But, but, but........

That terrible sound you just heard was the shrieking of a thousand wingnuts as all their protestions about Plame just turned to dust and blew away.

Next.

Just a curiosity. What do these paragraphs mean, especially the part about rolling back the cover?

After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status."

yes, but didnt Fitz mention this way back in that press conference in 2005? what makes this more official?

I believe the reason he did not prosecute for the leak was because the original leak was from Richard Armitage, not Cheney, Rove or Libby.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_Affair

I think the point Dan Froomkin wanted to make was that Fitz regarded Libby as a mere pawn. It was Cheney he would have fingered had Libby not obstructed the view.

The leakers didn't know it would cause damage. And they didn't care either.

Off topic, but Im afraid that Al Gore is thinking about running in 2008. Im llistening to him being interviewed on Olbermann, and Al is starting to speak in magisterial, stiff sentences. I take this as a sign that he is preparing for prime time again. If AlbG would stay loose, he could have a lot of good things to say in the next 18 months. He doesnt need to run for Pres.

anon, sorry, don't be ridiculous. it didn't suddenly become legal for other people to leak plame's identity just because armitage spit it out (i assume that, in armitage's case, again we had the "knowing" aspect in play).

in the bigger scheme of things, of course the many right-wingers who confidently asserted for years that plame wasn't "covert" are completely shameless propagandists, and they will merely move on to shrill hectoring of john edwards' haircut or hillary's ambition or barack's muslim education or any of the other pieces of bullshit upon which they thrive.

anon, sorry, don't be ridiculous. it didn't suddenly become legal for other people to leak plame's identity just because armitage spit it out (i assume that, in armitage's case, again we had the "knowing" aspect in play).

in the bigger scheme of things, of course the many right-wingers who confidently asserted for years that plame wasn't "covert" are completely shameless propagandists, and they will merely move on to shrill hectoring of john edwards' haircut or hillary's ambition or barack's muslim education or any of the other pieces of bullshit upon which they thrive.

But we're a tiny step closer to understanding it.

"we're"?? Don't you mean just you, Kevin.

Plame said as much in her testiment before congress some time back pal. I don't think she would have had any particular reason to lie about this fact before congress.

One of these days, oil prices will collapse again in a not to distance post Iraq war, post Bush period and thus too, your chronic insistence of peak oil theories, will once again show you to be equally slow on the uptake.

This is ridiculous. Alan and I and all our cocktail-party friends knew about her, so she couldn't have been covert. That's why the vast majority of Americans want to see Scooter Libby pardoned.

"That terrible sound you just heard was the shrieking of a thousand wingnuts as all their protestions about Plame just turned to dust and blew away."

Nah, they'll just come up with some new rationalization to avoid having to deal with the issue. We've been through this before.

Kevin Drum wrote: "I hope the wingosphere can finally stop bleating about how she wasn't 'really' covert and there was no harm in what Libby et. al. did."

I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Victoria Toensing, Tom Maguire, the entirety of Fox News, and other affiliated loons that still represent Bush's proud 28% aren't likely to be persuaded by anything FitzGerald (or anyone else) has to say about Plame's covertness. In their world, Plame herself is the perjurer.

Cliff May, who previously claimed Plame's employment was an open secret (and that he knew about it), ought to be hounded by reporters. You'd think Cliff May would have something to say about this. After all, Fitz is trying to send his good buddy Scooter to the clink partly upon Plame's covertness, something Cliff May claims to have debunked. 'Tis a shame that Cliff May doesn't revisit his own BS. You'd think some of Cliff May's chums at the Corner would ask him to comment.

So that settles that. I hope the wingosphere can finally stop bleating about how she wasn't "really" covert and there was no harm in what Libby et. al. did.

And maybe they will quit connecting Saddam Hussein and alQaeda, but you'd be foolish to take that bet.

Okay, so outing a covert agent whose job is to prevent nuclear proliferation so you can get back at her husband for telling the truth about the lies your administration told in the march to war...we're supposed to believe the Republican base gives a CRAP about national security?

Yeah, let's not forget that it was the CIA who got the whole ball rolling, and they had to have had a reasonably solid case that a crime was committed.

The IIPA is deliberately hard to prosecute under -- its Congressional authors have said so -- but one still wonders why Libby wasn't prosecuted under more general statutes prohibiting disclosure of classified information. Those have no statutory high bar of intent, and confirming or repeating a leak is just as bad as doing the leaking.

How soon after he's remanded immediately to prison do you think Bush will pardon him? And will Bush also pardon Cheney for any crimes he "has committed, or may have committed"?

Thanks for setting the record straight, Kevin.

What's weird about all of the protests about Plame's status is that they never even remotely made sense! The CIA would know that she is covert and they would not have pushed this if she were not. The Justice Department would have to have evidence of this before they pursued the case and the various judges who ruled on various matters would have to have this, as well. If she were not covert, none of this made any sense at all and you'd have had to have a conspiracy of staggering size to get the case to trial.

Treasonous Lugheads for $50, Alex.

They sure know how to protect us, huh? But, as was mentioned, this was old news, except the media from NPR to Spokane's Picauyune kept allowing them to spin the false "she wasn't even covert" assertion. To me, the media which allows such lies is also guilty of treason.

Come on, people. I come here for the quick counterpoint from "Al" and whatsisname. It's faster than waiting for talking points on AM radio tomorrow.

Al? Al? Al?

I'm still looking for something that the Right-o-sphere has ever actually got right.

It's just one train wreck after another...

anonymous: "It's faster than waiting for talking points on AM radio tomorrow."

