Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« An Educated Consumer Is Our Best Customer | Main | His Silence Was Thunderous »

March 16, 2007

Comments

Pofarmer

Libby leaked Plame's affiliation with the CIA to Judith Miller. Rove leaked to Matt Cooper. Armitage leaked to Novak

Well, one outta 3 ain't bad.

Jake - but not the one

Rick! I read your stuff on Real Clear politics or whatever you call it.

Too bad the Republicans on the committee couldn't be bothered.

They must be overworked.

Or something.

Better luck next time.

Jake

Jeff

Yeah, who you gonna believe, that tasker report entered into evidence or Valerie!™? Jeff, there was one recorded incident where the VP asked about the DIA report. It happened on the 13th. The contention she got a heads up the previous day is cute, but . . .

I'm frankly disappointed, Cecil. I thought it would go otherwise. Oh well.

First, the tasker and Wilson's testimony today are hardly contradictory. Someone from OVP could well have called CPD on the 12th, and Cheney asked his briefer on the 13th.

Second, are you simply saying that she was lying under oath? Or misremembering? Or what?

Third, I just noticed this. Cheney clearly was not shown the DIA report at the briefing on February 13 that gave rise to the briefer's tasking. Note what it says:

The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa.

In other words, Cheney's briefer did not brief this assessment to him on February 13. Three possibilities: this is not his morning briefing, and Cheney got it at his morning briefer. I find this unlikely. Second, Cheney heard about it otherwise on February 13. Also unlikely, if David D. Terry was his morning briefer. Third, Cheney heard about it on the 12th, either from his briefer that morning, or from someone else that day.

Game back on, my friend.

cathyf
Waxman's opening statement:

"...Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert."

What a scumbag asshole. 12958 was Clinton's executive order. Bush's order is 13292, released on March 25, 2003, and it superceeded 12958.

Kilo

"""She didn't know her legal status? She's so covert that not even she knows if she is legally covert! And we are more than three years into this. Oh, my - well, I don't know her status either. """

So if she doesn't know if she was covert and you don't know, I guess that leaves no option but to pass over the CIA stating that she was and leave it an unresolved bit of trivia.... in the matter revolving around this specific issue.

Hey do you think anyone noticed ? Nah, I reckon those almost-jokes have everyone still in stiches they'll fail to realise your "just the facts" summary glossed over the primary fact of substance.

willem

Perhaps something is being missed; this matter of Plame's donation to a Democrat Party candidate in the amount of $1,000 on behalf of a CIA "front company." When did it become "ok" for CIA employees to take money from a CIA front company and "give" that CIA front company's money to a candidate of the Democrat Party? When did it become lawful for a government employee to electively take money from a government entity and arbitrarily give it to any political candidate?

Kilo

Valerie Wilson did not have "covert" status as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

That definition being:
“a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years”

Which the CIA, prosecutor, judge etc have all confirmed she qualified as based on the facts known to date.

Tom Maguire, says otherwise and needs no pesky source, supporting reference, or even explanation for his statement. So that pretty much settles it.

A reasonable special counsel would have at least disclosed that to the court and clarified that he was simply looking for perjury charges before having a reporter locked up for 85 days.

Those quotes above are from special counsel's own affidavit to the court.

As for whether the court was fully up to speed on what the trial was about (!?) I'd recommend a brief bit of research into how trials work regarding the filing of charges, briefs to the court on what the prosecutor is and isn't prosecuting, stuff like that.

They generally operate a little differently to a brainstorming session in an advertising firm where everyone just shows up and finds out the topics for discussion by chance and at random.

Once again, glaring flaws and clear misrepresentations of facts in your arguement such as these will generally only undercut your credibility if your readers are bright enough to recognise them as such. Something you are clearly betting against.

SlimGuy

Enough of the BS by the trolls.

Wackman and Co. today put out clearly that the IIPA was not what they were aiming for. They want to use nebulous EO charges to lead their meme.

The conflation of some to try to tie this in as a "broad conspiracy" to the USA firings shows just how low they are going to chum the waters.

The trolls here are trying to spin words for all they "think" they are worth, but with little appeal.

It would be much better if they could for once out of all their efforts do the unnatural thing for them and give an adult informed opinion.

Amazing how they picky and sicky cling to the meme that Val said it so it is the gold standard.

Dozens of other witnesses in a civil trial can conflict with her views, but she somehow comes down from the mount with the new tablets to be explored and debated.

Since Wackman is pointedly heading for a violation of an EO rather than something in the law, even he is realizing that this is weak to something less.

Word parsing was the order of the day today.

However that will not save the position that was chosen to be put forward.

Granted with the dems in the position of being capable to do so we will likely see more such similar hearings.

But will they be a vacant of thought and so transparent as this one, or can they come up with something of substance?

I am sure the soundbites will be extracted to push the meme, but opinion does not override facts.

