their heroes would commit the treason that is outing a covert CIA operative for political reasons. The rest of us know they are. Valerie Plame was covert. We will never know how many men and women lost their lives because she was outed because Cheney had a temper tantrum in his bunker and Libby wasn't man enough to tell his boss to calm down.

Lets move to the next issue.

Waxman ended today's hearing by ripping Victoria Toensing into little bitty pieces!

Waxman ended today's hearing by ripping Victoria Toensing into little bitty pieces!

Good God! Isn't that illegal? Did he physically tear her to pieces like a wild animal? Didn't the Capitol Police stop him? Is he under arrest?

Despite his promise, Bush did not begin an investigation
…He [Knodell] said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said.
Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today.
Knodell said he had "no" conversations whatsoever with the president, vice president, Karl Rove or anyone about the leak.
Asked by chairman Rep. Henry Waxman if he knew this was an issue of concern, he said "yes." Asked if he learned this from the White House or the press, he said, "through the press."…
Bush didn't keep his word to the American people? What a suprise!

… Did he physically tear her to pieces like a wild animal…: Norman Rogers at 2:50 PM

Like you, she is a caricature of the rightist ideology.

You're not helping. Did he or didn't he, dammit?

But didn't The Decider claim he'd decided the Vice President was allowed to declassify anything he wanted anytime he wanted?

The law also requires intent to harm the US or some such. Cheney and Libby thought they were saving the US from traitors like Wilson.

zmull sums it up perfectly.

And if the VP can do that can't he go the other way and classify anything he wants to at any time, by sheer whim?

Waxman ended today's hearing by ripping Victoria Toensing into little bitty pieces!

That would be littering. Waxman should've called:

(202) 442-4610 for Excessive trash or debris on private property

or

(202) 442-4332 for Hazardous issues related to vacant properties

even

(202)645-824 for Proper disposal of items not included in DC's curbside recycling program

Who ordered the Niger forgeries? The US is not investigating. This is the question that needs to be answered. High treason indeed.

And if the VP can do that can't he go the other way and classify anything he wants to at any time, by sheer whim?

IIRC, legally, the President has a delegable power to declassify anything for just about any reason. The power to classify has more legal limits on when and for what reasons it may be used, which I think is generally appropriate: a preference for openness in government and strict regulation of secrecy is the best general policy.

Certainly, its possible to abuse discretion to declassify, but then, the Constitution already has a provision to deal with abuse of office that doesn't require a violation of the generally-applicable law, so there is no neason to tie the law into knots with restrictions on declassification by the President (or his ability to delegate that authority) to handle those extreme cases, which would inevitably serve as an additional incentive to secrecy and bar to openness in government.

zmull sums it up perfectly.

Agreed. Way back when, there was a lot of discussion about how the right was trying to make Wilson look unmanly with this info, but we've kind of lost sight of that point along the way.

It's always amused me that this administration is a shrine to nepotism as long as it's Man to Man. Would they have tried this crap if it were Wilson's brother or former partner who was an undercover CIA agent? I'm guessing no.

Kevin Drum: I have looked for a response from you to this....

Kevin,

This is getting really annoying. Fitzgerald had already stated that he couldn't prosecute on the Plame outing BECAUSE OF LIBBY'S PERJURY!!!!!

Several posters have pointed this out every time you claim otherwise.

Why do you insist on repeating this already disproven line?
Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK .... but have not seen one. I should also like to see your response as to why you have consistently not recanted after Fitzgerald's clear statement that Ms Plame was covert.

General Hayden, GW's latest DCI, is surely enough for you. He wrote to Waxman in direct reply to a direct question, that Ms Plame was coveet the day before Novak outed her. The CIA could not tell Novak, under all the rules, exactly what classification Plame had, merely that she was "classified". operatives of a country's intelligence service are always covert unless specifically stated as otherwise, like the DCI or DO.

Stop being thick, Norman and co.

The law also requires intent to harm the US or some such. Cheney and Libby thought they were saving the US from traitors like Wilson.

What might be good for the United States is literally furthest from their minds. I think their character and conduct in the last six years has illustrated that conclusively.

I think they'd be convicted with a standing ovation.

"Kevin, Kevin, Kevin. When will you learn? She's lying, and if Fitzgerald hadn't been a partisan Democrat out on a witchhunt he would have indicted Wilson for outing his own wife by writing that Op-ed. AND he would have determined she was never covert.

And both of them would have been charged with treason, and the GOP would still control the House. It's a liberal witch hunt, and you're just falling for it.

So sad."

Just to remind you. Fitzgerald is a conservative ( in the good sense) Republican prosecutor.

Whats sad is your unbelievable stupidity.

I throw out the hook if your really really stupid.And Norman bites my hook.What the hell am I supposed to do with this ugly Nroman fish?

nepeta @ 3.04

I've always be4lieved, with no knowledge other than long experience in the 'game', that Cheney went ape about Joe Wilson because he and his WHIG branch of PNAC/AIPAC were the actual culprits. We know of course that Clarridge, Wolffe and Ledeen were "close", which has a serious smell, hein? Cheney's explosive reaction would be explained......

What the hell am I supposed to do with this ugly Nroman fish?

First of all, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for the day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. If you position yourself as the man who brokers the deal that finances the purchase of twenty-six fishing craft, then creates a front-company for the purpose of sub-leasing those boats out for a really good rate to a bunch of idiots who are willing to overpay, you teach a man how to be an entrepreneur.

I am glad I was here to explain that to all of you. Good day to you, sir.

This senate wouldn't impeach an Gonzales if he got caught biting a topless dancer.

toast: This senate wouldn't impeach an Gonzales if he got caught biting a topless dancer.

Ashcroft, not Gonzales, was the topless dancer biter among Bush AGs. Why do you think he had that statue covered up? He wanted temptation out of his way.

Norman ---

I repeat a previous quotation:

"[Bill] Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

And General Hayden?

.... But guys, at the end of the day, nothing will happen, as Toast has just said, The New Best Congress Money Can Buy is even sicker, because AIPAC is now totally in the hands of PNAC/the Neocons. Thus Pelosi is doing just what Kristol Solfowitz, Ledeen, Finkelstein A, Perle, Cheney etc want. Now that is sick.

…Did he or didn't he …Worman Cogers at 2:56 PM

Ah, true belief!

Drum commenter: As commenters have noted, Fitzgerald himself clearly stated that Plame was covert. A few times.

What Fitzgerald actually said at his press conference (10/28/05): Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert, and anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this, that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that, and so I'm not making that assertion.

This senate wouldn't impeach an Gonzales if he got caught biting a topless dancer.

Sometimes, you have to defend yourself. I went into this yesterday, but if you find yourself being assaulted by an exotic dancer with scoliosis, you may need to bite him or her to get free. I don't recommend it, but sometimes, they leave you no choice.

maunga,

So why isn't Robert Novak up against a stack of dishes in a Federal prison, being worked over by a 300 pound man named SweetLips? Oh, that's right! There was no crime to prosecute. Case closed.

Nice shot at AIPAC. I'll bet it read better in the original German when it was screamed from the dais at Nuremburg for the rallying members of the party.

Watch CSPAN. Surely, you can click a TV remote even if you can't click a link.

The TV is out of whack today because of the weather. Thank God I still have the Internet, and thank God in heaven I am here to keep you liberals from spreading your lies about the place like rose petals.

Who's going to jail for breaking the law in this case? No one. Mr. Libby will be pardoned long before that happens.

Happy Fitzmas, liberals!

"Scotian (hi, Scotian!) wrote: If she is confirmed now as covert, doesn't that underscore the seriousness of Libby's obstruction of justice in investigating the outing?

Yes, and Fitzgerald himself pointed out in public statements.

It never ceases to amaze me that the authoritarian Bush Cultists who call themselves conservatives defend this Administration for its actions -- and consider themselves "serious" about national security to boot!"

Posted by: Gregory on March 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM

No kidding. You likely recall some of my rants tearing into them in the past over this issue and what it showed about their real commitment to national security and principle above party loyalty/partisanship. You also likely recall that for me this was always about the security aspect first and the deep betrayal of the covert community far more than any political aspect that was involved. It is too bad modern conservatives and our Trolletariat clearly have no such concerns/considerations to worry about, for them it is only does it help/hurt the GOP/Bush and decide accordingly.

I am going to continue watching to see how often we keep seeing the same discredited talking points about how she was not covert despite the repeated evidence from those actually in a position to know as opposed to those pundits like Toensing claiming the contrary despite they no longer having the active security classifications and access to actually know this.

I will admit to enjoying watching the squirming and the continued attempts to defend the totally indefensible by those conservatives still willing to be used and abused by their party and President. Unfortunately that is the only pleasure that can come from this entire disgraceful and disgusting affair since Novakula decided to be a tool and blow a CIA agent's cover (He knew she was covert, he when referring to operatives within the CIA always used it to described case officers/operatives and not so interchangeably as with political operatives despite his attempts to claim others, sucks to have a long record in format that one cannot go back and revise eh Novakula???) at the behest of his conservative friends and sources, especially Karl Rove given his history of feeding Novak hit material for his candidate's political advantage.

*waves back at Gregory* Heya my friend, good to see ya!

Poor Scotian--all he received in his stocking for Fitzmas this year was a quart of bongwater and a big lump of coal...

Plame herself sure thinks she was covert

and she thinks that the idea of sending her husband to Niger originated with "some guy" who happened to walk past her office when she was discussing the trip.

maunga,

Glad to know that someone (you) have given careful consideration to the whole forgery question and have come to the same conclusions as me. Josh Marshall promised a 'last chapter' in his Niger forgery reporting last week but so far hasn't followed up. I'm pretty sure the 'last chapter' will just involve tying up a few loose ends and admitting defeat. Still, many thanks to Josh are in order for getting as far as he did.

Maybe Cheney took some action to declassify her identity, so that the "covert" determination would be harder to prove (in that the leakers knew she was covert), and then classified that declassification so that Fitz or anyone else can't talk about it (except perhaps in general terms about "clouds" and what not).

Scotian: Indeed, as I have said many times before, if she did not qualify this investigation would likely not have happened, let alone gone as far as it did.

So it is an unlikely event. Given that an unlikely event has happened, what are the conditional probabilities of other marginally unlikely events?

According to her testimony, not many people on the Georgetown cocktail circuit knew of her status. How many is "not many"? Of those "not many", how many had she told? How many had been told by her husband? Of those "not many" how many were completely unknown to the CIA, who was thus unaware that her "cover" had been blown already?

Libby was justly convicted of perjury. It has not yet been established beyond the "reasonable doubt" that any crime was committed in "outing" Plame.
Hopefully, we can now learn the answers: I mean the actual answers, not the probable or unlikely answers.

Wouldn't it be perfectly simple for the CIA to issue a statement saying she wasn't covert, if she were misrepresenting herself?

The CIA will not confirm nor deny the identity of any covert agent, past or present.

Nepeta: The Cheney/WH reaction seemed anomalously enormous, didn't it! Josh has done wonderfully, and I keep on hoping more skins of more onions will be peeled off. Justin Raimondo and M Waass have been interesting too.

Waxman has a bit between his teeth and we just might get lucky, because they might pull the key card out of the whole stack.

I am particularly interested in Finkelstein A. This super-secretive Neocon is spending a lot of time in Albania: I understand he is there for either the WH or the PNAC etc. Does anyone have any ideas why?

I wonder how Moron could think we would not know him for what he is after he added the Rogers. I appreciate it is fun for you, Moron, but you just seem juvenilely silly, to me, and I expect, also to most of the other folk here.

The CIA will not confirm nor deny the identity of any covert agent, past or present

But in Waxman's opening statement, which was vetted and approved by the current Director of Central Intelligence, he stated that Plame was a covert agent.

Glenn: I also think it's a mistake to get caught up in whether she was "covert" as that term is defined in the IIPA or other statutes, or whether any crime was committed.

It was reprehensible, and it was certainly not politically astute (the main reason that Libby lied), but there is still the important question of whether it was a crime. The distinction between reprehensible and criminal is the reason that the IIPA is written as toughly as it is written.

Morat20 is so ill-informed it's scary.
It was Novak who publicly identified Plame as CIA.
Wilson responded to that outing in an op-ed.
Fitzgerald is a Republican.

Does anyone else pick up a weird undertone of distrust of, well, Fitzgerald I guess in Kevin's last few posts on this topic?
Posted by: Cranky Observer on March 16, 2007 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yes.

And I think (and have always thought) it wrong to put so much trust in Fitzgerald. Maybe Fitzgerald was SUPPOSED to get fired. Maybe there was a deal made back when Rove was about to get indicted.

I said this two years ago: it will most likely be impossible for the whole, true, story to come out. Bush and Cheney are holding all the cards here. That's just a fact. They can classify and declassify whatever the hell they want, and they can executive privilege, or covertly leak through backchannels, anything they want.

This is information warfare kids. The White House maintains the right to keep and bear arms. The Corporate Media is the equivalent of a WMD. And while Fitzgerald might be carrying a six-shooter, the rest of us are completely without protection.

Nice Norman,But as with the 22% of Bush lickers like you, PT Barnum said it best "There is a sucker born every minute", And then they vote for Bush.But fact is the Dems have control of the House and the Senate.And you guys will never win another election agian.Good day to you sir.

Fitzgerald is a Republican.

Fitzgerald was originally registered as an "Independent" when he lived in New York. When he learned that there was an Independent Party in New York, he changed his registration to "no party" or some such thing. He is not registered as a Republican or a Democrat.

Norman Rogers: I don't know what that says to the peasants, but it says to me that...there wasn't anything worth prosecuting.

To people who can read, it says that Libby's lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to learn the truth. Hence the conviction for obsrtuction of justice.

spider: she thinks that the idea of sending her husband to Niger originated with "some guy" who happened to walk past her office when she was discussing the trip.

dead ender talking points....

on one hand everyone knows plame...and she's just an office worker..

on the other hand...

she can instigate a cia investigation on another continent...

dead enders never catch on...

its what makes them a dead ender...

So why isn't Robert Novak up against a stack of dishes in a Federal prison, being worked over by a 300 pound man named SweetLips? Oh, that's right! There was no crime to prosecute. Case closed.

Nice try, Rogers. Journalists are exempt from prosecution (considerations of the First Amendment) unless they exhibit a "pattern" of illegal disclosures. But your post was interesting, if only as a window on your soul.

I think we might get Norman to calm down a little if we meet him half-way by stipulating to certain facts.

1. The relevant statute specifies an intent element -- specifically, the person doing the leaking of the intelligence person's name and status must know of that status and know that the government is taking steps to protect it.

2. Various White House people discussed Plame with journalists and revealed that she worked at CIA.

3. Did they know she was covert? It seems that at least some of them didn't.

4. This appears to let at least some of these people escape prosecution. Fitzgerald is no fool; if he couldn't prove all elements of the crime, he wouldn't proceed.

5. Does this mean that no one did anything wrong? Definitely not. What happened was reprehensible. There was a pattern of reckless and despicable behavior on the part of senior officials who should have known better, who should have cared more than they did about such matters, and who should never have even engaged in the attempt to attack Wilson's credibility in the first place -- because they never should have fabricated and manipulated their way into the war.

So -- A crime under a specific statute? Apparently not. Grounds for impeachment and removal from office? Absolutely.

Balta: However, as far as I can tell, Armitage was the first to leak her ID, and he did so fully by accident.

It looks as though there was a concerted effort to get the Wilson/Plame connection into the press by multiple routes. It seems that Armitage may have fallen for this, and "innocently" spilled the beans. If so, there is still someone (or some few) culpable for the concerted effort. This is the CRIME motivating Libby's lies, but it is a crime that has not yet been proved to have occurred.

DJ -- Fitzgerald not registered as either a Republican or a Democrat. Fair enough. But he was appointed US Attorney by Bush in 2001. That's Republican enough for me.

So if you righties are so certain that Libby did nothing wrong,Then write the President,Demand a Pardon,Go ahead Pardon him,Well what are you waiting for.I dare him to pardon him today.

bob: What good does it do now? Really I dont see how these hearings go anywhere unless there are pending criminal investigations. Waxman can conduct all hearings he wants, but it does not serve to uncover the truth. Fitzgerald did a terrible job in my opinion by allowing Rove to retract his lies 5 times. If Rove was indicted, the whole thing would have exploded big time. Scotter is unknown person to Americans so his indictment/conviction did not matter much.

Now there is the possibility that a thorough investigation might lead to the impeachment of V.P. Cheney.

Regarding the legal case against Scooter Libby, et al,, there is no question that Valerie Plame's status at the CIA was NOC, which by agency definition meant she was covert. That is a non-negotiable fact.

However, the IIPA requires a violator to have "knowingly" compromised an agent's covert status -- meaning that Libby, et al, had to first know unambiguously that Ms. Plame held covert status, and then then not care about that status in disseminating her identity to the media.

That they did in fact act with reckless abandon in this matter, there is no dispute. However, for the prosecution's burden of proof to be met, he has to show beyond any reasonable doubt that they knowingly acted in reckless disregard to national security -- and there is some question as to that. Congress in 1982 purposely crafted a high burden for the prosecution to overcome in order to prove intent in such cases.

I always apply the WICHDI rule in cases like this. That is, the "What If Clinton Had Done It" rule. Can you imagine if Bill Clinton's Administration had outed a CIA agent, purely for political reasons, whether he/she was covert or not? There is absolutely no doubt that the Republicans in Congress would have demanded and gotten a special prosecutor named and spent millions of our tax dollars investigating it. Abso-fuckin'-lutely no doubt.
Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on March 16, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Oh - I doubt that.

What they would have done, is brokered a deal through some Saudi Royals with AQ Khan's network for a "stolen" Pakistani nuke, and then detonated it in a US city (preferably a liberal one, like San Francisco or Seattle, or New Orleans). Then they would have concocted a story about terrorists, and how Bill Clinton caused an agent who was directly working on tracking these terrorists, to lose the trail, and that it was part of a criminal conspiracy to cause chaos in the US so that control could be handed over to the UN, all Americans tattoed with bar-codes, and all US money replaced with the warehouses full of "blue money" sitting in New York. Oh yeah, and there's black helicopters in there somewhere too.

Fair enough, DNS. Excellent posts, BTW.

Norman Rogers: So because Mr. Libby had a bad memory and was tricked into saying things that TV's very own pancake-eating goofball, Tim Russert, could then lie about in open court, that's why there was a non-crime committed here that wasn't actually prosecuted?

When Nixon resigned the presidency, 25% of Americans still thought that he was innocent. You sound like one of them.

C-SPAN is re-running Valerie Plame right now.

Jeffrey Davis: Her comment about widely known as around Georgetown was a tag to Andrea Mitchell's idiotic, and retracted, comment.

True. However, it is still an idiotic comment, and it should be followed by direct questions and answers. Too much of this case, including comments by Plame and Wilson, is made of loose language trying to deflect direct questions and avoid clear answers.

bob in FL: To those who cry, "Impeach Now!", I say to wait.

I think that the correct charge to the House is to "Investigate Now!"

> DJ -- Fitzgerald not registered as either a
> Republican or a Democrat. Fair enough. But he was
> appointed US Attorney by Bush in 2001. That's
> Republican enough for me.

Fitzgerald was appointed specifically to take down Mayor Richie Daley, which he is in the process of doing. However it turned out that the dude who could take on Daley was more than those who thought they were his handlers bargained for (just ask George Ryan, although he was never beloved of the Republican inner circle either).

Cranky

… thank God in heaven I am here… Norman Rogers at 3:38 PM

zmulls on March 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM

best short description of the case.

I think that the correct charge to the House is to "Investigate Now!"

Do you mean "correct" in that "investigating is the right thing to do now, impeachment is not yet ripe"? If so, perhaps.

Or do you mean "correct" in that "the House is not the body that impeaches"? If so, I suggest you review the Constitution.

Norman, did I miss the name Armitage in the comments section today ?

Hilarious. When did you guys fall in love with the CIA ?

Really hilarious. If anybody should be prosecuted for outing Plame, his name should be Wilson.

However, it is still an idiotic comment, and it should be followed by direct questions and answers. Too much of this case, including comments by Plame and Wilson, is made of loose language trying to deflect direct questions and avoid clear answers.

The statement at issue was in an opening statement, which explicitly invited (and was going to be followed by, even if it didn't) direct questioning.

I watched the full hearing. Harold Waxman was profoundly impressive and well-prepared. Valerie Plame spoke well and admirably made her case, while looking like the fair princess. Later, Victoria Toensing testified, if you can call disingenuous speech, and familiar/over-used talking points "testifying." And interestingly enough, in contrast to Mrs. Wilson, she looked every bit the wicked witch in this story.
A woman in bright pink clothing with an Impeach Bush Now tee shirt visible under her blazer stood 4 rows behind, quite visible to the cameras. I was thinking a republican-controlled house would have had her forcibly removed.
Each member of the committee had ten minutes to question. Ms. Toensing tried her best to steal away democrats' precious minutes by filibustering. Waxman would have none of it. Worth seeing if you get a chance. In fact, it is being repeated now on Cspan. And, it was revealed for the first time that the white house absolutely did not conduct an investigation into the CIA leak, which hurts the administration tremendously, given the fact that Mrs. Wilson said she absolutely was a covert agent. Mr. Waxman told Ms. Toensing he felt she made inaccurate statements and that he would hold the record, check the accuracy of her remarks, her "facts," and notate the correct facts under her testimony. We have taken over the congress.

"According to her testimony, not many people on the Georgetown cocktail circuit knew of her status. How many is "not many"? Of those "not many", how many had she told? How many had been told by her husband? Of those "not many" how many were completely unknown to the CIA, who was thus unaware that her "cover" had been blown already?" Posted by: spider on March 16, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Not many can mean from what, 1 or 2 to say what, half a dozen or so? So we are talking about a *very* poorly defined number set in a situation where precision makes a big difference. If it were only a couple of other people whose work put them in a position to know this yet no more breech national security by revealing it than she herself would then her answer is accurate, truthful and completely supportive of the established fact that it was *NOT* common knowledge on that cocktail circuit that she was CIA. So this particular argument/objection you are raising appears to have little to support it except the preference to believe she was not covert and therefore the revealing of her identity was not criminal conduct from those under *AFFIRMATIVE* requirements to protect and verify security classifications of any potential classified information, of which a potential employee of the CIA is clearly one. There clearly was (at best) no attempts by those within the WH to determine her actual position, or (at worst and what I am afraid I think is the most probable explanation) that those originating this plan knew her status and figured they could get away with it and those they passed it off to may or may not have been told depending on how close they are to either Cheney or Bush/Rove. I find it very difficult to believe Rove did not know, but even if he did not the idea that no one within this WH had no idea she was operations side and active covert by the time Novak wrote his article (let alone from when they first started leaking/shopping this info around to various media people several weeks earlier) is one that can only be explained by active, extreme, and systemic incompetence and if that thought does not scare you as much as it does me given the power that the WH holds/represents then you are clearly not a sane individual.

So in other words the only explanation for no one in the WH knowing her status other than via criminal deception and conduct is via a level of gross and extreme incompetence on the handling of basic national security classified information for purposes of a *spin war* that anyone that gives a damn about security issues should be horrified, terrified by the implications for the actual shape of America's national security infrastructure, and generally extremely unhappy with this Administration on such grounds. Yet what are you doing?

“Libby was justly convicted of perjury. It has not yet been established beyond the "reasonable doubt" that any crime was committed in "outing" Plame.
Hopefully, we can now learn the answers: I mean the actual answers, not the probable or unlikely answers." Posted by: spider on March 16, 2007 at 4:04 PM

You are still trying to act that since it is not established via indictments/charges for this specific crime that without the crime being charged that it did not happen/exist. As I have said before, if a dead body clearly murdered is investigated thoroughly but no means exists to determine the identity of the murderer(s) then was there no underlying crime of murder in the first place? Of course not, and the same is true in this case spider, and you are granting a level of benefit of the doubt that the record does not allow at this very late stage of the affair. We know she was active as a NOC, we know she was in operations on weapons of mass destruction, and we know that Novak blew not just her cover but that of Brewster Jennings and associates when he destroyed her cover July 14 2003. Therefore we know the crime happened, so trying to act like someone must be charged for it is the only way to determine a crime occurred here is specious at best. Unless you are going to argue that government officials charged with safeguarding national security secrets being responsibible for the publication of the identity of a deep cover/covert operative is not by definition (be it intental or negligent behaviour, since both are criminal charges we bring in many kinds of cases in our legal/criminal system) criminal behaviour, which I cannot agree with and I doubt any actually actively involved with the intelligence community would either.

The crime occurred, unless you think it is not a crime to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence operations operative. Whether charges are ultimately brought will never change that fact, any more than an open homicide investigation means that there was no crime of murder because no one was ever charged for it, even if there was those charged with perjury and obstruction during the investigation. Really spider you are treating this in a very unreasonable manner with these qualifications and these attempts to argue that a crime must be charged for it to have occurred in the first place when that is specious reasoning as I have shown. Plame was clearly covert, clearly operations side, and clearly active out of country as recently as during the build-up to the Iraq invasion. Therefore by those determiners of the IIPA she qualified on all counts as covert. Therefore it is the other elements, specifically the intent to out knowingly a covert asset in the case of the IIPA and to harm the national security interests of the USA in the case of the Espionage Act that a failure of charges presented likely occurred, and according to Fitzgerald Libby's perjury and obstruction prevented him from filing further charges at this time, hence why his investigation is inactive but not closed. Things may yet change, especially with Congressional investigations for example, Libby could decide to talk (unlikely but not impossible), and so this is not yet over as a criminal investigation despite all of the attempts to spin it that way.

Ron Byers: This is a meaningless debate.

It has short-term (2008) political implications and long-term importance. We can't let this stand as precedent if, as it looks, the VP orchestrated the outing of a covert CIA agent.

I've been thinking about V.P.'s covert status in the context of Libby's sentencing. I don't know anything about senctencing guidelines for crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury, but I would think a judge would take the seriousness of the underlying matter (outing a covert agent) into consideration when doling out punishment.

Not only was Valerie covert but she also went overseas in the past five years on covert operations.

If I could only find a date, I clear my head and think correctly.

Jay tells me Rosy Palmer doesn't count as a partner.

What does he know?

cmdicely: Do you mean "correct" in that "investigating is the right thing to do now, impeachment is not yet ripe"?

Yes. However, I believe that impeachment is "almost ripe".

KD: Maybe that was because he decided she didn't qualify as "covert" under the very specific legal requirement of the IIPA Act.

What a dumb thing to write.

Maybe it was for other reasons.

Ya think?! Sheesh. You of all people should know since you have posted in the past how difficult prosecuting the IIPA is.

Who knows?

WTF?!

But whatever the legal case, Plame herself sure thinks she was covert. And her job sure sounds covert. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

Jeso Pete, watch the CSPAN hearing and maybe then you'll stop with your wish-washy enabling of rightwing talking points.

cmdicely: The statement at issue was in an opening statement, which explicitly invited (and was going to be followed by, even if it didn't) direct questioning.

So, did she in fact say "Nobody in the Georgetown cocktail circuit knew I worked for the CIA, to the best of my knowledge"?

Mrs. Wilson testified under oath that she was a covert agent. I believe her. Toensing kept saying later that she was not at all covert, but Toensing had no proof of these empty allegations. Who has the credibility? Wilson said she could count on one hand the people who knew her position the day her cover was blown--and one was her husband. She said seeing herself exposed in the Novak article was like a blow to the gut. And numerous careers of others and operations in process were ruined as a result of the outing of her status. Dennis Kucinich had a poster of the disclosures of her classified CIA employment from the Libby trial--it was a good visual. As Mrs. Wilson noted, it showed a recklessness and a wide-reaching attempt to disclose her identity. She said she never knew of disclosure of agents identity by their own government--a powerfully stated, significant statement. Kuchinich related the situation of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and his unfair treatment after he disagreed with the administration--and he brought up other cases of reprisal when staffers disagreed with the administration, suggesting a pattern of pressure and intimidation, and smears. She noted Vice President Cheney's unprecedented visits to the CIA before the run-up to the Iraq war--example of the intimidation tactics.
I especially liked Rep. Diane Watson's style during all of her questioning. Powerful stuff.

KD: "For whatever reason, Patrick Fitzgerald decided he couldn't win a case against any of the Plame leakers merely for leaking her name. Maybe that was because he decided she didn't qualify as "covert" under the very specific legal requirement of the IIPA Act. Maybe it was for other reasons. Who knows?"

..........

There's another aspect to Fitzgerald's minimalist prosecution that Kevin ignores. That is, what is more important for society, America and Americans? Whether Fitzgerald can win a case against some probable criminals or whether he can expose the malevolent actions of likely but possibly not "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminals?

That's the trade off that's being ignored and being used by some of the leading bloggers of the left for unqualified praise of Fitzgerald (Fitzmas!!??) and his highly and uncharacteristically (for prosecutors) reticent prosecutorial behavior. Geez, even Elizabeth Holtzman, the old Watergate lefty, was far more publicly aggressive as a Brooklyn District Attorney than Fitzgerald.

In Fitzgerald's actions, as an investigator and prosecutor, there's as much a quality of burying the information gathered about malfeasance in the White House as there is a basis for prosecutorial praise. Yet the only criticism of Fitzgerald is from the extreme right for his case about fibbing.

Fitzgerald may represent a model of prosecutorial perfection but it's a model that for the rest of the prosecutorial world is neither emulated nor viewed as a model for emulation. It's as false a model of zeal as was Ken Starr. Each, in their actions, has and had benefited the authoritarian right. Prosecutors are political positions. That was a fact long before the current uproar about a U.S. Attorney purge. Fitzgerald's actions are as likely politically motivated, at least on a personal career level, as they are motivated by any sense of jurisprudence.

Joe Wilson, after the Libby verdict was announced, said that Fitzgerald's perjury case was comparable to the conviction of Al Capone on tax evasion. But that's not even close to being true. Fitzgerald got Al Capone's bookkeeper for bad book keeping. Fitzgerald didn't even charge Capone.

Jeso Pete, watch the CSPAN hearing and maybe then you'll stop with your wish-washy enabling of rightwing talking points.
Posted by: Apollo 13

Or not. Sweetie, stop feeding the trolls.

Scotian: You are still trying to act that since it is not established via indictments/charges for this specific crime that without the crime being charged that it did not happen/exist.

That is not what I said, but I am justly rebuked for a snarky comment. In my other comments I have written that the crime probably occurred. Waxman is good, and I expect a full and clear explanation to emerge from his committee's investigation.

I give a lot of weight to the jury's decision in the conviction of Libby. Reportedly, they conducted a thorough review of all the evidence, and they had the voice tones and demeanors of all witnesses, which escaped the typed transcripts.

Therefore we know the crime happened, so trying to act like someone must be charged for it is the only way to determine a crime occurred here is specious at best.

Until today, I always thought it possible that there were in fact a few people (other than Wilson, whom she told before they married) who knew her status, so that "outing" her might not have constituted a crime. After the Waxman/Toensing interchanges, it's clear (pending revelations tomorrow?) that no one knew. However, it is important to know all the players who contributed to the crime, and their roles, in order to decide whom to hold accountable. Armitage seems to be actually innocent, though he's the one who alerted Novak; a peculiarity I sort of addressed in an earlier post. If he outed her accidentally, who else committed crimes? I wrote what I think the answer is, and I await the results of Waxman's committee hearings.

this is not yet over as a criminal investigation despite all of the attempts to spin it that way.

we agree on that

Spider

Sadly the VP will do anything the VP wants. Since he has absolutely no respect for any of us, any of us or all of us could be his next victims. The cancer on American society that is Dead Eye Dick won't end until he moves to Dubai. Twenty two months and counting. In the meantime pray for the continued health of GWB.

"Norman, did I miss the name Armitage in the comments section today ?"

You did. You really should learn to read.

"Hilarious. When did you guys fall in love with the CIA ?"

Dear heart, when did anyone ever claim to "love" the CIA? Or "hate" it, for that matter?

"Really hilarious. If anybody should be prosecuted for outing Plame, his name should be Wilson."

Since he did not, in fact, out his wife, any attempt at prosecution would, of course, be futile, not to mention quite silly, which is why it has not happened.

Valerie Wilson under oath said she did not recommend or suggest Joe Wilson to go to Niger, said she did not have the authority. A young junior officer came to her, having said she received a phone call re: the sale of yellow cake from Iraq. Someone passing by knew Joe had gone to that area on other assignments to the African continent, and he suggested Joe Wilson. Valerie said she was ambivalent, having two year old twins at home. Her supervisor asked her to speak to her husband at home that night, and to draft a quick email--the one taken out of context on the intelligence report (that makes her seem like she had suggested her husband.) Her supervisor planned to speak with Joe Wilson the next day.
So the administration's lies were thus manipulated to mislead on how he was selected to go to Niger, and to discredit them. The plot thickens. She testified also that from the evidence introducted at the trial for Libby,
Karl Rove was involved, and he still carries a security clearance, even though the president said previously anyone leaking would be dealt with, would not be working at the white house.
She knows what Rove's words were, and the effects. She also said her husband came to her, said his written words were twisted, was practically in tears, and that memo is requested by Waxman as proof they tried to discredit Joe Wilson.
All you conservative "experts" on the case should be watching this hearing. It is a portrait of administrative power run amuck, as Rep. Sarbanes said.

Ron Byers: The cancer on American society that is Dead Eye Dick

Since reading the Libby trial transcripts, I have sort of hoped he would resign. I do anticipate good results from Waxman's investigation. There is something invigorating about competent, energetic partisanship in the public interest.

Read the posts of consider wisely always at 4:54 PM, 5:22 PM, and 5:39 PM. I can vouch that they are accurate summaries of Plame's sworn testimony during the House hearing.

But watch it for yourself. The hearing can be streamed from CSPAN. Look for VIDEO/AUDIO > RECENT PROGRAMS and then, House Hearing on Disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity: Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) chairs a House Oversight and Government Reform Ctme. hearing on the disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. The hearing will look into whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of Ms. Wilson and how they responded to the leak of her identity once it occured. 3/16/2007: WASHINGTON, DC: 4 hr.

One of my peak moments:

I came dashing into Marketing 301 a few seconds late. Took my seat in the along the back wall along with my peers - the top of the business school class...the instructor, scion of the largest agricultural machinery manufacturer in India, took exception to my late arrival and my hastily whispered communications with mt peers:

Miss S_______, would you care to share this with the rest of the class?"

Why, yes, Dr. Katiyar, I would. Thank you so much.

I stood. I said:

It is my opinion that former Attorney General of the United Stated, John Mitchell, has today committed perjury in sworn testimony before the House Select Committee on Watergate. At least three times. Thank you again, Dr. Katiyar, for this opportunity to address my fellow citizens.

he wasn't happy. The class cheered.

Ummm...how many counts did John Mitchell serve time for?

Bingo.

[Fitz] is not registered as a Republican or a Democrat.

Which is a pretty meaningless technicality. Neither am I registered, but no one would ever mistake me for being a Republican.

Fitz currently resides in IL, where one does not register one's political affiliation. However, the man is a Republican. Just asked the man who recommended him for USAtty, Peter Fitzgerald

Spider, may I suggest that you are suffering from irony impairment? If you google "Plame, cocktail party circuit", you will find that the claim her name was widely known on the cocktail party circuit has been a standard bromide throughout the right wing blogosphere, every since Andrea Mitchell made the (somewhat ambiguous, and immediately retracted) claim to that effect in slightly less colorful langauge.

Ms. Plame in her congressional testimony was denying the truth of that statement. The form her denial took was ironic understatement. Given the idiocy of the original claim, a certain level of studied irony was eminently appropriate.

Not only that, but Plame went on to testify that 5 or fewer people knew of her covert status.

I've been thinking about V.P.'s covert status in the context of Libby's sentencing. I don't know anything about senctencing guidelines for crimes of obstruction of justice and perjury, but I would think a judge would take the seriousness of the underlying matter (outing a covert agent) into consideration when doling out punishment.

It, indeed, is a potentially very substantial factor in the sentencing guidelines for obstruction in a criminal investigation, and is one reason I've said that the sentencing process may be interesting.

btw, Waxman is considering calling Novak to testify.

With regard to the White House's lack of investigation into the Plame leak, Waxman has a letter to Josh Bolton enquiring as to why there wasn't one. And with regard to those famous Washington Post editorials, the evidence of their partisan Republican bias is overwhelming.

However, the man is a Republican. Just asked the man who recommended him for USAtty, Peter Fitzgerald
Posted by: Disputo

Ha!

Does the VP's declassifying of her employment obviate her classification as covert?

I'm wondering if, though Cheney was gifted with the magic of declassification, whether, that would still make any difference in reference to her covert-ness.

Did the president also give him the power to un-covert her?

spider:

I have very little patience for anyone at this date that tries to argue there was no crime. There was a crime; the question is was it of intent or of gross negligence and excessive partisan zeal? So I tend to be a bit testy in responding to arguments that appear to be furthering that notion. It is also one of the cornerstones of the GOP spin to try and make this seem like the same thing Starr did to Clinton when clearly it is anything but similar. As I have said to you before this for me is first a security issue because of my background and not first rooted in politics. That it was a political machination that caused this atrocity is what makes any political focus necessary for me, if this had been done outside of politics and was equally poorly investigated I would still be as pissed about it, same as I would be if it had been Clinton's Administration that had done this and was stonewalling throughout.

She was covert, she was an active operative, and therefore revealing she was a CIA operative was a criminal act. Whether in the end anyone is prosecuted for it does not change that underlying reality, not that this has not been preventing the GOP spin machine from doing exactly that as you can see in this thread from folks like Norman Rogers and other members of our glorious Trolletariat. I thought you were actually attempting to be reasonable/civil on this, and you apparently are coming from being in a place where you used to think this was much ado about nothing until the Libby trial began and the evidence submitted in it was revealed followed by the convictions. Therefore I was willing to give you a serious reply instead of the more usual contemptuous dismissal I tend to give most advancing any such argument these days.

This has never been about being right for me, indeed in many ways I would have been far happier if it had shown that she was a glorified analyst and not covert, as the GOP spin machine has tried to claim. However, everything I kept running across that was not sourced to an explicitly partisan source from court rulings to other known former CIA operatives vouching for her to what Fitzgerald himself has said indicated that she was covert and actively so. I cannot explain to you how horrified and shocked I was when this happened. You may find this hard to swallow but I swear upon my honour that it is true: I was in more of a state of shock by the outing of Plame on July 14 2003 on that day than I was watching live the events of 9/11/01 on that day. (Indeed, initially some of my family thought I was overreacting and misreading the situation, they simply could not believe that even Bushco could do such a vile thing.) I say that for this reason, I had been expecting some sort of significant terrorist attack on the USA at some point, although I was surprised to see something as ambitious as that attack was not to mention the incompetence of the Administration to react swiftly by establishing CAPs over critical cities including Washington DC once it was clear an attack was underway. However, I never would have believed that any senior Administration figures charged with protecting national security information would have outed a NOC for any reason (outside of some extremely improbable national security basis where the revelation was less damaging than the retention of the secret) let alone for partisan talking points/spin deflection of a political crisis (which the unraveling of the nuclear case was for Bushco in summer 2003) by anyone, even GWB's Administration until it happened. I suspect that was the reaction of most people that have some personal connection to the intelligence community, be they familial, professional, or simply professional respect/comradery from aligned/associated professionals in the military and such. Hence why this is one of those issues where my emotions run very deep, strong, and clear for all to see and why I have such limited patience for fools and deceivers on this topic.

My favorite Scot rocks - but please why are you validating such an obvious toll?

nicteis: Spider, may I suggest that you are suffering from irony impairment?

That is true, although I do not think of it necessarily as "impairment". Straight-out truths are preferable.

disputo: Plame went on to testify that 5 or fewer people knew of her covert status.

Is that something that she knew? Was she informed when Armitage learned she worked at the CIA? Did she know who informed him? I think the issue is who knew she worked at the CIA, not just who knew her exact status.

For the Libby trial it did not matter that Armitage had "blown" Plame's status. For the idiocy/reprehensibility of the apparently coordinated attempt to out Plame, it does not matter that Armitage had "blown" Plame's status. For convicting other members of the administration of actual crimes, this may matter.
I hope that the Waxman committee investigates Armitage thoroughly as well, just to tie up what seems like a loose end.

Does the VP's declassifying of her employment obviate her classification as covert?

Yes. An agent is "covert" only if (there are other, additional requirements, too) both of the following are true:
1) Their relation to US intelligence is classified, and
2) The US Government is taking active measures to conceal that relation.

If the relation is declassified, the first part fails, and the agent can't be "covert". (Of course, if its executive branch policy from the President on down to put your name into play, its also dubious whether the second part applies, either even if, say, the CIA hasn't been informed of this policy.)

Mike K wrote: "Really hilarious. If anybody should be prosecuted for outing Plame, his name should be Wilson."

You are just pissed because Valerie Plame is gorgeous and brilliant, and Ann Coulter is a hag and stupid.

Scotian: There was a crime; the question is was it of intent or of gross negligence and excessive partisan zeal?

