Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Valerie, Briefly | Main | Oldies But Goodies »

March 17, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2aa69e200d8352301a669e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No, Christy, It's Just You:

Comments

PMII

The witch hunt continues.....

I would think thereis a better way to spend our tax dollars....

Paul Zrimsek

HPII, I recommend that you ponder what Waxman's idea of that "better way" would most likely be... and smile contentedly that he's doing this instead.

lurker

Wow, "Angry Bear" is aptly put. Boy, filled with misinterpretations. What's worse for pql is that pql's argument strengthened Victoria Toensing's testimony. Example is how he used Andy McCarthy's post as an attempt to prove that Victoria committed perjury when in reality, McCarthy strengthened Victoria's testimony.

No one will find errors in Victoria's testimony.

And here I woke up to find in the other thread a link to that fake CBS news trying to explain that Victoria was playing us fools when in reality Victoria was correct in her testimony.

Boy, Victoria is really stirring up the nutroots, isn't she?

lurker

When And Why Joseph C Wilson IV Outed Valerie Plame

Before we put Plame "leak" story to bed once and for all, I want to reiterate what I first posited almost two years ago, which now seems to be more true than ever.

Following his arguments...

Jeff

That delightful Toensing column in which she appears, for all the world, to tee up Libby's indictment, can be found here. I had a moment where I thought they took down the piece once you had linked to it earlier. But it's nothing so exciting. They've just updated.

David L

Is Henry Waxman a lawyer? Waxman is going to be hard pressed to find anybody who knows as much about the IIPA than Victoria Toensing. How is Waxman going find anybody expert enough to prove Toensing wrong?

Does the keeping the record open also apply to Mrs. Wilson>? It seems unlikely that Patrick Fitzgerald will attempt to refute Toensing. Fritz knew who exposed Plame, to wit Richard Armitage, and never indited. IF Fritz say Toensing is wrong, wouldn't that be like admitting his investigation was incompetent, no inditement for the leak itself?

Dwilkers

Now see, I was away for about 6-8 months and couldn't post much, and I missed all that between you and pql last year TM.

That was just frickin hilarious, thanks for linking it up.

lurker

Most definitely NOT Fitz. Fitz did not write IIPA. Victoria did...also...based on legal history.

The link is bad but I don't think that Human Event article would tee up the Libby indictment. There was no crime, no motive, no opportunity, no materiality.

The CIA blew it. After all it was Victoria that said that WH cannot safeguard classified information when CIA did not take "affirmative measures" to protect its employees.

Looking_for_a_way_out

And then Hayden said:

I want to make clear, however, that any chanctenzation that minimizes the personal risk Ms.
Wilson accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong.

Triple Darn!!!

Jeff

My current official editorial position on Ms. Plame's status is that this element of the statute has not been tested in court, briefs have not been filed, no judge has ruled, and we just don't "know".

Agree. But this gives the game away from Toensing, who claims that her interpretation of the "serve overseas" clause of the definition of covert agent in IIPA is so obviously and indisputably correct that Fitzgerald must have shared it and therefore must have known that no possible crime had been committed, and therefore should have shut down the investigation.

Interestingly, though, she does not make the claim that Libby has a slam-dunk appeal on the basis of a lack of materiality in the false statements for which he was convicted. I actually would expect the defense to make that argument, among others.

lurker

looking for a way out, the problem is that all characterization that minimizes the personal risk Ms. Wilson accepted in her assignments came from solely CIA and no other sources.

Her life was not in imminent danger since Ames outed her. She was moved back to the states to guarantee the safety of her life.

Since Hayden is a new CIA director, he has no problems reporting the problems of CIA in the past. After all, he did not commit those errors. It's so glaringly obvious to see why we're hearing things through second-hand what Hayden is saying when Hayden is not the one saying these words himself to us.

Not a triple darn.

lurker

Since Fitz said his investigation is "dormant" and everyone's going home to their day jobs, I would believe that this confirms Toensing even more that her interpretation of the "serve overseas" clause of the definition of covert agent in IIPA is so obviously and indisputably correct.

"Interestingly, though, she does not make the claim that Libby has a slam-dunk appeal on the basis of a lack of materiality in the false statements for which he was convicted. I actually would expect the defense to make that argument, among others."

She doesn't have to in her testimony yesterday but I believe she did indeed say in her articles and would stake this claim in her future articles. I believe that Wells and Jeffress would address the materiality of it; although, I believe they did address it in the court room.

Looking_for_a_way_out

And Hayden said:

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety
and her life.

Quadruple Darn!!!!

lurker

Only before 1999, looking for a way out.

Through second hand information, Hayden was not specific on dates and times but he was referring to those years before Ames outed Valerie.

In year 2003, Valerie was working at Langley; therefore, her life was not in imminent danger.

Not a quadruple darn!!!!

Semanticleo

I predict the perps most culpable will be dead from coronaries before they serve any deserved time. But just like the Zodiac killer, we know who they are and they will have no peace until the dirt nap proceeds.

lurker

She was also a manager, now called as a junior manager; on her way to State. Nope, her life was not in imminent danger in year 2003.

lurker

Yup, the most culpable ones are the ones that are not indicted.

Semanticleo

BTW Happy St Pattys

Looking_for_a_way_out

Then Hayden said:

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

Just Darn!

kate

The American Left is now becoming more and more Stalinist. The fact that they want to imprison Toensing is a bleak look into the future. No dissent will be tolerated!

Since the left has been successful with political prosecutions, can reeducation camps be far behind.

Sue

I have a feeling Ms. Smith thinks congress is like her blog. They can moderate the comments and delete anything that doesn't fit with their view on the world.

azaghal

The American Left is now becoming more and more Stalinist. The fact that they want to imprison Toensing is a bleak look into the future. No dissent will be tolerated!

Since the left has been successful with political prosecutions, can reeducation camps be far behind.

Posted by: kate | March 17, 2007 at 07:26 AM

And rule by executive order, as we saw yesterday. Stalinist is unquestionably the mot juste.

richard mcenroe

OT --
Slainte Sin Padraig

A GRUMPY VIEW OF IRISH HISTORY

95% of Irish History ends with the words, "...and then he was betrayed by..." This cover everyone from Finn MacCool and the Knights of the Red Branch to Michael Collins.

3% of Irish History ends with the words, "...and then success went to his head and turned his brains to ****..." This covers everyone from the bards to Conn of the Hundred Battles to the Kennedies and Michael Flatley.

2% of Irish History ends with the words, "...and then he really made something of himself but he had to leave Ireland to do it." This covers everyone from Wellington to Shaw to every starving paddy who jumped on a scow heading West during the famine.

Semanticleo

"The fact that they want to imprison Toensing is a bleak look into the future. No dissent will be tolerated!"

As long as you're not a terrorist, no need to worry about due process. BTW what, exactly,
is the legal definition of terrorist?

verner

Can anybody tell us why Hayden was not called as a witness? It would have been so much more effective if he had appeared himself, and been available for direct questions, rather than just "approving" certain ambiguous statements by Waxman.

Well, that's assuming that Waxman wanted the public to know the truth.

And I still want to know, if ole Val was so darned "covert", who sourced Isikoff and Corn on all that crap that they wrote about her.

And also, who fed Vanity Fair the "misinformation" that Foley was her boss, and she worked at WINPAC....(Remember Judy's notebook? Further proff that WINPAC was coming from Wilson's camp, and she was talking to somebody besides Scooter about Vlaerie...)

p.lukasiak

LET THE RECORD NOTE: My current official editorial position on Ms. Plame's status is that this element of the statute has not been tested in court, briefs have not been filed, no judge has ruled, and we just don't "know". However, I think the weight of history favors Ms. Toensing (and snippets of that history are in the "More On The IIPA" portion of this post).

yeah, and Toensing's interpretation is that the word "serves" means you had to RESIDE outside the US in the previous five years to be covered -- a completely absurd interpretation of the law, given the nature of the law and the nature of covert operations---and Plame's cover in particular.

First, the law provides definitions of who is covered... and defines ONE group of American citizens as "serving" overseas in the last five years while ANOTHER group of American citizens must "reside" overseas at the time of the disclosure -- and also cover any NON-CITIZEN who ever provided assistance to our intelligence agencies and whose actions/status remains classified. Thus, Toensing's "resides in the last five years" requirement makes no sense within the specific language of the law -- "resides" is specified for only one group of covered individuals.

Second, Plame's cover was as an "energy consultant" for an AMERICAN company headquarted in Boston called "Brewster Jennings and Associates." This cover does not require that she reside outside the US -- what it did do was provide Plame with a cover story that would explain her travel to various overseas locations where she could gather information from a variety of foreign contacts.

The clear purpose of the law is to protect BOTH American intelligence agents and their informants/sources/networks overseas. The absurdity of Toensing's interpretation is demonstrated by considering its implications -- agents who remain active and whose overseas sources remain active are not covered UNLESS once every five years they live somewhere out of the country.

As to why no IIPA violation was charged -- Toensing's own testimony explains it. As she noted, in order to prove guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" it was necessary to prove that the accused was aware that the US Government was taking "affirmative steps" to keep the agents identity a secret. Those "affirmative steps" are undefined in the law -- and thus the government would have to provide sufficient SOURCES AND METHODS information in open court to convince a jury that "affirmative steps" were being taken.

The odds of the CIA being willing to disclose sources and methods that might compromise other agents are extremely small -- and unless that information was available to the defense, the case would be thrown out.

jpe

If Toensing's interpretation of the law is offered in bad faith, I don't see why she couldn't be busted on perjury charges. IIRC, there's no lawyer's exception to perjury.

Looking_for_a_way_out

"Can anybody tell us why Hayden was not called as a witness?"

Well if you follow Tom's logic. One reason Hayden wouldn't want to testify would be to maintain the level of ambiguity that this site is still feeding upon. If he had testified, he might have been boxed into even more definitive statements that were even more damning.

boris

Behold Unbold!

p.lukasiak

....(Remember Judy's notebook? Further proff that WINPAC was coming from Wilson's camp, and she was talking to somebody besides Scooter about Vlaerie...)

geez, this is your idea of proof?.

Judy Miller knew enough about the CIA to know that WINPAC was the "Analytical" Directorate of the CIA, so if Libby described Plame as a "CIA analyst", it explains why Miller would write "WINPAC".

p.lukasiak

Behold Unbold!

thank you boris.

Other Tom

After months of incessantly beating this drum, I think we at least have reached the point where those who are at all serious about Plame's "covertness" recognize that it all turns on the "service overseas" element. No one argues that the legislative history sheds any light on what is needed to fulfill that element, or at least I have seen no such argument. All agree that no regulation or court decision addresses the issue. Ms. Toensing's views on the meaning of the phrase are entitled to our respectful attention, but obviously they aren't dispositive. So where does that leave us?

I go back to what I learned--or think I learned--in law school. There are a couple of related doctrines known as vagueness and fair notice. In essence, they mean that if you are going to make conduct criminal, you have to be specific about what it is that is being criminalized, otherwise people can't be sure what is proscribed. As a result, to the extent satutes are imprecise, they will be construed strictly against the government. If that is correct, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a court would hold that Plame's status met the statutory requirement for making disclosure of that status a crime.

I have grown quite weary of this discussion. At least on the narrow question of whether Plame was covert within the meaning of the IIPA, I am going to declare victory and get out.

Davebo
Well if you follow Tom's logic. One reason Hayden wouldn't want to testify would be to maintain the level of ambiguity that this site is still feeding upon. If he had testified, he might have been boxed into even more definitive statements that were even more damning.

A good point. To say Tom is "heavily invested" in this would be an understatement.

Hence the hit and run posts. Scrutiny is for suckers.

Then again, since the horde here as been convinced for years that we're just days away from Plame and Wilson's indictments for perjury, what did you expect.

She's testified under oath. If you can make a case that she lied, go for it.

But you won't get there Googling in your underwear.

boris

days away from Plame and Wilson's indictments for perjury

Are you lost? Bookmarked the wrong site?

... got a linky for that?

Tom Maguire

But this gives the game away from Toensing, who claims that her interpretation of the "serve overseas" clause of the definition of covert agent in IIPA is so obviously and indisputably correct that Fitzgerald must have shared it and therefore must have known that no possible crime had been committed, and therefore should have shut down the investigation.

Jeff, you and I seem to be more "shades of gray" types - I am forming the impression that neither Ms. Toensing nor Mr. Fitzgerald share that temperment.

creepy dude

Holy Lord Vishnu! Still at this game?!

You guys aren't yet the "flat earth society," but I think you're entering "we deny the moon-landing took place" territory for sheer obtuseness and refusal to come to grips with reality.

But that's just me. So good luck finding whatever the Plame equivalent of the "secret studio in Nevada" is.

clarice feldman

Prosecutions for perjury before Congressional Committees are rare. Successful ones even less so.
Prosecutions for perjury of witness opinion testimony are non-existent--experts are offering opinions. (There may be some for factual misrepresentations but not for opinions).
Toensing has always been critical of Fitz' "creative" reading of the law--and that is for the very reason OT cited:
" go back to what I learned--or think I learned--in law school. There are a couple of related doctrines known as vagueness and fair notice. In essence, they mean that if you are going to make conduct criminal, you have to be specific about what it is that is being criminalized, otherwise people can't be sure what is proscribed. As a result, to the extent satutes are imprecise, they will be construed strictly against the government. If that is correct, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a court would hold that Plame's status met the statutory requirement for making disclosure of that status a crime."

PeterUK

"And then Hayden said:

I want to make clear, however, that any chanctenzation that minimizes the personal risk Ms.
Wilson accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong."

Slight correction,
"And then Hayden is reported to have said"

ben

For anyone who still thinks that Joe Wilson himself didn't out Valerie for his own purposes and furthermore for those who think Valerie Plame didn't also believe that Iraq had WMD's this is really good reading

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

ben

i guess i will have to give up on this link..last try

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

p.lukasiak

In essence, they mean that if you are going to make conduct criminal, you have to be specific about what it is that is being criminalized, otherwise people can't be sure what is proscribed. As a result, to the extent satutes are imprecise, they will be construed strictly against the government. If that is correct, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that a court would hold that Plame's status met the statutory requirement for making disclosure of that status a crime.

nice try, but the law isn't vague in the matter of "service" -- being defined as "residence"; the law uses the word "resides" to describe one group of covered people, and "serves" to describe a second group. There isn't a judge anywhere who would rule that an "undercover" CIA agent who travels extensively overseas on CIA busiess but who maintains a US residence is outside the parameters of the law.

I go back to what I learned--or think I learned--in law school. There are a couple of related doctrines known as vagueness and fair notice.

your memory about law school is as selective as the rest of your memory -- you have clearly forgotten that the law cannot be interpreted to mean something that is obviously absurd. Given the INTENT of the IIPA -- protecting the identities of undercover intelligence assets and their sources -- and the nature of intelligence collection, this "had to be stationed or reside overseas" definition of "serve overseas" is patently absurd.

The one place where the law is vague is the part where the accused has to be aware that the US government is taking affirmative steps to protect the identity of an undercover operative -- and as noted previously, it is this vagueness that would have precluded prosecution under the IIPA in a high-profile case like the Plame case.

ben

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

ben

If you weren't able to link to that site go to www.instapundit.com and link through there...worth reading..

Rick Ballard

Ben,

This site doesn't do automatic links.

Here's the S & L Wilson Plame piece.

PeterUK

Whacko Waxman is helping drive another nail into the coffin of American Justice.Just as the Libby trial will have the result that nobody will even say "Good day "to the FBI without a lawyer being present,so no one will testify voluntarily as an expert witness.
This is all getting to look like those Soviet Bloc show trials where the accused recanted.
BTW,I do hope Henry is buying Jihad Offsets.

clarice feldman

P.luk--The Statute is very specific about that and the intent and history of its crafting makes the intent manifest--overseas or having served overseas in the last five years. I realize that the left has no interest in holding people accountable only for clearly stated crimes duly enacted into law --yesterday they wanted criminal punishment for violation of executive orders, today we have them screaming for perjury prosecutions for expert opinion, and now you are arguing for intent versus the clear language of criminal statutes. Try living in Cuba and report back how such laws work.

ben

Joe Wilson in 2003...Note that he says we should not attack Saddam because he would use WMD on our troops...

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

Joe Wilson: There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.
MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

PeterUK

"There isn't a judge anywhere who would rule that an "undercover" CIA agent who travels extensively overseas on CIA busiess but who maintains a US residence is outside the parameters of the law."

But Plame didn't travel extensively overseas after he twins were born and sick leave with post partum depression.

ben

Thanks Rick...

PeterUK

Clarice,
The left are engaging in displacement activity,Sharia law will make life so much more simple for them.

boris

an "undercover" CIA agent who travels extensively overseas on CIA busiess but who maintains a US residence is outside the parameters of the law.

Because she would not be jeopardized by disclosure.

Agents undercover in service overseas would be vulnerable to enemy action upon disclosure. The actual situation that the IIPA was written to address.

PeterUK

Boris,
Remember Valerie didn't want to leave the twins,why,she wouldn't even do the job she was paid for by the CPD and go to Niger.

sammy small

For those who want to attempt to interpret the meaning of "service overseas", the

boris

ben, how to link ...

<a href="http://www.URL.com">LINK</a>

For your url it would look like ...

<a href="http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame">WIlson Plame Piece</a>


Which produces WIlson Plame Piece

sammy small

Let me try again.

The Joint Travel Regs offer up some additional definitions to peruse.

ben

thanks boris!!

sammy small

Either I haven't had enough coffee or my linking efforts have derailed this morning.

Larry

"...and thus the government would have to provide sufficient SOURCES AND METHODS information in open court to convince a jury that "affirmative steps" were being taken."
Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 17, 2007 at 08:06 AM Do you reckon those affirmative steps include Harlow confirming Plame's CIA employment when reporters (Novak & Mitchell) and government aides (C. Martin) call?

SmokeVanThorn

Clarice - Just want to express my appreciation for your analysis and especially your patience in being willing to engage halfwits like p.luk.

clarice feldman

You're welcome, Smoke.I worked my way thru colllege managing a playground and have some experience with juvenile miscreants.

PeterUK

Saturday Quiz Time,
You need information concerning the illicit sale of Uranium from an African country,for the purpose of the quiz,let's call it Niger.
Who do you send.

1)A long term employee of the CIA?

2)As above but specific to the Counter Proliferation Division?

3)As above but someone reputedly an expert on WMD?

4)As above and also a French?
speaker?

5)As all above and also covert?

6)Or her husband?

ben

March 8 2003...Joe Wilson discussing the potential forgeries on the Niger documents, which he purported to "have seen" but then was forced to admit he didn't...here it's clear that despite the forgeries, he suggests that "damage control" for the administration is to explain there is plenty of other evidence on Saddam re nuclear arms trade...

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

ben

Peter Uk

6) Or you husband, who like you is involved in Democrat party politics and is hoping for an apppointment should there be a new administration

donald

The when and why info, cast's if true, and I believe it is a bit of a dim view of public servants. If that's what it was truly all about, each and every miserable human involved in making banal (Damned straight), political posturing federal crimes need to be horse whipped. And dammit I do mean hose whipped. The entire spectacle is an insult to the people who pay the fricking bills. You know, the approximately 50% of us that actually pay income taxes to fund yesterday's insult to debacles.

PeterUK

Ben,
Whilst the political aspect reeks to high heaven why didn't Valerie go? Didn't she have enough air miles?
To me this is the crux of the matter,the "Dog that didn't bark".

ben

"You're welcome, Smoke.I worked my way thru colllege managing a playground and have some experience with juvenile miscreants."

Clarice is that where you learned troll control too?

Charlie (Colorado)

If Toensing's interpretation of the law is offered in bad faith, I don't see why she couldn't be busted on perjury charges. IIRC, there's no lawyer's exception to perjury.

Because, you moron, you'd have to prove --- among other things --- that her actual opinion at the time of testimony contradicted what she was saying.

Rick Ballard

Why wouldn't Swampdoglady want to stifle dissent? Her gulag site mirrors the world she desires to impose and it isn't as if opposing opinion is allowed there.

Victoria Toensing actually did speak truth to a powerful man (albeit, 'a loathsome weasel with power', is more descriptive), one might think that Smith would be standing up (dressed in Code Pinko, of course) and applaud.

One might think that if one knew absolutely nothing about the little Stalinists running disinformation sites, anyway.

p.lukasiak

P.luk--The Statute is very specific about that and the intent and history of its crafting makes the intent manifest--overseas or having served overseas in the last five years.

geez, clarice, even TOM admits that there the law is "not specific about that" that that there is no "history of its crafting [which] makes the intent manifest" when it comes to the actual construction of the statute.

Seriously.... where did you get your law degree, and where are you allowed to practice? I want to know because your complete lack of understanding of the rules of statutory construction (hint--the account of a partisan hack about the supposed "history" of how the law was written has NO relevance to how a stature would be construed by a judge) makes it pretty obvious that people should be warned before they hire you.