That's what's taking them so long. They need their marching orders.

And now for the right wing spin of the Plame news we turn to NRO's own Byron York, whose only mention of Plame's actual status as revealed by Fitzgerald today is the following:

Finally, the Fitzgerald filings shed some new light on Valerie Plame Wilson’s job status at the CIA. In an exhibit attached to the sentencing memo, Fitzgerald reveals that at the time her name was published by columnist Robert Novak — July 14, 2003 — Mrs. Wilson was moving into an administrative position at CIA headquarters. “In August 2003, Ms. Wilson was assigned to a senior personnel position in CPD [Counterproliferation Division], where she supervised staffing, recruiting, and training for CPD,� the document says. “She had been selected for this position prior to the leak.�

No mention of her traveling overseas or covert status. Absolutely brilliant and a most honest summation Byron!

Click the link, Kevin. Always click the link:

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."

Valary Plame was a travel agent for the CIA and travelled to research her destinations. It was a waste of government money, and the CIA is claiming she was "covert" to cover the whole thing up.

Nonetheless, for some reason Fitzgerald decided not to bring outing charges against anyone. This suggests that Mark Kleiman has been right all along: Fitzgerald's decision had nothing to do with technical aspects of IIPA, but rather with its scienter requirements.

You seem to assume that either your explanation or Kleiman's must be correct. I find this rather specious. There are other quite plausible reasons Fitzgerald might not have prosecuted for the leak. For instance, he might have felt that there would have been too much damage to the public interest from the kind of material that would have had to be revealed at trial to prove Plame's covert status and/or the leaker's knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant the benefit of actually getting a conviction.

The other problem with that supposition is that Kleiman's theory is not well-grounded in the law.

That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case.

The problem with that theory is of the tree different offenses defined in the IIPA—at 50 USC § 421(a), (b), and (c)—only the last has as an element that the leaker know that leaking could be damaging, and that's the provision least likely to be applicable to an inside leaker with authorized acccess, but would be a provision that might be applied to an unauthorized person repeating a leak (under certain circumstances). The scienter requirement in each of the the other provisions—which apply to people with authorized access to classified information, either in general or specifically identifying the agent—is merely that the leaker know "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".

If there was a deliberate leak, someone violated 50 USC § 421 (a) or (b), whether or not they knew, had reason to know, believed, thought, or suspected the leak would or even might be harmful to the US.

Bleh and PaulB,

You are overlooking the fact that in the Bizaroworld that the die-hard 28% and their punditocracy enablers live in, the CIA is a bastion of left-wing sympathizers just itching for the opportunity to perjure themselves if it will make the President look bad.

Regardless of whether it was technically possible to charge anyone under the IIPA or more general esponiage acts, Libby, Rove and a half-dozen other members of the administration known to have helped shop the Plame story to the press should have lost their security clearances months ago.

The fact that there doesn't appear to have been any administrative review over their failure to properly protect classified data is a clear sign of the administrations lack of seriousness on national security issues.

Not that I an disagreeing with you or your analysis, but it sure is nice to know that people at the highest possible level of intelligence clearance can plead ignorance of same while leaking names for political advantage.

Some how, at least outside a court of law, that doesn't hold much logic, now does it? Harmful to the USA or not!

We should all piss on them.

That was for cmdicely, 11:58 pm.

You're always interesting.

But they only released false, lying, defaming information against an individual for the benefit of the administration. That's OK then. How convenient.

Jesus! This country is so screwed.

Yes! It was a dliberate leak. Prove it!

We should all piss on them

Sensible advice.

Sensible advice.

Not if they are on fire.

Dang. Disputo got there first.

No need to wait for the right wing position to appear here. This is from Macsmind. It qualifies.

First quoting the story:
The unclassified summary of Plame�s employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.�

"Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, 'engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business.' The report says, 'she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, �sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias � but always using cover � whether official or non-official (NOC) � with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.�

"After the Novak column was published and Plame�s identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, 'the CIA lifted Ms Wilson�s cover' and then 'rolled back her cover' effective to the date of the leak. The CIA determined, 'that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson�s employment and cover status.'

And here is the rejoinder, edited down:

Excuse me? A "Grandfathered Status" of covert. Sorry, no "apples" here. First, the fact is that �if� she held covert status it would have been revealed and protected at the time when Novak notified CIA officials of the story. �Taking measures� my ass. Either she was or wasn�t and that�s what I�ve been saying from the beginning. When Novak called Bill Harlow and Harlow had to hang up and then call back, I told you that was BS. All he had to do was punch her name up in the computer on his desk and he could have told Novak straight out she was protected.

Fact is that she wasn�t. Harlow knew who she was as she had already been stripped of duties for her little scheme sending �honey bunch� to Niger (a rather embarrassing screw up I might add). .....having been relieved of duties from CIO a full year prior - in 2002, by June of 2003 she was working in a non-covert status in Langley.

Fact is that Plame still is the key to the real story about her and her rogue buds were trying to pull off prior to the war. This story is simply another bow-shot to keep others off the trail, especially after her false testimony earlier this month.

Oh, and this is choice drivel:

�The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias "but always using cover" whether official or non-official (NOC) "with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

What you see her is a complete broadside fabrication from the rogues and nothing more. It might fool the fools of the MSM, but for those who were there and known (know?), it�s crap pure and simple. Fitzgerald is showing more and more the partisen (sic) that he is, a poltical hack of the first order. Fact is that if this document had any authenticity to it Fitzgerald could have charged Libby under IIPA. It didn�t and he knew it.