There is still the question of who committed exactly what crime. For example, did Armitage commit a crime? Probably not, because Fitzgerald did not even indict. After he revealed that Plame worked for the CIA, was it a crime for someone else to express the same fact?

I commented once, and I think others have as well, that Libby's lies covered up two things that Cheney was responsible for: (1) constantly revising CIA estimates of Iraq's nuclear threat, despite repeated efforts by the CIA to tone them down, resulting (among other things) in the famous 16 words; (2) what looks like a coordinated effort to out Plame. (1) was either deceipt or a very bad error of judgment; (2) was illegal, but I hope to learn more about the exact role of Armitage.

"The administration I'll bring is a group of men and women who are focused on what's best for America, honest men and women, decent men and women, women who will see service to our country as a great privilege and who will not stain the house." --George W. Bush, Des Moines Register debate, Iowa, Jan. 15, 2000

"And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." --George W. Bush, interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 29, 2007

Yup, don't misunderestimate our administration.

In Bush we Distrust, (so help us god).

Valerie Plame was working for our country obtaining important intelligence.

When her cover was so crudely blown, the intelligence of our administration revealed itself.

I don't care if laws were broken.

Laws weren't broken when Bushco tried to reclimatize climate change reports.

It's the intent to decieve that sucks.

Iraq. 9-11 (didn't want an investigation...why?).

Katrina...."terrific job Brownie."

Social Security (..."it's as if they want to run it like it's some kind of federal program..")

Tax-cuts to the wealthy. Good for the economy?

Face-it, the Plame outing reveals a general trend, a cavalier attitude towards the checks and balances inherent in our form of government.

Purgegate. Deceptions from the start.

Lies R Us.

"God told me to take out Saddam."

Bullsh-t, it was big-oil, Halibushco, etc. that said... GET A FOOTHOLD IN THE MIDEAST.

Laws have been broken. Testimony, sworn under oath, has been false. That's called perjury. Knowingly. With intent.

What more do you really need to know?

These guys make John Mitchell and his co- conspirators look like toddlers.

"God told me to take out Saddam."

Then Palestinian Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath told the BBC in 2005 that Bush had confided in him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian president: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

The problem then becomes: they declassified her without telling anyone. How long was it between the day they claim they declassified her and anyone at the CIA heard about it?

If they were mooting her name all over town but it hadn't yet gotten back to the CIA she might have gone off and done something that would have landed her in real danger.

After declassifying her without telling anyone they could have dropped a dime on her to just anybody. Literally.

Scotian: She was covert, she was an active operative, and therefore revealing she was a CIA operative was a criminal act.

This is what makes Armitage so interesting and puzzling. Everyone now agrees that Armitage outed Plame to Novak, and that Fitzgerald know about it long ago, yet he was not indicted. If that wasn't a crime, then how could anything else have been a crime? I am not saying the question proves that nothing else was a crime; only that there are some unexplained loose ends.

I do expect Waxman's committee hearing to provide lots of information, and I expect it to be the precursor to impeachment proceedings against Cheney.

"My favorite Scot rocks - but please why are you validating such an obvious toll?"

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 16, 2007 at 6:27 PM

Simple answer, I am not yet convinced that this is a true troll versus a real person; I tend to agree most of the time with the majority here on that but on occasion I do tend to differ, and this is one of those examples, at least so far. I said once before recently that I determine for myself who I consider/classify a troll/Trolletariat and that while I take the views of my fellows here into account I still ultimately prefer to determine for myself. This person/alias has dealt with me in a reasonable fashion so far in the past few weeks, and therefore I am minded to reciprocate. It is, after all, part of what I claim to practice after all. Part of the problem of long term exposure to hyperpartisan environments politically is that it is harder and harder to remember (let alone recognize) the distinctions between the truly programmed (be it mechanical or human that is the programmed is irrelevant) and those that are genuinely trying to figure things out for themselves, especially when they conflict with long held core beliefs/premises.

I don't know that I am wrong and you are right where spider is concerned, but I am willing to grant reasonable benefit of the doubt for a time. That is of course so long as I feel there is reason/cause to do so, but I have to say that while I strongly disagree with most of what I have read from spider to varying intensities as well as what has been said of my own commentaries by spider I have yet to find reasonable cause not to. Therefore I am doing as I always said I would do, deal reasonably with those presenting reasonable dissent/disagreement even when it is profound disagreement. Even if the person themselves are a troll after all; the exchange may influence a lurker that is not a troll and does waver in truth. It is not like I am going to spend most of my time responding to trolls and suspected trolls though; I do have a bit of a history for my own independent thinking/writing I do believe...:)

>Plame herself sure thinks she was covert.

Are you trying to say our poor ole CIA, or it's employee's, can't tell if the are, or are not, covert?

Isn't that taught in Spying 101? "You must know if you are covert, or not, at all times."

Not wonder CIA is a bunch of losers. I'll bet the KGB didn't have that problem. I'll bet this exchange never took place at KGB headquarters:

KGB #1: "Say Comrade, Ivan wants to know if he's covert."

KBG #2: "He doesn't know? Did we tell him?"

If you talk to God; you are praying . If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. - Thomas Scasz

>>I said once before recently that I determine for myself who I consider/classify a troll/Trolletariat and that while I take the views of my fellows here into account I still ultimately prefer to determine for myself. - Scotian

But why do you never talk to the rest of the community here? I always have respect for your views.

valerie wilson was outed not to injure joe, but to destroy the undercover proprietary, her notional employer, brewster-jennings.

brewster-jennings was getting very close to proving the bushit-cheney-mossad links to the pakistani a q khan operations. that is the story that keeps being obfuscated - the nuclear materials trafficking in which many prominent reptillians[perhaps even some demtillians] are engaged.

it would be my guess that at least 1 or 2 brewster-jennings employees overseas have been eliminated with extreme prejudice. it would also be my guess that the bushit/cheney reorganizatin of the cia has resulted in the elimination of any successor research program into nuclear materials trafficking. the mossad and the israeli maffiyah are very pleased.

spider:

If I remember correctly Fitzgerald pointed out when he indicted Libby that he could have made some cases under the Espionage Act but that he was uncomfortable doing so because of how much of a blunt instrument it was and the precedents it might also set. Even leaving that aside for a moment, one has to stop and consider something forgotten in all this talk of laws broken. In one sense we are losing sight of the forest because of all the trees. Laws like this were primarily written to protect national security assets from those at lower levels exposing for gain and espionage, not to protect them from their own top level of the Executive branch using them to advance political agendas, especially when talking about exposing human assets. This created some rather nasty vulnerabilities to be exploited, and who knows, it may turn out to not be technically against the law by the narrowest wording of the law but in all senses of the spirit and intention of the law it most certainly still is a crime, just an unprosecutable one.

So while yes I can understand why the Armitage question may be of some fascination in the manner you are clearly hung up by it, I don't see how it can be used as evidence to show there was no intentional campaign to out Plame. What if he had heard others within the WH talking about her and presumed that it was still "officially" secret but something they might be willing to let slip to trusted members of the media to explain something so they would slant their way without actually using it directly. What if he was of other motives more sinister or innocent? At the very absolute minimum they should have been stripped of all security clearances, and investigations under those statutes should have been done instead of what we are limited to at this time. There still has not been an internal WH investigation into the original leak regarding the security restrictions upon all WH employees regarding classified information, what does that tell you? We also know from Plame that there was a damage assessment done after her outing, and if it was minimal to no damage do you really think this Administration would not have found some way to get that out to its allies to further try to discredit this investigation as they have done with other information/spin in the last several years? If you are the reasoning person I am giving you credit as think about that for a moment, what does that tell you of what is really the case regarding the seriousness of the action and the fact that whether in the end anyone is prosecuted for it that a major crime was perpetrated against Plame personally and the national security interests of the USA more broadly, including the possibilities of lives lost although that will never be known publicly, or if not I doubt for decades yet going on how reluctant the CIA has ever been in making such info public.

It really bothers me that regardless of criminal IIPA/Espionage Act charges what was done with Plame's information within the WH was so seriously in breech of their *AFFIRMATIVE* legal responsibilities in handling classified information and yet nothing was ever done on that front, even once it became obvious that there had been breeches. That to this day no such investigation has not been done should tell any honest person all they need to know about what this WH knows would be found in such an investigation if done honestly and what the penalties would be. Those penalties would be very severe and impossible to cover up the existence of which would in turn end up becoming the media story the WH has been trying to prevent from happening from the outset. In turn, if this WH is willing to lie and manipulate the media and American public to this extent on something this serious, what else can they be equally as willing to lie about from the outset, and how much of what has been stated with such authority by Bushco on anything can be trusted and for that matter should be given the levels of depravity the Plame example illustrates? Not that it needs to stand in isolation given the plenitude of examples of similar abuse of power, corruption, and outright bald faced lying by this Administration.

Gets blown off.

Shrugs,

Moves on.

Article about the Taliban kidnapping two top Pakistani nuclear scientists and stealing uranium.

I said once before recently that I determine for myself who I consider/classify a troll/Trolletariat and that while I take the views of my fellows here into account I still ultimately prefer to determine for myself.

Why start now?

The only person who might (and I chuckle confidently to myself when I say might) have committed a crime was Richard Armitage and he's not been charged with anything.

I challenge those of you in the so-called 'reality-based community' to explain why NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OUTING BARBIE PLAME and why one person went down for perjury when he told the truth and said he couldn't remember what he told that pancake-eating liar and fraud Little Russ.

"But why do you never talk to the rest of the community here? I always have respect for your views."

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 16, 2007 at 7:16 PM

I hate to say it but that is part of it right there. I am more interested in responding to those that differ with me in a manner I find reasonable than I do with those that are in agreement with me. I come from the old school of debating where one seeks out opposition more than concurrence when discussing ideas, especially political ones. Indeed, one of the things I mind most about the Trolletariat is how they limit the chances for that with their insanity. Now of course I am not exclusive to that, just ask Gregory, shortstop, Apollo 13, howard, and others, but most of the time I come here to read the thoughts of others, consider, then write my own contributions and then respond to the aggregates more than to any one specifically unless they specifically address something I wrote and are someone I consider honest debaters (whatever "side" one is on that is a constant definition for me) and then I so respond.

I had no intention of leaving you or anyone else feel slighted that I was/am not specifically trying to slight (hi Norm!)around here, it is just that spider did respond, did ask questions, and did meet my criteria so far and got the priority. See though, once you asked something specifically of me I gave you a personal response...:)

Seriously though, I have never quite understood why I have such a fan club around here, especially given that many of its members are people whose writings and thinking has impressed me on many occasions. I know I am long winded, verbose, and a bit tedious at times, and that I can have some of the longest run on sentences. I am capable of a rather biting sarcasm although I try to keep that tightly in check and thankfully succeed most of the time. I also tend to have little patience for fools whatever their foolishness is, and it is not limited to politics, let alone political sides. Still, people like you and Gregory and many others seem glad whenever I drop some of my tomes off around here, so I still keep it up from time to time. I do miss being here as much these days, but with the forces of darkness posing such an immediate concern up here I have to stay primarily focused on that. This blog has always been a favourite of mine because of the regulars here, and it is where I refined my writings skills a great deal and felt like I was making a useful contribution to the greater debate, and that was all I was looking for. So I have nothing but fond memories of this place despite so of the less attractive features like Chuckles and the sock puppet brigades and so forth.

"Gets blown off.

Shrugs,

Moves on."

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 16, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Patience is not one of your stronger points I gather? :)

Laughs. Sir, you are a treat.

Now. What's the difference between s shamrock and a
thistle?

What's all this fixation on the "high crimes and misdemeanors" phrase? What about that word that precedes it:

Treason: 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

--American Heritage Dictionary

All the Camerons and Calhouns on my family tree want to know.

scotian: I don't know that I am wrong and you are right where spider is concerned, but I am willing to grant reasonable benefit of the doubt for a time. That is of course so long as I feel there is reason/cause to do so, but I have to say that while I strongly disagree with most of what I have read from spider to varying intensities as well as what has been said of my own commentaries by spider I have yet to find reasonable cause not to.

Do you think impeachment proceedings against Cheney will come from the Waxman hearings? Granted, it's a conjecture about the future of a political process, but the Libby trial provided a lot of leads for them to follow up.

Laws like this were primarily written to protect national security assets from those at lower levels exposing for gain and espionage, not to protect them from their own top level of the Executive branch using them to advance political agendas, especially when talking about exposing human assets.

I almost mentioned that a couple hours ago, and other people have mentioned it in past threads on this topic. I left it out because, while a good point, it doesn't make it any easier to convict somebody of a crime. What it does is shift the discussion to the possibility of removal from office. Had the Libby verdict been delivered in Oct 2004, I am sure that Bush/Cheney would have been turfed out in favor of Kerry/Edwards. Almost sure. That not done, the Libby verdict now with the recent Democratic wins gives the Congress a perfectly good opportunity to remove Cheney, and maybe even Bush.

We also know from Plame that there was a damage assessment done after her outing, and if it was minimal to no damage do you really think this Administration would not have found some way to get that out to its allies to further try to discredit this investigation as they have done with other information/spin in the last several years?

Since the legalities do not depend on whether damage was done, and since Libby was convicted of perjury, I think the most likely explanation is that they kept it secret to avoid talking about how much damage they might in principal have caused. I do not think they would stick their necks further into the noose by reveling the result of a classified investigation that was caused by their mistake/malfeasance in the first place.

then again, they haven't handled the thing smartly from the start.

That to this day no such investigation has not been done should tell any honest person all they need to know about what this WH knows would be found in such an investigation if done honestly and what the penalties would be.

I don't hold that against them because Fitzgerald was conducting his investigation. Since most of the truth is now out (filling in some blanks in the Libby trial record), I expect the Waxman investigation to be the prelude to the impeachment of Cheney.

When the Libby verdict was handed down, somebody here called it the beginning of act 1. I agreed. Without saying so, I thought of the way that the 3 hour "Das Rheingold" is the "beginning" of the Ring. I think that was the day I first conjectured aloud that this might lead to the impeachment of Cheney.

Surely you do not disagree that an impeachment investigation directed at Cheney is in order?

Treason: 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

--American Heritage Dictionary
Posted by: mcdruid

Just so.

Now. What's the difference between s shamrock and a thistle?

Only the Shamrock and a good bottle of whiskey will leave me with a black eye and a broken heart.

Who wants to fight? Who wants to fight, dammit! I'd have gone to Notre Dame if father hadn't made a deal with the Department of Defense to send me to Princeton on a deferment.

Wrong. But thanks for playing, Uncle Normie.

Norman Rogers: I challenge those of you in the so-called 'reality-based community' to explain why NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OUTING BARBIE PLAME and why one person went down for perjury when he told the truth and said he couldn't remember what he told that pancake-eating liar and fraud Little Russ.

I think you'll learn the answer to the first question by following the Waxman hearings, and drawing an inference from something said by Fitzgerald quoted above: he didn't want to indict Cheney. As to Libby, he went down because the jury didn't believe him. Are you telling us affirmatively that you did believe his grand jury testimony? Many people have isolated memory lapses but his testimony was wrong about almost everything, including the things most important to him at the time.

"Maybe that was because he decided she didn't qualify as "covert" under the very specific legal requirement of the IIPA Act. Maybe it was for other reasons. Who knows?"

He already explained this. He said he had to prove "intent". The statute says it is illegal to out a CIA agent if the intent is to harm US national security. He could not prove that was the intent of the leakers.

Are you telling us affirmatively that you did believe his grand jury testimony? Many people have isolated memory lapses but his testimony was wrong about almost everything, including the things most important to him at the time.

How do you know Libby wasn't distracted by a need to keep America safe?

You don't do you? Now, because all you liberals hate Libby and the people he worked for, it is beyond any possibility for you to consider that this man was wrapped up in the need to protect America from its enemies and made a simple mistake in front of a bunch of people who did not have the burden of protecting this country.

No, because all you have is hate, it NEVER occurred to you that a patriot was being pilloried.

Did it?

spider:

Personally I think both Bush and Cheney deserve to be impeached, while Cheney is likely the prime motivator Bush has the sworn responsibilities of his office and the power to stop Cheney at any time if he so chose. Indeed, I think it is necessary for America to impeach this WH for its many impeachable actions that it has managed to sweep under the national security rug and the "fear the terrorist" rug (You really think it is coincidence that suddenly KSM is confessing publicly to so many acts of terrorism? I sure don't especially now that they can't get away with simply raising the "terror alert level" the way they did in the first term to distract from bad publicity gaining momentum). Cheney clearly was the motivating source behind the Plame outing for whatever reason, and Libby's obstruction made it impossible for Fitzgerald to criminally indict a sitting VP on let's face it a hard law to prosecute under (assuming it was to be the IIPA).

I also agree that if Libby had been convicted or even indicted a year earlier that the chances for Bushco to have "won" re-election (sorry, I was not then nor since convinced that this was a clean election, there are simply too many anomalies present, including the odd "coincidence" that the crucial/determining State both times (2000 and 2004) had the Sec of State responsible for overseeing the elections also chairing that State's elect Bush/Cheney committee) drop sharply indeed. What I want to see is real accountability in all of this, something that has been sadly lacking because the GOP chose not to care about it both in the Executive branch and the Legislative branch (which is why it got massacred in the last midterm, and it was a national massacre) for the last four years. No, instead they let Bush do whatever he wanted without any apparent worries and now all those deferred consequences are going to come home to roost at the same time significantly multiplying their original impact/energy/momentum. I always said that when Bushco went down it would be in a cascade collapse and I believe we are in the beginnings of seeing exactly that in motion with hopefully impeachment demanded by the wider public within the next six-eight months making it all but assured. In the process the GOP looks to be sharing that fate because it tied itself too closely for too long to Bushco and did not recognize the dangers ahead until too late, some have yet to this day seen them and think it is all just more "liberal media nonsense". The main reason living in a dream world is such a bad idea is that reality will catch up with you and usually in the most painful manner available/possible. The GOP is I believe about to be reminded of that hoary truth.

MsNThrope:

Aside from one being leafy and the other being a bit prickly and both being the fodder of donkeys/jackasses nothing comes to mind...:)

Norman Rogers --

show me one bit of substantial evidence that any member of this administration has put the USA at the top of list. All I see is power, greed and self-congratulatory hubris.

Well, until the wheels started falling off this most corrupt of wagons. Every time a stone is turned over, out comes another slimy toad of fact to show their true intentions.

They have no respect for this country or its institutions.

Cheney? The least of all.

Norman Rogers wrote: "I challenge those of you in the so-called 'reality-based community' to explain why NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OUTING BARBIE PLAME"

Here's the explanation:

You are a silly, pretentious bore.

Wow, I never even noticed that you write stuff, Scotian (pssst, MsNThrope; not sure if there are Scots in his family tree, but I think his handle refers to Nova Scotia). I was just wildly attracted by your sexual prowess.

For those of you who don't remember or weren't around for the exchange in question, that was a joke.

We love our Scotian.

Well, until the wheels started falling off this most corrupt of wagons. Every time a stone is turned over, out comes another slimy toad of fact to show their true intentions.

So stop turning over the rocks. Duh.

For those of you who don't remember or weren't around for the exchange in question, that was a joke.

We love our Scotian.
Posted by: shortstop

I love him, too.

Oops. But listen,babe, real every Scot in the world can answer this Q. It's like breathing.

You can wipe your arse with a shamrock...try that with a thistle...

Maybe that was because he decided she didn't qualify as "covert"

Jeebus Kevin. Its because the law is somewhat vague in that area and as Plame explained herself,
she didn't stop being covert just because she came back to office for awhile - she clearly stated that in meeting.

AND another thing, THE WASHINGTON POST said that MS. PLAME WAS NOT COVERT in it's recent editoral.

AND THE WASHINGTON POST also said that it was Ms. Plame that RECOMMENDED HER HUSBAND FOR JOB. She clearly did not.

The Washington Post LIED to it,s reader, DIDN'T care to get the facts, didn't pick up phone to verify anything, just lied about the Plame case when asking for Libby to get pardon.

This is why a shield law wouldn't protect the public when the WP editoral doesn't serve the public good but rather a president who lies.

That editorial was nothing but a lie, it was nothing but a complete lie.

shortstop:

*rrrrowrrrr*

*chuckle* Nice one milady, nice one! No wonder our exchanges were always so "heated" and "spicy"...:) Seriously though, I do have mostly Scots in my Celtic ancestry with a little Irish thrown in to complicate the mix...:) You do have the basis of my alias correct though, but then I believe you already knew that. Nice to see you again btw, I've missed my fellow compatriots here over the last year and a bit dealing with the ravening hordes of movement conservativism rising to power up here. Once we have managed to slay that dragon (hopefully later this year) then I will likely be spending more time back here. I will admit it is nice to be back here at a time when things I have long predicted/expected have finally started occurring and watching/reading the flailings of the Trolletariat is a joy indeed. I wish I was a better human being than to take some pleasure/satisfaction in this, but alas I am but a mere flawed mortal human being...:)

Posted by: MsNThrope on March 16, 2007 at 8:42 PM

I guess I was a little too subtle with my reference about how one is leafy and the other a bit prickly, I debated about adding "...and we all know how that feels..." but thought it too blatant, I guess it wasn't. However, the main reason I know that chestnut comes from my family tales than from first hand experience alas. I would caution you though that it is not the best measure of a "true Scot" as there were always some that were contrary and refused to learn the traditions and they are much "true Scots" as those of us that do maintain the traditions.

Sorry, your cover is now 'inoperative'.

What's the difference between a shamrock and a thistle?

But a real Irishman knows the answer to that, too --it's all the little pricks.

Heheheh

cld: My revered step-father was Christopher Stephen Augustus O'Shaughnessy from Limerick.

Nuff said.

OK, but when do we get back to talking about the things that I think are important?

Luv ya.

heh.

So stop turning over the rocks. Duh.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 16, 2007 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

And allow the USA to become a fascist state?

No. I don't think so. These guys need to be shown for what they are. Criminals.

spider writes:

So, did she in fact say "Nobody in the Georgetown cocktail circuit knew I worked for the CIA, to the best of my knowledge"?

This is what she said: "It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit." She also said she could "count on one hand the number of people outside the CIA who knew of her employment at the agency," one of which is her husband. She didn't mention knowledge of her covert status, just her employment. I would assume one of the four who even knew she worked at the CIA wasn't Armitage - so the real question is, how did Armitage find out?? And as a signer to the PNAC, I wouldn't give Armitage a free pass on this..

No, because all you have is hate, it NEVER occurred to you that a patriot was being pilloried.

Actually, that was my position until he was indicted. The indictment was serious, and voted by a grand jury. I was pretty sure I understood his motive after I read the trial transcripts, and I concluded that he really had lied when the jury found him guilty. The jury was thorough.

How do you know Libby wasn't distracted by a need to keep America safe?

The transcripts from the trial make it pretty clear that his lies were not random. Keeping America safe does not seem to have been his principle activity at the time.

because all you liberals hate Libby and the people he worked for

I voted for Bush and Cheney. I don't hate them, but Cheney and Libby clearly crossed the line on this case. Anybody who can't understand that Libby was lying to coverup malfeasance in office just isn't paying attention.

Did that oversnark? I didn't mean to.

I should say I'm half Irish and half Scottish. And also half Welsh and half Generic.

About half my hometown was from Ireland, and the other half were troglodytes. And, of course, my parents weren't married, so tomorrow always presents itself with a sort of pre-hangover glear of green beer, gas and anxiety.

cld: no prob , sweetie.

We are cool. There was a 'game afoot.' You don't need to know.

"But whatever the legal case, Plame herself sure thinks she was covert. And her job sure sounds covert. And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....." - drum

I think I am an NFL quarterback, and my job entails leading other people and calling the shots which sounds like those of a quarterback.

I must be an NFL quarterback.

And btw, I thought the left was all about the "law", and rule thereof. If Plame was "legally" not covert according to Fitzpatrick, isn't this all just a waste of time?

"She also said she could "count on one hand the number of people outside the CIA who knew of her employment at the agency,..."

You've got to be kidding me. There were people OUTSIDE OF THE AGENCY that knew of her occupation other than the evil George Bush and Dick Cheney?

Wouldn't ANYBODY OUTSIDE OF THE AGENCY who knew of her occupation kind of weaken that "covert" status?

Kind of

Maybe

Plame would know if she were covert. The CIA would know if she were covert.

Yet Bush apologists dismiss both Plame and the CIA in favor of... who?

White House officials accused of outing her, RW pundits and bloggers, and a commentator who wants to defend the White House.

Tell me: if you go to a doctor who tells you something you don't want to hear, do you get a second opinion from an electrician?

I already know that Mr. Jay is a pretender to the conservative cause; now I have PROOF that "spider" is a traitor to the Republican cause, just like that Matthew Marler person who suspiciously stopped posting around here when spider showed up.

“OK, but when do we get back to talking about the things that I think are important?
Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 16, 2007 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Like …BARBIE PLAME….
Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 16, 2007 at 7:39 PM

I like: How can you tell a poster is a redneck using a computer?
They think "Edit" -- is
Past tense of "eat" "Wher'd that leftover possum belly go?" " You edit afore you passed out las nite.

Norman, you obviously were tantalized by Valerie, and you are now attempting to demean her. Implying that she is “Barbie/blondish� means you think she fits the category of a dumb blonde.

What do you call the smaller rivers that flow into the Nile?
Norman R: Juveniles.

Yup. That’s you.

Tom Nicholson: You're shooting at a phantom.

Norman, you obviously were tantalized by Valerie, and you are now attempting to demean her. Implying that she is “Barbie/blondish� means you think she fits the category of a dumb blonde.

I don't really have a thing for her. I would consider myself a serious Rita Cosby fan.

A handful of people knew, one of whom was her husband. That is not unreasonable. Does she have parents and siblings? Seriously. She wasn't manufactured in a lab. She has a family and she came from somewhere.

I don't really have a thing for her. I would consider myself a serious Rita Cosby fan.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Me? I like Rita Coolidge. Used to married to Kris kristoferson (spell check fails me). Had this great song 'Bird on a Wire'. She was from Dallas. Well. Oak Creek...

Norman Rogers: now I have PROOF that "spider" is a traitor to the Republican cause,

What, because I give credit to the trial jury and not to you? You haven't read the trial transcripts, have you? Read them from start to finish, in order, and you will apprehend what the jury apprehended: Libby lied to the grand jury.

"She also said she could "count on one hand the number of people outside the CIA who knew of her employment at the agency,..."

That is the kind of loose language that is so annoying in this case. If she can count on the fingers of one hand the people outside the CIA who knew of her employment at the agency, somebody on Waxman's committee needs to ask her who they were, how they learned, when they learned, and how she knew they knew.

Norman, you obviously were tantalized by Valerie,

I never realized before today how pretty she is. Calling her "Barbie Plame" is the right-winger's idea of a joke. I almost mentioned her beauty up above. It certainly brightens up the reading and the televiewing.

It certainly brightens up the reading and the televiewing.

Just remember to put that tubesock in the dirty clothes hamper when you're done, junior.

Waxman's opening remarks from today's hearing.... An excerpt that no doubt will be useless for the 'tards who suffer from Toesning's Delusion (with emphasis):

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

WAXMAN: Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work....

Like a drunk in a midnight choir,

time for me to go home.

good night all. I'll meet you again next week for some more verbal wrestling. I told my wife that I expect Cheney to resign, because his phlebitis is stress-related, and the stress is not going to end.

"Yet Bush apologists dismiss both Plame and the CIA in favor of... who?" - CaseyL

um......that would be Mr. Fitzpatrick. You know, the Special Prosecutor, who has yet to determine if in fact revealing the name constitutes a crime.

I don't think he's a Bush apologist.

"I already know that Mr. Jay is a pretender to the conservative cause;" - Norman

Normie, are you sure you have all your oars in the water?

Double check.

"An excerpt that no doubt will be useless for the 'tards who suffer from Toesning's Delusion (with emphasis):......
Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA." - Apollo

Oh, well Waxman said she was covert. She must be covert if Mr. Waxman said so.

So irrespective to the "rule of Law", which liberals care so much about, and of which would contradict Mr. Waxmans statements re: Plames covert status, we'll go with Mr. Waxman.

To hell with the "rule of law", at least for now, right?

Counting on one hand? Hmm.

Her husband, most probably. Perhaps a US Ambassador given clearance for a specific operation. Couple of military intelligence folks.

Is this really THAT hard for you Spider? Valerie Plame-Wilson and her husband were in a social scene that included current and ex-ambassadors, CIA and military intelligence agents, corporate big-wigs (including some that were probably being tracked by Ms. Plame's cover company), and lots of other government officials and people wanting to stay close to them.

In that crowd, it would be surprising if she DIDN'T run into someone who knew that she worked for the CIA. And who knew the consequences of revealing that fact.

And there would be very good reasons for Waxman, who actually seems to understand this stuff, to not ask more detailed questions in public hearings.

"And there would be very good reasons for Waxman, who actually seems to understand this stuff, to not ask more detailed questions in public hearings." - butch

Of course not. Hey let's not even bring up Richard Armitage. Let's specifically focus on that evil Bush and Cheney.

No, jay,

Waxman said that the Bush appointed head of the CIA said she was covert. It should be a matter of moments for the Bush appointed head of the CIA to contradict that if Waxman is wrong.

You are particulary pathetic lately, BTW.

BGRS aka Globe: A handful of people knew, one of whom was her husband. That is not unreasonable. Does she have parents and siblings? Seriously. She wasn't manufactured in a lab. She has a family and she came from somewhere.

Actually, Larry Johnson gave us some clues on Kevin's OUT OF CONTROL thread, Mar. 7, 2007:

Kevin,
You are wrong with respect to Valerie Plame. Valerie and I started work at the CIA in September of 1985. We were members of the same Career Trainee class (which had 54 members). We were undercover from the day we walked in the building. I can vouch for this as can three other members of our class--Jim Marcinkowski, Brent Cavan, and Mike Grimaldi.
Valerie was an operations officer--someone who recruits spies. She worked in that position until she resigned from the Agency last year. In accordance with IIPA, Valerie had served overseas in a covert position in the five years prior to her outing in 2003.
You seem to ignore the fact that Scooter Libby obstructed the investigation. If you obstruct an investigation it makes it difficult to prove the violation of the IIPA. That's why Scooter, now a convicted felon, was found guilty of perjury and obstruction.
Posted by: Larry Johnson on March 7, 2007 at 10:38 PM

"You are particulary pathetic lately, BTW." - butch

Thank you. I try to live up to the standards already in place here at Political Animal.

If Cheney declassified her without telling anyone at the CIA isn't that reckless endangerment?

Butch: Waxman said that the Bush appointed head of the CIA said she was covert. It should be a matter of moments for the Bush appointed head of the CIA to contradict that if Waxman is wrong.

Senryu Showtime!

Wingnut graduates
Flunked Reading Comprehension.
Aced Propaganda.

jay - Armitage has been dealt with. Unlike you, the jury was not distracted from the fact that whatever Armitage did, Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury. Those are crimes in their own right and were prosecuted as such.

Now we look at the incredibly political, careless, and incompetent manner in which the administration deals with classified information across the board. Waxman is opening things up nicely to the light.

"Larry Johnson, Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, and Mike Grimaldi are former CIA analysts. Add Joe Wilson and that makes five." - Apollo

But what about her Mom and Dad, that would make seven.

Oh boy, it's getting out of control.

"Unlike you, the jury was not distracted from the fact that whatever Armitage did, Libby lied to the FBI and the grand jury. Those are crimes in their own right and were prosecuted as such." - butch

You're right. He contradicted himself in front of GJ in the course of an investigation that actually has yet to determine if a crime was even committed. And Armitage was an opponent of the war from the beginning, and who knew of this information on his own accord. He was far from the "inner circle".

And this is what you choose to get your panties in a bunch over.

If you want to investigate something. Look into why Harry Reid is now advocating policies that he once strongly spoke out against in the name of National Security. As recent as 2005.

jay, if the standards are so low, why do you bother?

You have no credibility, you publish falsehoods easily refuted by the least bit of research, you take Republican talking points abandoned by the Administration even before you advocate them. Do you really even exist?

Ah well - rhetorical questions. Keep at it jay, you might convince many people to not become something like you.

Butch,
Don't bother with Jay. I suspect he's a mental case with access to a keyboard. Last year, he was for "cut and run" (which is why you will see PA regulars refer to him as Cut'N'Run Jay) before he was against it:

Gauging the reaction to the bombing this is most certainly a tipping point in this conflict. If the Sunni's are proven to be behind this, it could easily to an all out civil war which could be disastrous and if that, I am in agreement with Honey P; maybe it's time to get out and let them fend for themselves. However, if Al Qaeda is behind this, it could be a replay of the Hotel bombing in Amman, Jordan and rally the populace against AQ. I hope it's the latter.
Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:16 PM

"...you publish falsehoods easily refuted by the least bit of research,..." butch

Have at it. Enlighten me. List my falsehoods and then refute each one.

I will wait.

Or is this the part where liberals just say shit and expect others to believe them and scoff at any challenge to their integrity.

"I hope it's the latter." - Jay

And this, in Apollos mind, constitutes cut and run (hoping that the populace rallies against AQ). Kind of like Plame pretending to be covert.

It's fun to live in the alternate liberal universe.

"Armitage has been dealt with." - butch

How? I think he played golf today.

you're a good piece of ass, jay.

stick around til we all get our rocks off, would'ja?

I suspect he's a mental case with access to a keyboard.

My theory is that he is in some low security federal prison.

If you read the IIPA Act there is a section A & B in the statute. Valerie fell under statute A. The statute said she is considered covert if she fell under A OR B. Toensing kept talking about the B portion knowing full well she fell under A. She was right about one thing no one would bother to read it to know she was parsing and lying.

"My theory is that he is in some low security federal prison." - disputo

That's exactly right. I was caught revealing the indentity of a moveon.org member while I secretly listened in on their phone calls to see if they had WMD's.

Actually Jay, every point you have brought up has already been refuted in the course of this thread. Or you can go over to TPM for more detailed data and timelines.

No need to thank me, just learn to read and comprehend and go back over the thread you are in.

And Apollo 13 - if jay didn't exist as an example of a REALLY stupid and repetitious Republican mouthpiece we'd have to invent him. Oh wait - they invent themselves. Pity that they are so bad at it.

Mr. Jay is neither a conservative or a Republican. He is using those points of view merely to agitate people. I suspect he goes on other sites and pretends to be Barbra Streisand or some such nonsense.

Look, children. The fact of the matter is, no one has been charged with the crime of revealing who Barbie Plame really was. This is a tempest in a teapot and it'll disappear in a few weeks and no one will speak of it again.

"...every point you have brought up has already been refuted" - butch

You mean that Harry Reid didn't sponsor legislation yesterday that called for the withdrawal of troops by March '08 directly contradicting his stance in 2005 when he said such policy would be reckless?

Or that this investigation has yet to detemine if such revelation even constitutes a crime?

All of those FACTS have been refuted? Or just ignored?
You mean that Richard Armitage did not reveal Plames name and that he has not been charged with anything?

"Mr. Jay is neither a conservative or a Republican." - norman

Normie, you're also part of the problem, just as much as these loons on the left.

I am pretty much in the middle, and we just laugh at all of you and your mindless partisan games.

there was no crime committed.

How do I know? Hmm...

A prosecutor spent over two years looking at all the evidence and, with all of the prosecutorial powers and grand jury access and millions in resources and staff...and didn't charge anyone with a crime.

This Republican talking point gets around unchallenged too often. There are homicides happening every day for which no one is prosecuted because of lack of sufficient evidence. This does not mean that these homicides are not crimes.

I am pretty much in the middle, and we just laugh at all of you and your mindless partisan games.

Damn. I thought Jay was for real, but now I see that he is just another parody troll.

"It was NOT common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked."
--quoted from Valerie Plame's opening statement Friday.

Isn't this the same as saying, "No one in the Georgetown cocktail circuit knew where I worked"?

Front page of Saturday's WaPo summarizes the hearing...snip

Plame's testimony on the covert nature of her job was buttressed by a statement that Waxman read at the hearing's opening which, he said, was approved by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA's director. The statement said that Plame worked in a covert capacity at the time of Novak's column and that her employment status was classified under an executive order.

Saying she could reveal only limited information about her former job, Plame testified that, just before the Iraq war, she was "still a covert officer" working to "discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq's presumed weapons-of-mass-destruction program" and that she "traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."

Rebutting an assertion by White House officials to reporters that she had sent her husband on the trip, Plame said a CIA colleague broached the idea after a call in early 2002 from Vice President Cheney's office seeking information about Iraqi activity in Niger. Plame said she "wasn't overjoyed" at the idea because it would leave her alone at bedtime with their 2-year-old twins.

Still, she said, at the direction of her supervisor, she asked her husband whether he would come to CIA headquarters at Langley to discuss the possible trip and sent a quick e-mail about the prospect to the chief of the agency's counterproliferation division, where she worked.

"I did not suggest him," she said. "There was no nepotism involved. I didn't have the authority."

There are homicides happening every day for which no one is prosecuted because of lack of sufficient evidence. This does not mean that these homicides are not crimes.

Plame, breaking her public silence about the case, contended that her name and job "were carelessly and recklessly abused" by the government. Although she and her colleagues knew that "we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies," she said, "it was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover."

Plame calmly but firmly knocked down longstanding claims by administration allies that the disclosure was not criminal because she had not worked in a covert capacity.

Secondly, why hasn't Bush made good his promise to boot anyone who had anything to do with the leak...like Kark Rove? Why does Rove still have a WH security clearance?

The loose-lipped WH clowns played around with national security like it was a circus act for their personal pleasure. As George H. W. Bush said:

"I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who expose the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."

Jay… he's a mental case with access to a keyboard. … Apollo 13

Bush Derangement Syndrome is characterized by overwhelming sycophancy to an incompetent, inarticulate leader who institutes policies inimical to his country's interest and welfare. Those suffering BDS, as it is commonly called, are able to make a statement defending their leader on moment, and argue the exact opposite the next. Indeed, most of those afflicted with this bizarre disease are incapable of cognitive functions when involves their Dear Leader.

Nice synopsis Apollo 13. You did what Jay is unable to do: read the posts in this thread.

The fact of the matter is, no one has been charged with the crime of revealing who Barbie Plame really was. This is a tempest in a teapot and it'll disappear in a few weeks and no one will speak of it again.

Keep dreamin', jackoff. The feds didn't charge Al Capone with murder either, so I guess he never killed anyone.
But you probably believe that too.

Libby punted on his defense, protecting Cheney in expectation of a pardon. So he shouldn't be free while his appeal is pending -- he needs to start his sentence as soon as it comes down.

One can hope, at least.

I will remain a very interested observer of all aspects and outcomes of the Wison's civil suit(s). I have no doubt they were "done wrong" by the Bushies, so let's see what American Justice can do about it.

Plenty of meat in the Seattle Times this Saturday morning. "Spy comes out of the cold" on the front page. Also "U.S. "Democrats turn up the heat" - half page inside WITH the rest of the "Spy" story so it will be noticed.

Ends the Spy story with the information that the CIA director had informed the committee that Plame was an undercover officer at the time her identity was exposed.

On a scale of 001 to 010, I'd say she's AT LEAST a 008. Hot.

deejaays wrote: "Isn't this the same as saying, 'No one in the Georgetown cocktail circuit knew where I worked'?"

Pretty much. What's interesting is that despite all of the claims out there about how "everyone knew," nobody has come forward to say, "Yeah, I knew." To the contrary, her friends, neighbors, and relatives have all come forward to say that they did not, in fact, know.

The claim that "everyone knew" depends on, as far as I can tell, statements by Andrea Mitchell and Clifford May. Mitchell, in a later interview, backtracked on those earlier comments. And May has never seen fit to provide even a shred of evidence to support his own assertions.

Jay wrote: "I am pretty much in the middle,"

ROFLMAO.... Oh my.... I wonder if he actually believes this?

"and we just laugh at all of you and your mindless partisan games."

Looks like we have something in common, Jay, dear, since lord knows, we all laugh at you.

Just a reminder, that I wish I had put in earlier:
It is not neccessary to use an existing term like "covert" in the specific sense a given law defines it for the legal purposes of that law. Indeed, if one means to say "X" per a given law, she says "I was not an 'X' per the definition of yadda law...." Those definitions are considered special purpose for the sake of that law (you know, "herein 'an alcoholic beverage is defined as any potable beverage containing at least 1% ethanol V/V...) whereas common usage or other specialized communities may use the phrase to cover somewhat different ground. Hence, critics cannot say Plame was dishonest from using "covert" in a sense different from the law about exposing such agents.
Also, I am sick of all the whining that since no law was broken (even if true), it is no big deal. Outing VP damaged her very important WMD (!) work, and that is bad enough.

another chronology, claiming that Joseph Wilson outed Plame:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

good links to follow

jay: [Libby] contradicted himself in front of GJ in the course of an investigation that actually has yet to determine if a crime was even committed. And Armitage was an opponent of the war from the beginning, and who knew of this information on his own accord. He was far from the "inner circle".

OK. Libby committed perjury, Armitage knew, and whoever told Armitage also knew.

Apollo13: Larry Johnson, Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, and Mike Grimaldi are former CIA analysts. Add Joe Wilson and that makes five.

So the number is at least 6, and at least 7 if Armitage's informant is not on that list.

Plame's testimony on the covert nature of her job was buttressed by a statement that Waxman read at the hearing's opening which, he said, was approved by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA's director. The statement said that Plame worked in a covert capacity at the time of Novak's column and that her employment status was classified under an executive order.

The CIA evidently didn't know about Armitage. How many other people knew about Plame (in May 2003) that the CIA didn't know about? There has been a longstanding rumor that Plame's cover had been blown by Aldrich Ames. Does anybody have reliable information on that? CIA would keep her status covert while investigating, and while assessing and repairing harm.

If Bush or Cheney declassified Plame's status, then he is possibly guilty of a high crime or high misdemeanor, or possibly even treason. That's punishable by impeachment by the House and removal from office by the Senate. But if that's true, then nobody else committed a crime of outing Plame under IIPA. That's one interpretation of Fitzgerald's action in not indicting anyone else (though Fitzgerald's words actually speak for themselves.)

Not everything Plame testified to is reliable: she does not know the motives of the people who outed her. She probably does not know everybody outside the CIA who knew her status. Not that she's intentionally lying. She did type up a memorandum or email recommending her husband, but it was on someone else's suggestion. Thus she both did and did not "recommend" her husband. It depends what you want to emphasize.

If Cheney and company were paranoid, or extremely distrustful of CIA information, then they may have felt that they were acting in the national interest by outing Plame. It takes a strange mindset (some would call it a "wingnut Republican" mindset) to accept that as anything other than paranoia; but after 9/11 the administration overreacted to everything.

The Waxman hearings may lead to an impeachment investigation, and the House might impeach. However, lots of Senatorial Republicans think that the Democratic appointees in the CIA were merely trying to score political points against the Administration. I can't see the Senate voting to remove Cheney from office. I always think that people act out of multiple motives, at least adults do. So I think that Plame and Wilson were simultaneously trying to damage the Republican administration and preserve the integrity of the intelligence.

MRM:

You know, I would love it if you could provide evidence of Wilson's and Plame partisan natures prior to the events of 2003. If I was married to a NOC and had that NOC outed in what looked to me revenge for me being critical (with good reason, Wilson was correct after all regarding how specious the Niger/African uranium claim was) of the actions of the President that would tend to drive me into the arms of the opposition party to that President. Funny how that might work. I make this point because all of the "evidence" of how Partisan Wilson clearly was comes from *AFTER* this event, not from before it. His working for Kerry came after his wife was outed and no one in the WH was being held accountable for it despite their clear involvement from the outset. As for Plame being a Democrat, was that also true before the outing or was it a result of the outing and subsequent GOP attempts to paint her as a glorified analyst that was doing nothing important nor classified? So I would consider researching that before deciding that any revelations about party membership on either behalf carry any weight/import/meaning.

General:

This is one of the things a lot of GOPers have a problem comprehending, that Wilson and Plame affiliated with the Dems politically after her outing because it was the GOP that outed her and then protected those that outed her. This is not a hard concept to grasp, yet it somehow manages to evade the GOPers wanting to make such a big deal about Wilson's actions in the 2004 Presidential election cycle "proves" how he was an anti-Bush partisan all along. It never once occurs to them that the actions of the Bush Administration and GOP Congress was enough to drive them into the arms of the Dems since the Dems were the only ones treating what happened to Plame seriously.

For all the shrieking by GOP shills like Toensing about how they know Plame was not covert they never actually back it up with evidence, while those that do maintain Plame was covert do, as they actually have or had the needed security clearances to know this, unless the head of the CIA is not able to find such out, unless the prosecutor charged with investigating her outing was not cleared to know (which would be nonsensical if he is also tasked to investigate the outing of a NOC) and the judges provided classified materials by the prosecutors during the media fight to prevent being forced to testify (Judge Tatel's ruling in particular) all claimed she was covert and that a serious crime had occurred by the revelation of her CIA employment. It is too bad that such voices are being given equal credibility despite a distinct inequality in terms of facts supporting each position, gee just like with the SBVfT now that I think about it. Those claiming Plame was not covert have no evidence save their own claims that it is so (despite a lack of ability to have the needed access to make such determinations) while those defending Plame's status as covert have been able to point to several credible sources in the past and now the CIA head himself that she was actively covert when she was betrayed by the blowing of her cover by Novak thanks to the concerted efforts of the Bush Administration itself. Yet further evidence of which side tends to work from a factual/truthfulness POV and which side tends to work from a myth/fiction/truthiness POV. It is going to be so sweet watching the great GOP machine of the past six years be exposed for the dysfunctional collection of control freaks and bullies that make it up and have managed to rule through fear, intimidation, and by bending the laws into pretzels to suit their partisan interests first instead of their duty to maintain the neutrality of the application of the rule of law for all Americans without fear or favour or prejudice. I guess the GOP forgot that this was one of the reasons for the American Revolutionary War and that they are asking to be put in the role of the British for the next generation thanks to their abuses and insane decision to treat GWB as more of a King accountable to no one other than himself than as a President whose first accountability/responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution and what it stands for.

This America is not what the Constitution called for, it is what it was designed to prevent and protect from occurring, and it took the concerted efforts of the GOP for several decades capped off with Bushco to manage to undo the intentions of the founding Fathers of America. Got to love that kind of conservativism, you know the kind that radically revises history to suit a myth than never existed that runs contrary to the clearly established intentions of the founders of America.

Here's another reminder: perjury has nothing to do with whether a crime was committed. If you see a dead body in your neighbor's yard and lie about it to the court to protect him, and it turns out it was just a schmuck who walked in their and died of a heart attack, well, you committed perjury. We need to keep the integrity of the justice system in any case (and remember of course how important perjury was when Clinton was implicated...)

"The movie will open in DC and will be seen by the same audience that went to see Brokeback Mountain. "

Good. Brokeback had pretty good box office, if I remember correctly.

"So why isn't Robert Novak up against a stack of dishes in a Federal prison ..."

Oooh, I like that picture. But there is nothing to suggest that Novak knew she was undercover. The CIA tried to dissuade him from publishing her name but could NOT tell him she was under cover without blowing her cover. A bit of a Catch 22 there.

VPW is hot, hot, hot. And Toesuck is not, not, not.

I did a search of "false claims by Victoria Toensing" and there were over 28,000 entries. Bwahahahahahahahahaha

I would love it if you could provide evidence of Wilson's and Plame partisan natures prior to the events of 2003.

Why prior to 2003?

Partisans want to deny half of the story.

For Democrats, they want to deny that: (a) prior to May 2003, Wilson's public statements supported the Bush administrations assertions about Iraqi WMD, including nuclear; (b) in May 2003, Wilson committed to Kerry's presidential campaign; (c) also in May 2003 Wilson and Plame risked blowing Plame's cover (and may indeed have blown it) by repeatedly appearing in public and discussing Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger; (d) Wilson confirmed that a member of Iraq's nuclear weapons program had been in Niger negotiating trade with Iraq (Wilson claimed that this disconfirmed the 16 words in the SOTU, but it basically confirms them); (e) Plame's cover had probably been blown before mid-June 2003 (by Armitage and probably others), though she was officially considered covered by the CIA.

Republicans want to deny that: (a) Libby committed perjury; (b) the motive for his perjury was to cover up both (i) the VP's relentless drive to exaggerate the CIA assessment of Iraq's nuclear threat and (ii) the concerted attempt to out Plame, in reckless disregard of her cover; (c) the reckless disregard of Plame's status for partisan purposes was potentially a "high crime" quite worthy of the prosecution by Fitzgerald, and now by the Waxman committee.

Scotian, you are a good guy, and you write really well, but you are too naive for words if you believe that all the Democrats are at all times above cheap political ploys; or even that most of them are at most times. Wilson backed the Bush administration's assessment of the dangers of Iraqi WMD's, including nuclear, until the invasion itself showed how little Iraq had. Then he changed his tune, signed on with Kerry, donated money to the DNC, shopped his story around D.C. (with his wife tagging along) and wrote his editorial to embarass the Republicans. Except for the part about risking Plame's cover, perfectly legal but reprehensible. The reaction by the VP was reprehensible, but probably illegal, again depending on how much it actually risked Plame's cover, which may already have been blown.

Wilson and Plame: patriots, perhaps, and partisans. Risked Plame's cover through partisan activities prior to Novak's article.

Cheney and Libby: patriots, perhaps, and partisans. Risked Plame's cover through coordinated leaks to the press, prior to Novak's article.

Wilson, Plame, Cheney, and Libby: "all, all honorable [people]", all patriots, all partisans. But Libby lied for sure. Who broke the law in outing Plame, if anyone did, is not yet known. It may have been Plame/Wilson/Kristof/etc; it may have been Cheney/Libby/Rove/etc.

If I had to bet now, and I don't have to bet now, I would bet on Cheney/Libby/Rove/etc. But there is a non-negligible chance that Wilson's partisan activities are what outed Plame. Wilson went everywhere with his wife. As Novak pointed out, it wasn't hard to find out that Wilson's wife was named Plame; and it wasn't hard to figure out, after their meetings with Democratic leaders and with Kristof, that she worked in the CIA.

Note the implication that Republicans talk about all the time. If Wilson (unintentionally) outed Plame, then there was probably NO CRIME at the center of the Fitzgerald investigation. Also note that the CIA testimaony that she was covert may not be probative if her cover had been blown, and they have not, to date, testified that her cover had not been blown. So it is still unknown whether a crime was committed, under IIPA, for the outing of Plame.

you are too naive for words....MatthewRMarler at 10:44 PM

Since you Republicans are so hyper partisan, you assume that every one is. That is classic projection and typical of your thinking. Your administration is, after all, the Mayberry Machiavellis:
"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," says DiIulio. "What you’ve got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

You can be assured that Plame and Wilson did not out her status. They are responsible people, not like your Republican allies. You can be assured that it was a classic Rove operation, she became 'fair game' when Wilson exposed White House misstatements, for one simple reason: to intimidate any one else thinking of committing a similar deed. You can be assured that Dick Cheney was deeply involved.

If Novak found her name in Who's Who, he would have used the married name as any sensible person would have, but Novak is a congenital partisan and a liar as well as a traitor. There is testimony that he called the CIA for verification and was begged not to use the information he was given.

You are making assumptions out of whole cloth and ignoring the fact that, as a classified individual agent, her ex-employers could say nothing publically about her. When you use that legal restraint upon them to continue the right wing smear job, you are merely being a partisan hack. The facts are there was an underlying crime. That crime is a difficult one to make because it goes to intent. Scooter Libby is taking the fall with obstruction of justice and lying. Rove was called to the Grand Jury 5 times and managed to avoid indictment because he presented revised statements that would have made it easier for a jury to find 'reasonable doubt.'

You, Victoria Toensing, Jonah Goldberg, the crew at the Corner and other Republicans have been spinning this for years. You efforts are futile: all your spin has been discredited. The testimony is in before Waxman's committee. Give it up.

Marler,
I see you continue to uphold your usual level of argumentation today.

Let's see, your own link makes it clear that Ambassador Wilson gave the administration the benefit of the doubt in assuming that, although the specific piece of intelligence he investigated was false, the administration had other evidence for WMD that was good. (He stated specifically on CNN that the administration should drop the Niger connection: "...try to move on and say there’s sufficient OTHER evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.")

His editorial debunking the Niger connection was specifically aimed at the CONTINUED administration use of the talking point that he had debunked.

If he did, eventually change his mind about the nuke-seeking of Saddam Hussein, it was because he became aware that the other evidence was bogus -- and rational people change their minds when the facts change. (This may be a hard concept for you trolls to understand.)

The other grasping-at-straws argument the whackos are using is that because Ambassador Wilson; wrote two articles, appeared on TV twice, and went to dinner with his wife; he blew her cover. This is purely idiotic: the facts that Ambassador Wilson was married and that his wife was the former Valerie Plame was public knowledge -- published in Who's Who even. Anybody digging further would find that his wife was a consultant for the firm Brewster-Jennings, a seemingly legitimate energy consulting firm.

None of this would lead to the conclusion, belief, or suspicion that Ms. Wilson was a spy. Even their neighbors, who had known them for years, bought the story that she was a consultant. To state, as your wingnut link does "it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere," is an unwarranted conclusion backed by zero evidence, only innuendo.

Also, Ambassador Wilson did not, in fact confirm (d... that a member of Iraq's nuclear weapons program had been in Niger negotiating trade with Iraq). The only evidence he found for the 16 words was an unsupported supposition by a single member of the Nigerian bureaucracy. All the other evidence was against it (including, as Mr. Blix points out, is the fact that there are indigenous sources of yellowcake IN Iraq and they would have NO need to import it from another country on another continent).

Finally, your "NO CRIME" analysis is false. Even had a few members of the Georgetown cocktail circuit or slimy political operatives in the White House known her secret identity, this does not constitute a "blown" cover. Revealing her cover to the world at large, causing danger and damage to her contacts and networks, is, indeed, aiding the country's enemies. Defending these people is grotesque.

MRM:

Their partisanship prior to 2003 matters since the motives ascribed to her and him for supposedly trying to discredit the Bush Administration’s assertions regarding the WMD threat (nuclear in particular) by Iraq under Saddam all rely on there being a partisan motive for Plame and Wilson. That they would become partisan and partisan Dems at that after her cover was blown by a GOP Administration for political spin control and defended by the GOP Congress as no big deal is perfectly logical, reasonable, and understandable. Yet whenever I see evidence raised by Bushco/GOP defenders on this issue I see examples of partisan behaviour from post outing cited as a rule and the most from prior to outing is only by a few months by writing opeds and talking to reporters of what he didn't find about the uranium from Niger/Africa which is not proof of political partisanship since he was right and the Bush Administration was wrong as they subsequently acknowledged first when they withdrew the 16 words of the SOTU 2003 and said they should never have been in the speech because they did not rise to the credibility that such speech's information is supposed to meet, also by the eventual recognition that there were no WMDs in Iraq despite what they claimed was the case of massive stockpiles. Remember, one of the basic premises of the Plame outed herself spin is that she sent her husband on a partisan exercise and/or junket to Niger in 2002, which makes proof of partisanship prior to 2003 relevant.

That is why that matters Marler, as for the rest of your comment that has been dealt with by others already and I am getting very tired of repeating myself over and over. She was covert, she was active, she was outed for political spin control against her husband and the GOP have defended this disgusting and despicable act as nothing unusual and perfectly fine by the President and all Plame and/or Wilson's fault she was blown despite the only evidence of anyone leaking her CIA affiliations came from within this Administration!!!

Finally Marler, I write well and I am *NOT* naive, especially as regarding security/intelligence issues as that is something I have both familial and former professional connections to. I daresay I have forgotten more about how intelligence and classification works than you ever knew, so for you to call me naive especially as regarding this issue does you no credit. So you can take your faux concern and your faux sorrow and shove it Marler, you are on the wrong side of this issue, and you are making assumptions without basis where I myself am concerned as well as where this Plame issue is concerned, and that speaks to a very bad blind spot in your critical thinking capabilities making it increasingly less worth the effort of responding to your comments anymore.

Glenn Greenwald says it well:

The sheer hatred directed at Valerie Plame by Bush followers has always been intense, extreme, and deeply personal -- even when assessed within the context of their standard operating procedure of despising any government employee, civil servant, and especially any military or intelligence professional who is perceived to have done something politically harmful to the Leader (the textbook case for that were the immediate threats of criminal prosecution directed at former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill after he criticized the Leader upon resigning his position). But for reasons best left to the field of psychology rather than political science, many of them harbor a special, particularly deranged and particularly irrational hatred for Valerie Plame.

I don't understand how anybody remains in any doubt whatsoever about Plame's covert status if they watched her appearance at that congressional hearing. I don't know how many times Waxman repeated her covert status, but he stated that her covert status was confirmed by General Hayden, the current head of the CIA.

The fact that little miss know-it-all, Victoria Toensing, represents herself to be the ultimate arbiter of whether Plame's status meets the standards of covert set out by the IIPA notwithstanding, someone should tell her that is the reason that judges exist. Apparently she thinks because she helped to formulate the law almost 30 years ago, she remains the only person who can interpret it. Most people believe that lawyers and judges exist because reasonable people can interpret written law in various ways and nobody appointed Toensing a judge.

Beside that, to me, a well written law is meant to deter wrongdoing. Yet the law that she claims to have written is so narrow in its possible applications that, my understanding is, it has only been successfully used to prosecute one case since its inception in 1988. If I were Toensing, I believe I'd hang my head in shame for creating such a unproductive monstrosity.

As for why Fitz was not able to prosecute under the IIPA, I never believed it was due to her status. I believe that it may have been due to not being able to pin down the intention of the leakers, or whether they were aware of her covert status. I believe that several people in the White House and at least one in the State Dept. and possibly some in the CIA got away with betraying classified information that was not in the best interests of the country. I believe it would be interesting, if not shocking, to find out who told Rove and Cheney about Valerie Plame's employment with the CIA, or implied she had a greater role in sending her husband to Niger than she really had. As Waxman said, if you were going to send your husband on a junket, it probably would not be to Niger. It's always been my opinion that Tenet was the man with the mouth.

Ann in AZ: I don't know how many times Waxman repeated her covert status, but he stated that her covert status was confirmed by General Hayden, the current head of the CIA.

The questions are: (1) how many other people besides Armitage knew what Armitage thought was common knowledge, namely that Plame worked for the CIA? (2) given that Armitage was not charged with a crime, how many of those others also would not be charged with a crime, if we knew who they were? (3) did the CIA know about Armitage and the others whom Armitage knew of?

spider: To people who can read, it says that Libby's lies made it impossible for Fitzgerald to learn the truth. Hence the conviction for obsrtuction of justice.

spider: then again they [White House staff] haven't handled anything smartly from the start

spider: It looks as though there was a concerted effort to get the Wilson/Plame connection into the press by multiple routes. It seems that Armitage may have fallen for this, and "innocently" spilled the beans. If so, there is still someone (or some few) culpable for the concerted effort. This is the CRIME motivating Libby's lies, but it is a crime that has not yet been proved to have occurred.

I don't want my defense of the Bushies to be exaggerated. As I wrote, I expect good things to come from the Waxman committee, including the basis of an impeachment of VP Cheney.

Scotian: There was a crime; the question is was it of intent or of gross negligence and excessive partisan zeal?

Isn't that what I have been arguing? If Armitage and a bunch of others "knew" incomplete truths, and if the VP led a coordinated effort to release the whole truth to the public, then the "crime" is a "high crime" in the language of the Constitution, and it "falls to the Judiciary Committee" (Peter Rodino's phrase) to make the investigation.

scotian: So while yes I can understand why the Armitage question may be of some fascination in the manner you are clearly hung up by it, I don't see how it can be used as evidence to show there was no intentional campaign to out Plame. What if he had heard others within the WH talking about her and presumed that it was still "officially" secret but something they might be willing to let slip to trusted members of the media to explain something so they would slant their way without actually using it directly. What if he was of other motives more sinister or innocent?

I have not written that there was no intentional campaign to out Plame. However, there was additional chronology: Wilson and Plame began to shop their story publicly in May, to the Democratic Party and to the press, notably Kristoff of the NYTimes; that MAY be when her cover was blown, and the "maybe" is necessary to know if anyone is guilty of a crime; in May Wilson signed on to advise Kerry, and made a contribution to the Democrats; then in July Wilson wrote his NYTimes article, culminating almost 2 months of partisan activity; then the White House began its campaign to out Plame -- 6 to 8 weeks after Wilson and Plame started their partisan activity.

I think it is possible, on the evidence to date, that VP Cheney committed an impeachable offense, but no one else committed a crime. This all hinges on Armitage being innocent of a crime; if he gets convicted, then I'll abandon this line of argument completely. Probably.

Valerie Plame-Wilson was covert.

Before July 14, 2003, very few people, even at the CIA, knew of her covert non-official cover status. Compartmentalization. Need to know. Even at the CIA, some people would have known she worked there, but remained unaware of her closely-guarded secret, that she was a covert non-official cover CIA officer who, as part of her highly-classified job, sometimes even travelling overseas to collect intelligence from contacts she'd cultivated over two decades of loyal service to our nation.

Then, someone in the vice-president's office started digging. Joe Wilson had been making a nuisance of himself (at least to the lying Bush administration) in the early months of 2003 between the president's SOTU address and the July outing of his wife's highly-classified covert CIA identity.

All the vice-president's men doing the digging weren't doing their digging to enhance our national security, but were seeking information to use against Joe Wilson in another Bush administration partisan attack.

Somehow the vice-president's men broke through the security walls protecting the highly-classified covert CIA identity of Valerie Plame-Wilson, learned something they had no valid, national security right to "need to know" and started leaking her identity to a few selected reporters.

A major national security breach ensued. Then a cover-up of what had happened began in earnest, especially after CIA officials demanded a head on a pike of any of the vice-president's men responsible for blowing the cover of one of their prized, long-term covert CIA operatives.

Valerie was covert. She was a valuable CIA asset. And then some fools in the Bush administration played political football with her highly-classified identity, causing great harm to occur to our national security.

And some fool trolls keep defending the one's responsible for the biggest national security breach in this decade. Sometimes one has to wonder where these trolls true loyalties lie.

oracle: Joe Wilson had been making a nuisance of himself (at least to the lying Bush administration) in the early months of 2003 between the president's SOTU address and the July outing of his wife's highly-classified covert CIA identity.

Not the "early months". In Feb - April 2003 Wilson largely supported the Bush views. In May he signed on with Kerry, contributed to the Democratic party, and started shopping his story around DC, accompanied by his wife. Shopping his story to the Democratic party in early May, with his wife accompanying him, is the event that the Republicans believe blew her cover, or started the train of inquiries that blew her cover. Any such tale as his, given at a partisan event, would arouse the suspicion of the partisans of the other party. It was a couple days after that, again with his wife, that Wilson met with Kristoff.

And if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....

There is a prima facie case that Wilson risked his wife's cover for partisan purposes. This is something that the Waxman committee should investigate.

Along comes a spider: "...he signed on with Kerry, contributed to the Democratic party, and started shopping his story around DC, accompanied by his wife."

Marler: "... signed on with Kerry, donated money to the DNC, shopped his story around D.C. (with his wife tagging along)".

Almost word-for-word. Geez guys, if you are going to plagerize, at least make an attempt to hide it.

In any event, the logic of the argument is poor. It is obvious, from Marler's own link above, that Ambassador Wilson levelled his public criticisms specifically at the Niger allegations. People listened to him because he was an acknowledged expert on Niger with high-level, high-quality connections there, regardless of whether they even knew about that specific mission to the country. Thus, the first canard is disproven.

The second leap is that from meeting Ms. Plame, one could discover that she was a covert agent. The CIA spent a considerable amount of effort and expertise into ensuring that this fact would be nearly impossible to discover. They created an entire fictitious company to back up her story, and, no doubt, had employees dedicated to covering her real role. Very few people knew her position, and they were serious professionals that knew not to reveal such secrets. Even the Wilson's long time friends and neighbors have denied even suspecting that she was CIA.

So if Ambassador Wilson "arouse[d]...suspicion" or "started a train of inquiries that blew her cover," someone would still have had to illegally reveal secret information. So the only argument the Republicans have is that there is another traitor. Strangely enough, they don't seem to be very anxious to pursue this crime.

Since your "prima facie case" falls apart with just the lightest look, you really need to work more on logical reasoning.

spider:

GOPers also believe in the nuclear weapons of Saddam having been hidden or shipped off to Syria and Iran too, but that doesn't make them any more right in think so than this notion in your last post. Wilson was the one shopping his story around, and since when do people who see someone bringing their spouses along with them to social events and political ones (and Wilson was NOT supportive of Bush/Cheney position regarding nuclear claims in the spring of 2003, as his own report showed the uranium from Niger/Africa SOTU claim was bogus) automatically assume that the spouse is involved let alone in the CIA, hmmm? This is why that is idiocy, and besides, if they had done a check on her they would have found her cover which is why it was established you know. This argument that Toensing uses about her having donated in the name of BJ&a to Gore's 2000 campaign showing she wasn't careful about her cover only shows the complete lack of understanding of how cover is established by anyone making that argument, well that or they are bald faced lying.

There is no case for treason and betrayal spider, and that is what the Bush Administration did. The argument you have brought here claiming GOPers believe in is nothing more than a fancy way of pulling blame the victim, just like they tend to do to rape victims for dressing too provocatively instead of blaming the person that actually does the raping alone. Plame was professionally raped by Bushco spider, there is no doubt about it. The only doubts lie in whether they will ever be held to account properly for it or not thanks to efforts by people like Toensing, like yourself (Even if the Libby trial convinced you that there was more here than you thought I wager that until then you were quite dismissive of this as simply more spin against Bush/GOP by partisan Dems, right?), MRM, anyone that refuses to accept that the simplest answer is most often the correct one. Until the Bush Administration did their background on Wilson none of them knew her CIA background. When they found out she was CIA and connected to a bureau that is well known for having covert/operation people in it instead of protecting her identity until verifying that they could speak publicly about it via proper verification of classification (which btw the investigation of has never happened, and this is something that normally is done immediately after a suspected breach of security and not until criminal investigations are completed, that way would leave those that can't be trusted with classified info in positions to further leak for months to years) they saw a way to discredit the messenger since they could not discredit his message by making it sound like his wife sent him for a junket and that it was a partisan hit job not a real investigation. They then leaked to selected reporters they liked and believed would do their dirty work for them, and the coy way in which they tried to get them to look at the wife at the beginning underscores exactly what they were doing.

Incidentally, did it ever occur to you that the main reason Wilson started linking up with the Dems/Kerry was because he realized the current GOP Administration and Congress were lying about nuclear threats, just about the most serious kind of deception there is (especially to start a preemptive war over) especially for anyone that lived through the Cold War? Did it ever occur to the GOP partisans that even if he was being more politically active that should have done nothing to increase the risk to her cover since he was already a public figure? The only way this becomes viable is if one accepts the premise that the GOP had a right to out her in retaliation/defence of his criticism, and that is not a valid defence. There are no political exceptions for government officials exposing/betraying a covert operative, anymore than there are political exceptions to do so with undercover cops. As I have already said this is blame the victim logic, and yet more avoidance of GOP/Bushco responsibility for her betrayal.

I am not going to keep this up spider, as I have mentioned I have little patience at this point for those that try to claim she was not covert or that somehow this was her and her husband’s fault especially when the evidence trail so clearly shows otherwise. Use Occam's razor on this case using the testimony of the Libby trial. You will find that the simplest explanation is that Wilson criticized the nuclear argument of Bushco for Iraq (an argument particularly identified with Cheney) and that since they could not refute his actual claims they went after his personal credibility. In the workup they did of him they discovered his wife was CIA in counter proliferation and figured that they could use that to undercut his credibility and therefore the credibility of his claims. They then outed her to reporters and the rest is alas history. The idea that the fact becoming more politically active would have caused the Bush Administration to do a workup on the Wilsons does not change in the slightest the obligations and responsibilities of all government officials to protect classified knowledge in an affirmative manner. Even if the work-up led them to her CIA employment it would not give them any right to broadcast that now would it, and that is where the idea that Wilson outed her by being so politically involved falls apart.

I really hate blame the victim reasoning spider, it tends to raise my hackles, fair warning. Since this post is about to drop off the main page this will be my last comment to it.