You might be able to fool the wingnuts who show up here and don't know better---but like I said even TOM knows the difference....

ben

Pete UK
I doubt Valerie was that high level enough to undertake this mission...Joe Wilson, although completely unqualified, was a former ambassador so he fit in under the "diplomatic mission" scenario...we don't really know what his marching orders were, but it seems this was more of a "fact finding" trip than any cloak and dagger stuff...it would be interesting to have Joe's hotel bill so we can find out how much time he spent at the bar

verner

"Those "affirmative steps" are undefined in the law -- and thus the government would have to provide sufficient SOURCES AND METHODS information in open court to convince a jury that "affirmative steps" were being taken."

Frankly, that is a load of crap.

Not only did she walk into that meeting with Joe to "introduce" him, with members of the state department--who should not have been give the info that she--a so called covert agent--worked for the CIA and was married to Joe--without telling all in attendance that this was extremely hush hush and highly classified...not exactly "affirmative steps"

1) Affirmative steps meant that Joe Wilson mentined his NOC wife by her operative MAIDEN NAME in who's who.

2) Affirmative steps meant that VALERIE PLAME donated money to Al Gore's campaign under her CIA front company, knowing that it would be listed in the FEC records.(Read the Chicago Tribune piece on what a load that is!)

3)Affirmative steps meant that she drove to Langely every single day--and that crap about "trained to know if someone is trailing her" is such total BS--as people who have worked at CIA have said here at JOM and elsewhere.

4) Affirmative steps meant that she was listed by Joe Wilson in his EPIC biography under her operative/maiden name VALERIE PLAME when not a single one of the other speakers even mentioned a spouse--much less listed their names.

5)Affirmative steps meant that she was able to send her Cinton apointee husband, who was anything but qualified (thus the shock and laughter by Armitage), to investigate those "crazy reports" without making him sign a confidentiality agreement.

6) Affirmative steps meant that she sat at the breakfast with Kristoff, at a democrat party function, and allowed her husband spread lies that were later reported in the NYT.

7) Affirmative steps meant that the CIA allowed Joe Wilson to carry out a vicious disinformation campaign in the pages of many newspapers--both as an unnamed, and named source--without doing a damn thing about it--WHILE HE WAS AN ADVISER TO THE KERRY CAMPAIGN. They knew of Valerie's involvement in sending him to Niger, and would have known that his actions were drawing attention to her.

8) Affirmative steps meant that both Grenier and Harlow never mentioned to anyone in the administration or the press (Novak) that her status was NOC, and revealing her identity would violate the IIPA. Indeed, it is beyond dispute that NO ONE at the WH was ever given her proper classified status.

9) Affirmative steps meant that the sternest warning Novak was given by Harlow was that publishing her name might mean that she'd be harassed when she went overseas on vacation.

10) Affirmative steps meant that her name appeared in the INH memo--even though Armitage has said that in 28 years, he had never seen the name of a NOC in such a document.

Affirmative Action? Bull shit., If indeed she fit the legal definition of covert(and there is still absolutely no evidence that she did as far as I'm concerned)--then the only people to blame are the Wilsons and the CIA. They knew, and no one else did--indeed, every bit of evidence indicated that she was anything but covert.


ben

"You might be able to fool the wingnuts who show up here and don't know better---but like I said even TOM knows the difference...."

It's so nice that superior, more enlightened beings like p.luk see it fit to enrich our lives by giving us an occasional crumb of knowledge...I for one, will be a forever grateful wingnut.

What was that editorial in the WAPO the other day, some liberal was saying that the
Bush Administration is based on arrogance?

Sue

You might be able to fool the wingnuts who show up here and don't know better---but like I said even TOM knows the difference....

Since you are so passionate on the statute protecting covert operatives, I'm sure you will be happy to join in with me on my crusade to find out who outed 3 covert operatives on the front pages of the LA Times. A study case, if you will, into what the statute means and the issue will once and for all be put to rest. They reside in the US so it would be a perfect test of the statute. You with me? How about getting your gang over at the swamp to join in on calling for an investigation into the outing of 3 covert operatives?

PeterUK

Ben,
The CIA has a vast and undisclosed budget employing between 10,000 and 20,000 people,again the CIA is very coy about figures.For some inexplicable reason, all the CIA had at their disposal was Val and Joe,taking into account Niger is a major uranium producing country why didn't the CIA CPD have a bloody clue when asked a simple question?
US taxpayers should be screaming their heads off at this dereliction of duty.

ben

Pete Uk
"For some inexplicable reason, all the CIA had at their disposal was Val and Joe,taking into account Niger is a major uranium producing country why didn't the CIA CPD have a bloody clue when asked a simple question?"

One more reason to think this was a junket...

donald

Whic should I go with? Hose or horse?

donald

Which...sheesh.

verner

The only bright side of the Valerie and Joe show, is that the American public have been given a rare bird's eye view into just how utterly incompetant, corrupt, and politicized the CIA has become.

The CIA is a total effing disgrace. The left has tried to destroy our intelligence gathering capabilities for decades--and well, they have suceeded. The CIA has gotten it wrong on every single major National Security crisis since the Cold War--most recently A Q Kahn. (And wasn't that on super spy Val's watch?)

clarice feldman

There are 2 WaPo articles on the hearing today--A hagiography of Plame by Amy Goldstein and a acreenplay by Milstein. Toensing's testimony is never mentioned nor is Plame's no one ever told me I was covert.
OTOH Milbank has two tidbits:(1) one of the jurors was in the audience, and (2) Plame testified her husband had been on missionS to track uranium before.
I only recall his 1999 mission to Niger and his mission to grease the skids for BJC's marvelous journey to Africa (along w/ a crowd of grifters like Cong Jefferson).

Looking_for_a_way_out

Vermer,

That looks like it took some time. Then Hayden said:

"Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect
classified information admirably."

Darn.

p.lukasiak

You need information concerning the illicit sale of Uranium from an African country,for the purpose of the quiz,let's call it Niger.
Who do you send.

obviously, you still haven't figured out why Joe Wilson was sent.

Everyone with a clue realized that the whole "Niger" story (that a contract had been signed for 500 tons of yellowcake) was total BS -- that it made so sense to begin with. At the meeting at which Wilson's trip was discussed, everyone pretty much agreed that Wilson's trip wasn't necessary to reach the proper conclusion.

NEVERTHELESS, because OVP were simply refusing to accept the judgement of the experts at the CIA, DIA, and INR, Wilson was sent. It was about OVERKILL -- the adminstration kept insisting on having the CIA find "evidence" that Saddam had a nuclear program, forcing the CIA to constantly generate new reports rebutting things that had already been rebutted.

You guys are like the OVP and Niger when it comes to the Plame story.... the facts are obvious, and what you want to believe makes no rational sense, but nevertheless you keep insisting that there is "evidence" that supports your position. There isn't.

verner

"Well if you follow Tom's logic. One reason Hayden wouldn't want to testify would be to maintain the level of ambiguity that this site is still feeding upon. If he had testified, he might have been boxed into even more definitive statements that were even more damning."

Again, total BS.

If Waxman had wanted Hayden there, he could have called him as a witness, and screamed bloody murder if he declined to appear.

The people who want continued ambiguity are Waxman and the Plame-Wilsons. Because if Waxman could have said that she fell under the IIPA, you had better be bloody well sure that he would have said so. But he didn't, and Val as much admitted that she didn't when she said that no one ever told her that she did.

The bit about her not being a lawyer, and not clearly knowing her status was completely laughable.

p.lukasiak

Since you are so passionate on the statute protecting covert operatives, I'm sure you will be happy to join in with me on my crusade to find out who outed 3 covert operatives on the front pages of the LA Times.

care to provide a link to this supposed "outing", Sue?

Looking_for_a_way_out

"Again, total BS."

Vermer,

The minority can call witnesses as well, Wasn't Toensing called at the request of the ranking minority member?

Darn.

Specter

Gee looking,

Let's see. VP worked at CIA and all you can say to prove she was covert was that she was good at protecting classified info? Heck - I held a Secret Clearance for a long time and guess what? I was good at protecting classified info too. So what is your big point?

verner

"Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect
classified information admirably."

That sounds like it was programed into some word processor. Completely meaningless.

And we still don't know who Isikoff and Corn's source was for all her "service" that the minority staff was not allowed to ask questions about--because it was classified. You think it was Val? Wouldn't that kind of negate Hayden's so called statements if it was?

Specter

I guess by your definition I must have been a covert agent too. LOL

Semanticleo

"I go back to what I learned--or think I learned--in law school. There are a couple of related doctrines known as vagueness and fair notice." Othertom

"your memory about law school is as selective as the rest of your memory -- you have clearly forgotten that the law cannot be interpreted to mean something that is obviously absurd."

P.liuk;

Don't you know? It's all about STATTUTES

You know, the loophole defense. So let's not carry on about what's right. Statutes,
statutes, are all that matter.
P.liuk

PeterUK

Ben,
Rather than junket,two options emerge.either a cover up for the CPD's dereliction of duty,or they wanted plausible deniability,someone who could speak freely,off the record,no written report,someone who wasn't an employee who could not be held to account to push the party line.
Americans might have got used to this particular scenario,but to an outsider it is most bizarre,your main intelligence agency tacitly admitting it didn't have a clue.

Ranger

NEVERTHELESS, because OVP were simply refusing to accept the judgement of the experts at the CIA, DIA, and INR, Wilson was sent. It was about OVERKILL -- the adminstration kept insisting on having the CIA find "evidence" that Saddam had a nuclear program, forcing the CIA to constantly generate new reports rebutting things that had already been rebutted.

Posted by: p.lukasiak | March 17, 2007 at 10:04 AM

You know, all of that might make sense if you didn't have George Tenant, the DCI, telling the president it was a "Slam Dunk" case, and the president specificly telling George that what he had simply wasn't enough. It was George Tenant who was pushing the WMD case to the administration, not the administration that was pushing the DCI.

clarice feldman

(Posted on wrong thread)

Dear p. luk:
"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; or "

Covert per the IIPA

Looking_for_a_way_out

Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect
classified information admirably."

That sounds like it was programed into some word processor. Completely meaningless.

Vermer,

The meaning, to me anyway, is that to DCI Hayden's satisfaction Valerie Plame at no time, in any of her behavior, put her status or that of her colleagues at risk. I think that contradicts much of your point above.

roanoke

verner-

Well that part was "special" but even "specialer" was tVal's

I'm like say-a general! See-and when I go back to ride my desk-I'm still a general... {GS-14 = General?}

Ya, ya Val most of the general public is glad you cleared that up.

You know most of America thinks that there is a special demotion wing at the Pentagon for generals coming in from the field. Val had to burst that bubble....

Brilliant!

p.lukasiak

oh, I think I found the article, Sue....

and the people who "outed" these three covert agents were the German courts, where they were charged with kidnapping. The courts used the names found on their passports and other documents -- and (apparently) these covert operatives called their own homes from hotel rooms.

And while the LA Times reporters were able to determine their real names, and even visited their homes, the Times did not published only the aliases under which they were charged.

In other words, blame the German government -- and the US administration officials that authorized the kidnapping of people on German soil.

verner

The minority can call witnesses as well, Wasn't Toensing called at the request of the ranking minority member?

Sorry honey, but this was Waxman's dog and pony show. Most of the minority members thought it was such a farce, they didn't even show up. As Davis said, he thought the whole thing was pointless in the first place. Especially since they were not allowed to ask about any of the issues that would have shed any slight bit of clarity on this whole sordid mess.

And when Davis asked Plame the question directly--she completely avoided giving a meaningful answer. As if she didn't know.

Some people will believe anything.

Nope, this looks like a gentleman's agreement between Waxman and the CIA to keep the real culprit (the CIA) away from public scrutiny.

Rick Ballard

"The CIA is a total effing disgrace."

Verner,

I disagree slightly. The MOM-VIPS/Plame faction within the CIA really is a total disgrace. There's also Johnny Michael Spahn. There's no way of knowing the number of Spahns versus the number of Plames.

MOM, the VIPS and Plame are evidence of rot. The removal of the DCI as the head of all US intelligence is indicative of the pervasiveness of the rot.

There are still the Spahns though. We owe it to them to see the rot excised, or, failing that, to allow them to transfer to agencies where their effectiveness will be appreciated.

When the Republicans regain control the Hatch Act needs to be revisited.

Looking_for_a_way_out

Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect
classified information admirably."

That sounds like it was programed into some word processor. Completely meaningless.

Vermer,

It means something to me regarding your argument above. It means that to DCI Hayden's satisfaction, none of Plame's behavior jeopardized confidential information, her status, or the status of her colleagues and "others".

verner

Here's a question for the Plame devotees. Plame was at the breakfast with Kristoff per her "under oath" testimony.

Did she go back and tell her superiors that her husband was blabbing about his "classified" trip to Niger?

Now wouldn't we like to know that.

Doesn't sound like she was protecting classified info to me.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon

  • Lee Child, Kindle short story
  • Lee Child
  • Gary Taubes

Traffic

Wilson/Plame