(snip)

Man, right-wingers are wrong a lot.

I like that wingnuts think that if a columnist calls up the CIA and asks if person A is a covert agent, that the CIA has to respond truthfully.

Dumber than shit.

Does no one remember Fitzgerald's parable about the umpire who gets sand thrown in his eyes? He all but told us right there why he couldn't proceed beyond nailing Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. He obviously needed to pry some testimony out of Libby that would lead to Cheney, and he couldn't get anything that wasn't tainted by Libby's disingenuousness. That was the sand that was thrown in the umpire's (the court's) eyes. Hence the obstruction of justice charge.

I think Fitzgerald's prognosis at that point was that the taint from Libby's false testimony had terminally infected the process, and probably doomed any case he might have wanted to make against those higher up like, for instance, Cheney, or Cheney, or maybe Cheney.

Darn, Disputo and BGRS, I forgot.

There are always conditions.

obscure: I think the point Dan Froomkin wanted to make was that Fitz regarded Libby as a mere pawn. It was Cheney he would have fingered had Libby not obstructed the view.

Yes, I was just reading Froomkin from today in his, "Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney." He ends his piece with:

But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president.

Gee, Kevin. I didn't realize CBS News was posting your Political Animal commentary.

Unlike most others in the leftwing blogosphere, I have had my doubts about Fitzgerald since day one. I think he is as political an operative as all the rest of them.

That said, and on the off-chance that I'm wrong about him, there is nothing to stop another prosecutor in a future administration from investigating, indicting and trying the whole lot of them.

I think we are all expecting that Bush will pardon Libby and would have pardoned anyone else facing prosecution and prison before he left office. This way, Bush can't pardon those who have yet to be indicted as his father pardoned Weinberger and friends.

Newsweek has a few more details and reiterates the main points:

A major theme of Libby’s defenders has been that, at the time of her outing, Valerie Wilson was little more than a desk analyst who was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act—the 1982 law making it a crime to disclose the identity of a covert officer. Fitzgerald was originally appointed to investigate whether this statute had been violated. But in two memos—and in a document entitled, “Unclassified Summary of Valerie Wilson’s CIA Empooyment and Cover History�— Fitzgerald attempts to shoot down the idea that the agent's job was mostly analysis.

“It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute�—the Intelligence Identities act— “as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press,� Fitzgerald wrote in a sentencing memorandum filed late last Friday night....

...In the “unclassified summary� of his [memo] which was based on information cleared by the CIA and became publicly available Tuesday, Fitzgerald provided new details about Wilson’s previously classified activities at the agency. In January, 2002, she was working for the agency “as an operations officer� in the Directorate of Operations’s Counterproliferation Division (CPD) and serving as “chief� of a unit with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq. In that capacity, he added, she traveled overseas in an undercover capacity.

“She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries,� the document states. “When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity….At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employe for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.�

...Fitzgerald contends that Libby’s disclosures—primarily to New York Times reporter Judith Miller—were made “deliberately and for the purpose for influencing media coverage of the public debate concerning intelligence leading to the war in Iraq� and, according to Libby’s own testimony, “may have been sanctioned by the Vice President.� Moreover, while Libby denied ever knowing that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent (and prosecutors never introduced any evidence that he had) “other evidence obtained by the grand jury indicated that defendant learned that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA from multiple government officials under circumstances that, at a bare minimum, warranted inquiry before the information was publicly disseminated.�

For all his strong language-Fitzgerald elsewhere asserts that Libby “lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation�— it is unlikely that the prosecutor’s new filings will temper the enthusiasm among Libby's backers. Since his conviction last March, a number of conservative partisans—who shared with Libby his ardent support of the Iraq war—have mounted a vigorous public campaign in his defense and sought to lay the groundwork for a presidential pardon. In mid-May, Libby was a featured guest at a New York dinner honoring Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-Conservative movement's intellectual godfathers. According to reports from the scene, the dinner, organized by Commentary Magazine, opened with cheers and a "standing ovation" for Libby.

I hope the Wilson will get the justice they deserve from their civil lawsuit.

Let me also add, for U.S. citizens, for the intel community, for the sake of our national security, justice has not yet been served.

When the WH attacked Joe and Valerie and outed Plame's covert status, they and all the players who participated in the leak damaged a critical national security asset of the U.S.

Shameful.

Only in Dubya's America would a convicted felon and partisan sycophant like I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby receive a standing ovation for his purposeful efforts to undermine our national security, while Gold Star mothers like Cindy Sheehan and Mary Tillman get smeared as "tragedy whores" -- and worse -- simply because they dared to speak truth to power.

God, but do I hate Bush, Cheney and the far right. And may they be damned to Hell for making such visceral hatred of them necessary, if we are ever to ensure our own survival as a free and democratic people.

This fact renders what Bob Novak and Karl Rove did to Ms. Plame to be treason. The Constitution provides for capital punishment in cases of treason. Will Bush pursue their execution? Ya think?

This also shows, as Apollo 13 and others have pointed out, that we live in an upside-down world. Wrong is right. Black is white. Lies are truth. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." He must have been looking ahead to the presidency of George W. Bush.

Whereas the simplest explanation that fits the facts is that Cheney authorized the leak and violated the law, but between Libby's obstruction and perjury and the general omerta of Cheney's office it would not be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. So he brought no charges and kept his mouth shut.

Cranky

Also,if everything points to the VP (and I think that marginal note by Cheney might well be enough to justify indictment), then we are properly in impeachment territory. If the Congress declines to impeach, what is a USA to do? I suspect that Fitzgerald is saying to Congress- 'I have done my job, now you do yours, or not, as you choose.'

Let me also add, for U.S. citizens, for the intel community, for the sake of our national security, justice has not yet been served.

When the WH attacked Joe and Valerie and outed Plame's covert status, they and all the players who participated in the leak damaged a critical national security asset of the U.S.

Word.

And what's worse, the Bush Cultists have been giving the crooks and liars in this Administration a free pass since day one (imagine their reaction if this had happened under a Democratic Administration -- hell, look at their derangement over Sandy Berger, who unlike Karl Rove et al, paid a penalty and lost his security clearance for his transgression).

Shameful. And yet another reason you can't trust Republicans with national security.

Also,if everything points to the VP (and I think that marginal note by Cheney might well be enough to justify indictment), then we are properly in impeachment territory.

Cheney would preside over his own impeachment trial.

Constitutional flaw.

Well obviously Valerie Plame sucks at begin a covert op.

She married Joe Wilson first of all - that guy couldn't keep his trap shut with superglue. Then she parties with the DC scene - the largest rumor mill known to man.

I don't want that kind of person working covert. The CIA knew that and did not put her anywhere that she could truly hurt them.

Of course the CIA is not going to go public with all the details of the activities of any agent that has been outed. The investigation was begun at the request of the CIA- that should be enough for anyone. Intelligence agencies must weigh the further damage that might result from publicity surrounding a trial against prosecuting the crime.

During WWII (pre-CIA) many intelligence officers were unhappy that the US was prosecuting newpapers for reporting that the US had broken Japanese code. For our code breakers, the less the Japanese knew about our capabilities and methods, the better, and for that reason many wanted the issue kept quiet by not having trials. Obviously, the Plame leak had created damage to the point where a public trial was not going to add to the damage already done. For whatever reason (reality contradicts their ideology?), Republicans disrespect our intelligence services.

Valerie was covert right up to the point that her Saudi-employed husband published his phony op-ed in the NY Times. I'm little surprised that you don't mention that a Senator is investigating her lie about who sent Joe to Niger. Another perjury case. She said one thing to the committee staff and another in public testimony. This isn't over but not in the way you think.

Al on May 29, 2007 at 11:57 PM:

Valary Plame was a travel agent for the CIA and travelled to research her destinations. It was a waste of government money, and the CIA is claiming she was "covert" to cover the whole thing up.

Jesus-fucking-Christ, Al!!! We told you to quit making up your own talking points because you SUCK at doing it...Asshole...You don't do a good disinformation campaign by saying something so stupid...Do what you are fucking paid to do and put the following points out there:

- Patrick Fitzgerald hates the Bush administration.
- Patrick Fitzgerald is trying to influence Libby's sentencing by releasing information that casts Libby in a bad light.
- This court filing is just Patrick Fitzgerald's interpretation that Plame was covert, and Fitzgerald has a clear bias against Libby.
- Scooter Libby is a good person who has served his country well and deserves better treatment than this.

Just stick to the fucking talking points, Al, okay? Now get back to work, you jackass.

I'm little surprised that you don't mention that a Senator is investigating her lie about who sent Joe to Niger.

Oooh, "a Senator" is investigating her? Pray tell, what Republican Senator would that be?

"Saudi-employed husband"

A little out of the loop on this story. So, Doc Mikey, who is the husband employed by the Saudis? Bush, Cheney? There are soooo many in the administration employed by that clan which only has significance because they are lucky to be sitting on top of oil instead of merely riding around the dunes on their fine steeds killing one another.

So, tell us, Doc, before you begin your day of cutting folks off work comp.

Perhaps, Steve Inskeep, otherwise known as ex-liberal, of NPR will fill us in.

Praise Koresh we didn't have to listen to wrong wing radio about this - all their talking points are right here!

Shorter Al: She was a travel agent for the CIA! What else would a blond bimbo be doing for the CIA?

Shorter Orwell: She was a crappy CIA agent - so it's okay that we blew her cover!

Shorter Mike K: It's all Joe Wilson's fault!

Such sterling examples of Republican't accountability! Such clear, concise examples of typical Republican't logic (or lack thereof). Nice to see that bipartisan spirit of co-operation at work...

As employees of the Saudis, do Bush and Cheney have to fill out W-2s or do they simply get 1099s?

Orwell on June 29, 2006 at 5:32 PM:

If only the program would have been called Valerie Plame SWIFT we could all be outraged about the exposure of this secret program...But of course she wasn't a secret..

Oh dear. Orwell's wrong yet again. Going back to your irrelevant 'Wilson's a liar' meme? Or that since the Wilsons dared to appear in public as a married couple, they didn't take the Missus' covert status seriously?

Ohmigod you people are odd...not decent enough to admit that you are wrong, and not smart enough to keep from embarassing yourself.

"Click the link, Kevin. Always click the link:"

Kevin did quote that part, Al, and it doesn't even remotely support your assertion. Weak, Al. Really weak.

Ah, Kevin.

Give it up. This whole Plame affair is over. Your just disgrunted because you aimed for the whole administration, and the best you could do was nab Libby (short for "liberal?") on a technicality.

It doesn't matter what Plame or Fitzgerald say. Was she or was she not covert, in an objective sense. Apparently the juries still out on that. Its not for you or I to speculate.

It was Richard Armitage who "outted" Valerie Plame. It was not Libby.
After having workded for the CIA they list everyone as covert who travels overseas. If you were not listed as covert you knew your career has come to a smashing end. I find it intriguing that the very crazy left that has worked so hard to strip the CIA and other intelligence servcice of their ability to do their jobs now so feverishly embrace the mantra of trying to be their protectors.
Valeie Plame lied, committed perjury, broke the law however you wish to say it when she tesitfied before the House that she had nothing to do with her drunken husband getting the assignment to go to Niger. Why no indignation about that? Documents with her signature asking for her husband to be sent have surfaced. She lied. It was under oath. She committed perjury. Why no clamor for her prosecution? Odd how the left is not screaming for her to face justice.
Last if she was a legiitimate covert officer (it is officer not agent) then Fitzgerald was amiss in not prosecuting Armitage. How can he prosecute Li8bbey and not Armitage? Especially by his own admission he knew it was Armitage that had done this since the second week of his leading the investigatgion in Washington.
This was a nice bit of political theater. That was all. Anything else and people are too far removed from reality to be taken seriously.

Mike, we're all wondering why the right wingers such as yourself worked yourself into an irrational, dishonest froth in trying to claim that Plame wasn't covert when she obviously was. Why was it such a large priority for you guys to lie about it?

Really, explain this one to me. You people invested so much time and energy in screaming that Plame wasn't covert and that she was "just a clerk." Why was this? Do you think that your ability to reason and your credibility is perhaps a bit tarnished now that that turns out not to be true-- which liberals knew all along?

Mike, we're all wondering why the right wingers such as yourself worked yourself into an irrational, dishonest froth in trying to claim that Plame wasn't covert when she obviously was. Why was it such a large priority for you guys to lie about it?

Really, explain this one to me. You people invested so much time and energy in screaming that Plame wasn't covert and that she was "just a clerk." Why was this? Do you think that your ability to reason and your credibility is perhaps a bit tarnished now that that turns out not to be true-- which liberals knew all along?

Valeie Plame lied, committed perjury, broke the law however you wish to say it when she tesitfied before the House that she had nothing to do with her drunken husband getting the assignment to go to Niger. Why no indignation about that?

because it's not true, no matter how many mindless conservatards try to spin it that way.

That terrible sound you just heard was the shrieking of a thousand wingnuts as all their protestions about Plame just turned to dust and blew away.

Since when did truth matter to the wingnuts?

Also,if everything points to the VP (and I think that marginal note by Cheney might well be enough to justify indictment), then we are properly in impeachment territory. If the Congress declines to impeach, what is a USA to do?

File criminal charges. The President is, it is generally accepted, immune to criminal prosecution during his tenure in office (though not necessarily for acts during his tenure in office), but the same is not true of the Vice President, who is subject to criminal prosecution just like anyone else.

Now, it is true that Cheney should be impeached and removed if he was involved, but he should also be tried on criminal charges and sent to prison. And while I might prefer if the first were done prior to the second, there is no Constitutional reason he can't be criminal charged, sentenced, and then impeached and removed the way many federal judges have been in the past.

Thanks, Whack an Employee, for the Kit "Fannie Mae" Bond update. Thought he was spending his time looking for new hair pieces.

Wonder if they still have those bumper stickers around KC, saying "Carolyn was right"?

And taking the time to name the Cape Girardieu after Rush's grand father - What a tireless worker defending torture to boot. Yes, Whack and Employee, you and Kit, two peas in a pod.

Must flush now, er was that floss?

Paras is a complete moron but since Mike K sometimes shows a level of discernment, perhaps we might note that he is completely full of crap on this matter.

the republicans already tried to smear wilson and plame in the intelligence report. in order to do so, they needed to completely distort the actual record. the notion that bond is now further attempting to "investigate" is the kind of thing that gullible simple-minded propagandists take to heart, but the rest of us can ignore.

but just for the record: no, it was not "wilson's fault." joe wilson did the country a great service, and in return, the thugs in cheney's office attempted to smear him. it's how they work. if you don't understand that, you don't understand anything.

just to return to Paras for a moment, listen, you imbecile, just because armitage mentioned that plame was covert doesn't mean that anyone else could feel free to mention it, nor does it mean that libby wasn't part of a campaign to smear wilson by doing whatever it took.

the rest of your ramblings indicate you know nothing but what they tell you in the fevered swamps of right-wing blogging. go hang back out there (or to your local school playground) and find some people on your own level to talk with.

Orwell: "I don't want that kind of person working covert."

LOL! My heroes wrecked her career by outing here, and who wants a spy like that? And anyway, I dnt like her husband.

Got news for ya, Orwell: no one gives a rat's ass what you think.

And eggy, are you still disgrunting in the corner? Do clean up the mess when your done. There's a good lad!

howard, you forgot to remind Paras that misprision requires intent - just being a gossiping busy-body doesn't qualify. Armitage may have started it, but Libby et al drove the fcuker into the ground.

Orwell and Mike K...traitors to the very end.

As my friend Cartman would say: "Jesus tap dancing Christ, we don't care!! We just want to play our Okama Gamesphere!!"

Maybe I will get high with Towelie next time he asks.

Yes, it was Joe Wilson's fault and yes, the Saudis have been hiring retired State Dept FOs for years. If the Royal Family ever lost our support, they'd be strung up by their subjects by that afternoon and they know it.

Any proof for these unfounded allegations, Mike K? Or are you just expecting everyone to take your word for it?

I'd especially like to se how you know exactly how Saudi Arabians would react if the Saudi royal family lost the support of the Republican'ts. And how you have succeeded in reading the minds of the Saudi royal family, to know how and what they think of the situation.

How about it, Mike? Mind telling the rest of us how you tunred into the Amazing Kreskin? Or are we just going to get some more Rush Limbaugh style bloviating from your general direction?

Of course I didn't expect any of our resident Bush Cultists actually acknowledge, much less apologize for, being completely wrong yet again in their sneering assertions, but it's interesting that so far, only Mike K, Orwell, egbert and this paras person have had the lack of shame to justify the vice president's office deliberate otuing of a covert agent.

Wow...the depths to which some Bush Cultists will sink.

That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels, something the leakers could have used in their defense at trial.

Ah yes -- the "I was only following orders" defense. There's a lot of European case law on that one . . .

Kevin wrote:

"But obviously she had been working under cover outside the U.S. quite extensively during the previous five years, which means that Plame almost certainly qualified as "covert" under the specific definitions outlined in IIPA."

While I agree with him that the inability to meet the "they knew this was damaging" criteria of the statute, I also think it is important to know whether or not traveling TDY is the same as "serv[ing] outside the United States" per the law. Many federal agencies (the military for one) make a pretty significant distinction between traveling abroad temporarily and being stationed overseas. This is not a new question regarding Plame but it remains an important one. 7 TDY's to 10 countries could be significant, operational activities for weeks in Nigeria and Pakistan or they could be weekend travel to seminars in Paris and London. No one here knows which it was or how the law might differ in those cases.

Mike K: I'm little surprised that you don't mention that a Senator is investigating her lie about who sent Joe to Niger.

The CIA sent Joseph Wilson to Niger.

Neither Plame nor Wilson has disputed or contradicted this fact.

Wingnuts, like you, however, have insisted that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, which is utterly false, as confirmed by the CIA itself, and inconsistent with the authority of her position at the CIA. A private cannot order a general to do anything, and that is the essence of the winger claim that it was Plame who sent Wilson to Niger.

Proving you all are still the liars you always have been.

Various wounded trollkin:

It was Richard Armitage who "outted" Valerie Plame. It was not Libby.

Of course, Libby was tried for perjury, not for violating the IIPA. You've confused the issue.

..it was Joe Wilson's fault..

What, that Libby perjured himself and obstructed an investigation? Or that Armitage (and possibly others) leaked information about a covert CIA agent?

Nah. You probably mean this

Wilson created the very circumstance he now complains about. He voluntarily drew attention to himself and, by extension, his family. He interjected himself into an intense international policy dispute regarding the war with Iraq.

hunk of burning bullshit from NRO in July of '05...

Valeie Plame lied...when she tesitfied before the House that she had nothing to do with her drunken husband getting the assignment to go to Niger.

IF that was true-which it isn't-so what? Doesn't change the fact that those '16 words' should never have been said, or that Libby obstructed justice and perjured himself.

...if she was a legiitimate covert officer then Fitzgerald was amiss in not prosecuting Armitage.

Libby. Convicted. Obstruction. Of. Justice...Hard to prosecute someone you are being kept from gathering evidence about.

In all, you right-whingers are pretty weak; you're reduced to recycling years-old talking points...y'all just got stirred up because your favorite talking point re: the outing of Valerie Wilson just got thoroughly refuted.

I'd like to say that you'll get over it, but you won't.

Gregory,

A number of folks here that I presume you would view as Bush cultists have agree that if Plame was covert than her being exposed as such is clearly a bad thing. That does not mean we need to agree with everything else folks like you assume must therefore also be true. You continue to blame the VP's office although the very source you use to point to Plame's status also indicates the initial leak came from Armitage. Others continue to assert this was done to punish Joe Wilson when it seems increasingly clear that this was done as background to explain why Wilson was sent in the first place.

In short, if Plame was covert (in the sense of the law - I have no idea, for example, if any CIA person going overseas for any reason travels as a 'state department' employee) then yes those who asserted she was not are wrong and should say so. Moreover, no one should minimize the damage such exposure may have caused. But that doesn't mean we need to buy into the rest of the frog-marching crowd's theories.

This was a nice bit of political theater.

Then you must have LOVED the Iraq war. And your cavalier attitude toward the outing of a covert agent, working in WMD for God's sake!, is why (as Gregory so aptly puts it) your side will not be trusted for a generation.

Left one out...

Hacksaw on May 30, 2007 at 11:21 AM:

No one here knows which it was or how the law might differ in those cases.

One would think that, as long as Valerie Wilson was operating under Non-Official Cover, the law would apply regardless of the unknown reasons why she traveled 'not less than seven times to more than ten times' on behalf of the CIA.

But, hey...if you want to make up some differentiation between Non-Official Cover and Non-Official Cover, go for it.

Yeah, TDY can be kinda broad - In my day, we had several athletes go TDY to play for various Seventh Army sporting activities.

Or, one could go TDY, I suppose, when flying with a group of highly trained soldiers from Ft Lewis, WA to El Salvador to massacre a village.

Hacksaw: "...the initial leak came from Armitage."

Who cares? Really. What difference does this make to the case against Libby?

The chronology of leaking, and knowing who leaked to whom, is important, but it has little bearing on whether or not Libby was guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Give it up. This whole Plame affair is over. Your just disgrunted because you aimed for the whole administration, and the best you could do was nab Libby (short for "liberal?") on a technicality.

Posted by: egbert on May 30, 2007 at 10:23 AM

egbert, it's not over. Libby is going to be sentenced next week. Fitzgerald has recommended between 30 and 37 months. Team Libby has responded asking for less. Thirty to 37 months might sound like a joke to you. I don't know if the court will let you do it, but you might volunteer to change places with Scooter.

grape-crush:

"One would think that, as long as Valerie Wilson was operating under Non-Official Cover, the law would apply..."

Well that was precisely my question, because I'm not sure anyone here knows whether or not traveling under non-official cover in fact means that the individual qualifies as covert under the law in question. I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm only saying that it is not abundantly clear that it does (as evidenced by your 'one would think').

JM - I never claimed that the fact that Armitage was the first leaker somehow exonerated Libby from perjury. I did state that it is perplexing that people would still assert that the VP's office was responsible for the leak when we know it wasn't.

Hack[saw]: You continue to blame the VP's office although the very source you use to point to Plame's status also indicates the initial leak came from Armitage.

Yep, it is utterly irrelevant that Armitage is a long-time associate with Cheney, long acting in furtherance of Cheney goals, and tied closely to Cheney staff members and allies in the administration.

Others continue to assert this was done to punish Joe Wilson when it seems increasingly clear that this was done as background to explain why Wilson was sent in the first place.

Increasingly clear only to those who need to find some rationalization, any rationalization, to absolve Bush and Cheney of any responsibility for their ill deeds.

And you wonder why we view you as a Bush-licking hack and GOP apologist.

Hacksaw on May 30, 2007 at 11:28 AM:

You continue to blame the VP's office...

Libby worked in the VP's office.

..although the very source you use to point to Plame's status also indicates the initial leak came from Armitage.

And from Rove. And probably others.

Others continue to assert this was done to punish Joe Wilson when it seems increasingly clear that this was done as background to explain why Wilson was sent in the first place.

You have not explained why the source of Joe Wilson's Niger assignment is relevant to the content of Wilson's Op-Ed piece about the '16 words' or the subsequent outing of his spouse by bad actors in the Bush administration.

Hack[saw]: I did state that it is perplexing that people would still assert that the VP's office was responsible for the leak when we know it wasn't.

You keep using "the VP's office."

Why is that?

The issue is the VP himself, Cheney, not his office.

Yet more semantic dissembling by a Cheney apologist.

Yeah, doing 30 to 37 months in the "Technicality" wing of prison, can be quite comfy. Gives one a great deal of time to hone up on how to get one's law license back. Of course, the real penalty will be the lack of Veep conjugal visits and phone calls.

grape_crush: And from Rove. And probably others.

In Hacksaw's world, there cannot be multiple similar actions taking place at the same time.

That's what a narrow conservative viewpoint brings you.

The idea of multiple motivations and actions coalescing, mirroring, or paralleling and causing, furthering, or enhancing a similar result is beyond his pale.

One would think that, as long as Valerie Wilson was operating under Non-Official Cover, the law would apply regardless of the unknown reasons why she traveled 'not less than seven times to more than ten times' on behalf of the CIA.

The law does not seem to be restricted to NOC: if you are under official cover outside of the United States, you meet the definition of a covert agent under 50 USC § 426 (4)(A) "a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States".

Hacksaw wrote: A number of folks here that I presume you would view as Bush cultists have agree that if Plame was covert than her being exposed as such is clearly a bad thing.

You know, I'm sure those kinds of comments existed in abundance, but I'm having a little trouble remembering any at the moment (it's a wheat-and-chaff thing). Care to provide, oh, three examples? While we're at it, I notice you don't mention whether you expressed any opinion on the matter -- shall we look it up?

That does not mean we need to agree with everything else folks like you assume must therefore also be true.

Ah, but that's the rub, isn't it, Hacksaw? As your desperately dishonest spinning -- focusing on Armitage as the source of the initial leak, while ignoring the OVP's concerted (and unsuccessful, until Novakula bit) effort to out Plame, for example -- reveals, you're working overtime to avoid accepting the revelations of Fitzgerald's investigation: The Vice President of the United States ran a conspiracy out of the White House to expose the identity of a covert CIA agent working to shield this nation from nuclear proliferation. And, of course, Cheney and Rove both retain their security clearances and White House positions, so it's clear the President condones this action.

Your "okay, we were wrong, she was covert, but so what" posts belie the faux-reasonableness of your phony "no one should minimize the damage such exposure may have caused" caveats -- and I note that you still question whether Plame was trruly covert, so even now you're trying to minimize the damage -- but to your Party, not the country, more's the pity.

Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force, isn't it, "Hacksaw"? Shame on you.

anonymous,

Well, when one has to concentrate on sawing a Porsche 914 in half, ala Jack Reynolds, kinda hard to see the larger view.

Kevin - sorry for the late comment but I don't quite understand your logic when you say, "...with its scienter requirements. That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case. That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels..." Wouldn't those at the higher levels be the ones more likely to know Plame's status as an undercover agent? And wouldn't they at least be obligated to ask the question before leaking her name? Do you think Fitzgerald has been the victim of interference from the administration? I know everyone says he is a straight shooter and I believe that myself, but I wonder what his reasoning was. On the other hand you could be right.

Hacksaw on May 30, 2007 at 11:48 AM:

I'm not sure anyone here knows whether or not traveling under non-official cover in fact means that the individual qualifies as covert under the law in question.

I'm fairly confident the CIA knows, since they were the org that referred the case to the DOJ. If the CIA didn't consider her undercover/covert enough to fall under the IIPA, then why refer the case?

Here's the text from the IIPA, just so there's no confusion:

(4) The term "covert agent" means—

A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm only saying that it is not abundantly clear that it does..

Actually it's pretty clear, Hacksaw.

So where did the W-hacks get the story that "everyone knew she worked for the CIA"? Did anyone do their HW and ask around (I heard, some neighbors said, they didn't know.) In any case, even if people knew she drove to the CIA etc., her front company cover (Brewster-Jennings) was blown, meaning she couldn't pose as a non-CIA energy analyst to dig up WMD (!) tips. That's what mattered, not the apologists' red herring about whether she was overseas, ever went to marked CIA buildings, etc. You'd think people on the Bushie/(R) side really serious about stopping WMD, would be outraged that someone investigating that was impeded...

Notice that Drudge has the complaint from some wank/s about her changing stories, instead of this more vital point. (I submit stuff like this Plame story to Drudge to needle him, knowing he/staff just don't care because being part of the Republican-etc. noise machine is what he is all about, besides ad revenue.)

"This isn't over but not in the way you think."

ROFL... Sure, Mike, whatever you say. You keep on living in that little fantasy world of yours.

Oh, that's what it means, huh?

Must get back to Ms Toensing.

cmdicely on May 30, 2007 at 12:04 PM:

The law does not seem to be restricted to NOC..

There's a 'classified identity' subclause in that section, as I posted above.

This suggests that Mark Kleiman has been right all along: Fitzgerald's decision had nothing to do with technical aspects of IIPA, but rather with its scienter requirements. That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case.

Or that he felt issues of classification would make it impossible to bring the case to trial. Simply trying Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice entailed a small mountain of CIPA work, and an IIPA prosecution focused on the OVP would have been graymailed to death.

That's been my gut feeling since the CIPA hearings for the Libby trial: prosecutions aren't just based upon the possibility of conviction, but on the possibility of getting through a trial.

Gregory, you are free of course to assert that "The Vice President of the United States ran a conspiracy out of the White House to expose the identity of a covert CIA agent working to shield this nation from nuclear proliferation," but it remains an assertion both with regard to who leaked the information and why they leaked it.

In addition, my posts have not said "okay, we were wrong, she was covert, but so what." Rather, I have said is she was covert, revealing her status is obviously a bad thing but it does not by extension imply the rest of your conspiracy theory is correct.

Finally, I do question whether she was covert under the IIPA for the continued reason that it is not clear that temporary travel abroad qualifies as:

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

Grape_Crush wrote:

"You have not explained why the source of Joe Wilson's Niger assignment is relevant to the content of Wilson's Op-Ed piece about the '16 words' or the subsequent outing of his spouse by bad actors in the Bush administration."

It is relevant because it offers an alternative explanation to why (using your phrase) bad actors in the Bush administration outed Plame. Most folks here would say it was to punish Joe Wilson, intimidate critics, etc. However, given Plame's role in Wilson getting the gig (something both Plame and Wilson have clearly lied about previously), it is just as reasonable to explain the administration's identification of Plame as an effort to explain why Wilson was sent to Niger.

I generally think highly of Fitzgerald, but two comments: (1) his position on the covert issue (while interesting and maybe correct) is at this stage only the position of one advocate in litigation; and (2) it seems strange and perhaps unfair that Fitzgerald would agree the covert issue is irrelevant at trial and then turn around and try to use it to secure a tougher sentence.

I think there will be much more to hear on the legal issues in this case as it is appealed and, even though it sounds like Libby lied (although I was never clear about the motive for lying), I would not be surprised if he has some good arguments on appeal and even if the conviction is reversed.

you are free of course to assert that "The Vice President of the United States ran a conspiracy out of the White House to expose the identity of a covert CIA agent working to shield this nation from nuclear proliferation," but it remains an assertion both with regard to who leaked the information and why they leaked it.

No, it doesn't. Who leaked it -- at least some of those -- is a matter of public record thanks to the Libby trial, which transcript supports the statement I quoted in the preceding paragraph. What's an assertion is Fitzgerald's theory that Libby lied to protect Cheney and conceal the extent of his (Cheney's) involvement in the conspiracy, but let's just say that Fitzgerald has more credibility than you do, Hack.

As to why they leaked it, who cares? Is the newest wingnut line of defense going to be "sure, they exposed the identity of a covert CIA op working on nuclear proliferation, but they were justified in doing so?" (Never mind -- I guess you wingnuts have to make do with what little you have.)

In addition, my posts have not said "okay, we were wrong, she was covert, but so what."

Sure they do. You are working overtime to minimize the rather damning revelation that the OVP, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, et al, all blew the cover of a covert CIA agent.

Rather, I have said is she was covert, revealing her status is obviously a bad thing but it does not by extension imply the rest of your conspiracy theory is correct.

The "conspiracy theory" -- that multiple top White House officials leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent to the press -- entered into public testimony by the Libby trial, you mean?

Measnwhile, your stipulation that her outing was "bad" is unimpressive given your continuing to carry water for this Administration, attacking the Plames and offering up "alternative explanations" as if the Administration defenders still have any credibility. Here's a hint, Hack: You don't.

Sorry, Kevin, but just because Patrick Fitzgerald now says Plame was covered by IIPA doesn't mean it was so.

IIPA doesn't cover and wasn't intended to cover CIA employees who drive to work at Langley headquarters every day, whether or not they may also travel abroad on CIA business.

'...“It was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute�—the Intelligence Identities Act—“as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press,� Fitzgerald wrote in a sentencing memorandum filed late last Friday night....'

I find this very hard to believe - if it was indeed "clear from very early in the investigation", the Fitzpatrick should have indicted one or more people under the statute.

Valerie was covert right up to the point that her Saudi-employed husband published his phony op-ed in the NY Times.

Bwahahaha! Nonsense, you deluded clown.

According to the CIA, according to Fitzgerald's court filing which the CIA cleared, according to the facts which you seem to be immune to:

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employe[e] for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.