It only just makes things popular and give you the ability to poll results supporting a false premise.

So if that is what happens, where is the betterment?

A Veteran

If she doesn't know her own "Covert Status" then she is not smart enough to be a cvoert agent. God help us if she is one or maybe she plays stupid.

Cecil Turner

That definition being:
“a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas . . .

That's funny. I read the statute, and that's not what it says:

    (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;
We can argue about the meaning of "served" . . . but "carried out covert work overseas" is an invention, pure and simple.

Which the CIA, prosecutor, judge etc have all confirmed she qualified as based on the facts known to date.

Hmmm, the CIA's version musta been in that referral the Prosecutor insisted wasn't relevant. As to the judge:

A few days later, on Jan. 29, Walton told everyone in the courtroom that the jurors are not the only ones in the dark about Mrs. Wilson's status. "I don't know, based on what has been presented to me in this case, what her status was," Walton said. Two days later, he added, "I to this day don't know what her actual status was." [emphasis added]
But hey, don't let a couple "pesky" facts get in the way of a good rant.

bigpapi

Did anyone catch the drama in the repeated reference to networks destroyed, the stuff of real spies? Anyone checking this for accuracy?

bigpapi

And did anybody catch the line of questioning of the last R senator to get five minutes and who seemed to be leading her to a possible admission that her husband could not have known enough to write his op ed without some unauthorized pillow talk? He was cut off by Waxman.

PC14

Obviously the walk-by aid was the agency uber stud, secretly coverting coveting Val and just looking for an opportunity to get Joey to go on a little fool's errand to Africa.

"Putting the little two year olds to bed." And then what Val?

Kilo

We can argue about the meaning of "served"

Well actually no, we can't. We are talking about a CIA officer working in counterproliferation who traveled overseas in that capacity for the CIA under a classified identity.

If you believed that wouldn't qualify as "served overseas", in the same way that no CIA officer has ever served overseas using this non-logic, that wouldn't allow you to argue this because nobody would bother entertaining it as a serious claim.

but "carried out covert work overseas" is an invention, pure and simple.

Which you know because of your access to the classified CIA personnel service records which Fitzgerald based his "she has served overseas in the past 5 years" opinion on, and found them to contain something other than what Fitzgerald did.
That kind of pure and simple. Yeah.

Hmmm, the CIA's version musta been in that referral the Prosecutor insisted wasn't relevant.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean other than to avoid noting the fact it was referred for investigation to start with and CIA officials from lowest to highest all confirming covert status.

You realise the head of the CIA has confirmed this in a prepared statement for submission to the current hearing right ?
Yes ? Just wanted to pretend that hasn't happened ? Yes ? okay.

But hey, don't let a couple "pesky" facts get in the way of a good rant.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | March 17, 2007 at 02:49 AM

Well that does seem to be the topic of this blog post.

Kilo

"""That definition being: a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas in the past 5 years"""

That's funny. I read the statute, and that's not what it says:

No, what's funny is you said this, then posted the statute, everyone read both of them saying the same thing and figured out you can't read.

If you want to come up with a less than ridiculous rebuttal try putting a little effort in. Not even the wingnuttiest of readers here is going to pretend that they cannot read for you.

For example...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Career
[Her CIA boss] "Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat".[12]

So 5 years prior to her 2003 outing would be 1998, when she was serving under cover overseas.

Let me guess.... The statute doesn't say *which* "seas" CIA officers need to be "over" in order to qualify ?

Or maybe since she was married in April 1998 and wasn't outed until July we pretend her undercover work wasn't just made harder but completely ceased as of that point (despite references to her later travels abroad on CIA business) and call "SAFE" on this outing of a classified CIA agent because of the 3 month gap ?

Hey, they'll sound more plausible than what's been posted so far.

Ross

Joe Wilson has known for years that his wife was illegally 'outed', but his wife STILL doesn't know! LOL! You can't fix stupid.

boris

the meaning of "served"

Those of us who have served in the armed forces overseas know the meaning of the words in the statute. Sometimes the statutes use words like "covert" or "served" defined more precisely than their unofficial common use.

Gabriel Sutherland

Kilo said "We are talking about a CIA officer working in counterproliferation who traveled overseas in that capacity for the CIA under a classified identity."

How do we know this? What evidence do we have that supports the statement that any travel Valerie Plame participated in overseas was done using "a classified identity"? We don't have evidence to make that conclusion. We don't have evidence to deny that conclusion.

You later brought up Fred Rustmann. I'm glad. However, you left out a key portion of Rustmann's analysis that Valerie was not a NOC or a "deep cover" operative. Valerie became pregant with twins in this same time period, 1998-2003. Rustmann thinks she's desk material after the pregnancy. The agency can't allocate resources to cover for natural tendencies of a married couple.

Bill Brennan

Would anyone know the exact date that Valerie Plame testified to the Senate Committe ?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame