Unsolved Mysteries - Was Valerie Plame "Covert"?

When last we looked, the question of whether Valerie Plame was covert as defined by the relevant statute was clearly and emphatically *NOT* answered by Henry Waxman's show hearing, the whooping of lefty bloggers notwithstanding.  Instead, I argued that her status was a subtle and untested legal question which had probably not been researched by the CIA Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, or anyone else.  Based on the latest from Bob Novak, I appear to be right:

On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

The CIA Counsel does not have a firm opinion, as of March 2007, whether Ms. Plame had covert status under the IIPA?  That is deeply significant - if they don't know now, there is no reason to think they knew in July 2003 when they filed a referral to the DoJ (Conyers letter) for an investigation into an "unauthorized disclosure of classified information", *not* disclosure of a covert officer.

Nor is there any reason to think Patrick Fitzgerald knew, unless he did his own research and coyly kept it from the judge and the defense.

let's review - At his show hearing Waxman announced that he had been told that Ms. Plame was "covert", but subsequent testimony made it clear that the CIA considers its officers to be either covert or overt; put another way, the CIA does not rely on the legal definition of covert in deeming its officers to be either classified or overt.

On the legal question what Waxman conspicuously did not say was anything like "The CIA Counsel has reviewed Ms. Plame's confidential file as well as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and concluded that she qualifies as "covert" under that statute."

The latest wrinkle is a long column from Bob Novak detailing some follow-up on this. Clarice Feldman has excerpts, but the gist is this - Gen. Hayden, head of the CIA, prowled the Gridiron dinner telling people including Bob Novak, Victoria Toensing, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra that he had *not* meant to say that Victoria Plame was covert - he claims he used the word "classified" in his meeting with Waxman.

So where did that word come from?  Here is Novak:

Hayden told me Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman's staff. "I am completely comfortable with that," the general assured me. He added he now sees no difference between "covert" and "undercover" -- an astounding statement, considering that the criminal statute refers only to "covert" employees.

Mark Mansfield, Hayden's public affairs officer, next e-mailed me: "At CIA, you are either a covert or an overt employee. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee." That also ignores the legal requirements of the Intelligence Identities Act.

Well, then - any CIA lawyer would agree that Waxman's use of "covert" was acceptable, since Waxman never included the claim that it related to the IIPA.  But let me repeat the punchline:

On March 21, Hoekstra again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."

So the CIA Counsel still haven't figured out what her status might be, which is what I said a month ago.

I can save time by presenting the rebuttal of the left right now - Novak is a liar, move on.

As to whether he is really inventing these emails and Hayden's Gridiron chats, well, time may tell.  But Novak's story certainly overlaps nicely with what I have been saying all along.

And since I feel like a bit of a savant, let me reprise my interesting but non-conclusive suggestion: CIA pensions are adjusted upwards for service abroad.  Now, the definition of "service abroad" employed by the CIA may or may not be consistent with whatever the legal eagles determine to be the standard embedded in the IIPA, but - did Ms. Plame get a pension adjustment in her last five years for service abroad?  If not even the CIA thinks she qualified as having served abroad under their own guidelines, sustaining the argument that she qualifies under the IIPA will be harder (but not impossible). 

Conversely, the CIA may bump every one up just to be generous - who knows?  But it seems like an easy question which the CIA ought to be able to answer.

Meanwhile, we still don't know her status, or as we say, her "covertiness".  But we have confirmed that neither the CIA nor Waxman know her status either.  (The lefty bloggers *do* know her status, but that is a faith-based initiative.)

 

Comments

[clarice]

It certainly does. And it overlaps with what I've been saying, the place is full of people willing to kill the Administration to curry favor with the Dems (and in the Plame case to get Kerry elected) for how dared they press for a full bore investigation w/out knowing that she was covered by the Act?
Now let's hope the Dow Jones & AP lawyers prevail in the Miller case and we get to see what Fitz concocted to cover this in that case.

[clarice]

It certainly does. And it overlaps with what I've been saying, the place is full of people willing to kill the Administration to curry favor with the Dems (and in the Plame case to get Kerry elected) for how dared they press for a full bore investigation w/out knowing that she was covered by the Act?
Now let's hope the Dow Jones & AP lawyers prevail in the Miller case and we get to see what Fitz concocted to cover this in that case.

[Great Banana]

What difference does it make now?

I'm sure we are going to see some indictments in the other leak cases that actually hurt national security any day now.

Or maybe, those operations did not involve anyone quite as "covert" as Plame was.

[sylvia]

Awwwww a Plame thread! I miss those.

[hit and run]

As to whether he is really inventing these emails and Hayden's Gridiron chats, well, time may tell. But Novak's story certainly overlaps nicely with what I have been saying all along.

Hmmmmm, will be looking for Novak column source described as "a blogger intimate with this case".....

[clarice]

Get out the barf bags:
"Boulder-Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife's status as a covert intelligence agent was leaked in a scandal that has embroiled top White House officials, told an audience here today to be active participants in government...he believes Plame's outing was an attempt at character assassination by Bush administration officials. "They would have succeeded in this, except for one thing," he said. "In embarking on a character assassination campaign against me, they committed treason."

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5651500

[sylvia]

"Gen. Hayden, head of the CIA, prowled the Gridiron dinner telling people including Bob Novak, Victoria Toensing, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra that he had *not* meant to say that Victoria Plame was covert - he claims he used the word "classified" in his meeting with Waxman."

Ah hah! We were right all along. I guess the CIA is still trying to figure out whether trips such as Canadian seminars are considered covert foreign service.

You know I kind of understand this because I've been surprised in my life at the number of people who don't like to understand laws. Even higher-ups. They have an anathema against actually looking up the language of a law and interpreting it, and instead just like to repeat what they think someone told them was the law. So probably the CIA dude didn't even know it himself.

However, I still don't know if the covert issue is particularly relevant. If the CIA TOLD Fitz Plame was covert, even if it wasn't true, sadly that gave Fitz the probable cause to hound Libby. Unless it can be proven that Fitz was negligent on taking some steps to assurring for himself whether this was true ot not about Plame, but since he really wouldn't have access to this secret information, probably not. I don't know.

But at least WE all know now. This whole thing was an egg hunt.

[sylvia]

You know, I suppose it's possible the CIA gave the same vague language to the FBI they gave to Congress. In that case, maybe it's possible Libby would have a case of negligence there, as the FBI should be legally astute enough to follow that up to get a clear answer first. I would have to hear more facts first before I make up my mind on that.

[Roger]

Covert or classified is easy. Any federal employee can become covert and most are classified. If it's not the identity informant thing it's section 502 and CIA just moved to DoD. The move was planned by Hayden's predecessor and followed up by Hayden, all x Air force.

Walker seems to want some classified jobs at the White House
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/24/national/main1832057.shtml

Plame's goal was to use these acts and to launch a foreign intelligence operation against the US government and blame the murders on someone higher up claiming she was leaked. The Republicans hurt on the way were just to cover her as a foreign intelligence operation and blame politics.

The congressional affairs guy apparently is an idiot and another reason to cancel the charters like the others that are no longer what they were created to be and work for DoD now anyway.

CIA will never tell Plame's status and she will never claim the 'identities law', even those it's 'basic training' for anyone at CIA, because she was using a 'pattern' developed under Ames and not to be used against the US government, which she did using a foreign intelligence operation, which is a crminal conspiracy.

[SunnyDay]

WTF?? This is insane.

[Sara]

I'm sick of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson and the whole Plame affair. It only serves to point out the paucity of thought and issues on the left that their two big items are Valerie Plame and ruining Don Imus, who is now fired from CBS radio as well as MSNBC. Yet, they don't give a damn about the damage they do by embracing the terrorists and jihadists. Stinks! Stinks! Stinks!

(Sorry posted this twice, once in the wrong thread)

[PatrickR]

The word of the day went from 'undercover' to 'covert':

------quote-----
...I was interrupted by a man crouching at my feet.... It was CIA Director Michael Hayden, who complained to me profanely that my column had misrepresented him in the Valerie Plame Wilson case. ...Hayden indicated to me he had not authorized Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman to say Mrs. Wilson had been a "covert" CIA employee, as he claimed Hayden did, but only that she was "undercover."

...Hayden made similar points with Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the House Intelligence Committee's ranking Republican; Republican lawyer Victoria Toensing, expert in national security law; and White House Counsel Fred Fielding. Yet, 10 days later, the CIA and its director asserted to me that the wife of Bush critic Joseph Wilson indeed had been "covert."

....

The confusion deepened when I obtained Waxman's talking points for the hearing. The draft typed after the Hayden-Waxman conversation said, "Ms. Wilson had a career as an undercover agent of the CIA." This was crossed out, the hand-printed change saying she "was a covert employee of the CIA."

Who had made this questionable but important change? Hayden told me Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman's staff. "I am completely comfortable with that," the general assured me. He added he now sees no difference between "covert" and "undercover" ....
------endquote-------

[Enlightened]

Huh? The talking points draft said one thing and CIA changed it to say another? After conferring with Waxman's staff? And Hayden is now ok with it?

Oh brother. The CIA has just proven without a doubt their disingenous, duplicitous and inept actions have fostered this charade. The trifecta of retardation.

[SlimGuy]

So we have still an issue of ambiguity.

Since during the Libby trial we have had to deal with the master clarity of a paint by number kit artwork would it matter if we get another picture now?

Even if someone today came out with full clarity and glossy 8X10's with circles and arrows and explanations on the back, it may change opinion, but it now has no bearing on the Libby issue.

Any appeal can only deal with the issues of the case presented at the trial however flawed.

Which I for one, consider a potential weakness in our form of legal process.

[topsecretk9]

Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman's staff.

IIRC a CIA lawyer screwed up a potential juror in Libby's trial AND Fitz didn't want to share some documents with Libby's team -again IIRC they were because he said the contained privileged discussions and "rationale" I believe between the CIA legal and DOJ in the early days) (I'll see if I can dig it up)

Anyways, the point is - seems like the problems/games are coming from the legal office...

Also from Roger's link:

The CIA also disclosed it has not yet completed a formal assessment of the damage to national security that may have been caused by Plame's outing in 2003.

The assessment won't be completed until a criminal investigation of the leak has been concluded, Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said in the July 19 letter to Lautenberg.

Um...it's been 4 years, tick tock...is it any wonder why the CIA has been wrong about just about everything now, they can't even figure out the status of their own employee.

[Enlightened]

"A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply"

Hah. The CIA can take four YEARS to respond? Where's the outrage? The huffing and puffing?

How many times have we heard Waxman et al screeching for some answers in USAgate? The brewing RNC e-mails? The Dems are so utterly transparent. It's almost no fun anymore to point it out. It's so predictable that they will coddle their enablers - up to four years worth.

Bravo! Well done BDS Team.

[PatrickR]

The author of the Denver Post article has his e-mail address at the bottom. I've pointed out to him that this:

'Wilson gained widespread attention when he published an article in the New York Times nearly four years ago criticizing President George W. Bush for including in a State of the Union speech the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from the African nation of Niger. Prior to the speech, Wilson had been sent on a mission to Niger and debunked the claim.'

is factually inaccurate, and why.

[danking]

I'm surprised that Novak has held his tongue on Russert this long considering the treatment he got on Meet the Press.

Too bad Imus will never get to interview Mitchell, Gregory, or Russert again.

[Forbes]

This has become--or always was, depending on who was making the argument--a case of proving a negative, i.e. prove that Plame wasn't covert, as it is the assumption that won't collapse under the weight of (no) evidence.

And if it is possible to regularly show up for work at Langley and simultaneously be characterized as "covert" or "undercover," then the CIA is an even bigger joke than one could presume from this entire affair. (And notwithstanding the definitional particularities of the IIPA.)

And notwithstanding TM's perseverance on this topic, I imagine most people will have forgotten the underlying rationale for the Fitz investigation before the CIA ever gives a definitive answer.

[SlimGuy]

Off Topic

More alternate agenda diplomacy?

"Egyptian Daily: Democrats Invite Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood Leader and Muslim Brotherhood MPs to Congress," from the MEMRI Blog, with thanks to all who sent this in:

The Egyptian opposition daily Al-Masryoon reported that high-level diplomatic sources said that Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef, several members of his office, and Muslim Brotherhood MPs had been invited by U.S. Democrat congressmen to visit the U.S. next month and to speak to Congress.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Hi Guys!

Just got back from my buddy's house.

I saw that Novak story and I knew it'd be a discussion item here today. Is Novak the most bitter man on the earth or what? Hayden is a "man crouching at my feet" who is "angling to become intelligence czar -- director of national intelligence -- under a Democratic president". But at least he's reporting the key fact, that the legal team at CIA felt using the term "Covert" to describe Plame's employment status was the most appropriate course of action to take.

I've speculated here in the past that IIPA prosecution would require the CIA to divulge information it would prefer to keep secret. Libby's lies, obstruction and perjury convictions provided a perfectly suitable alternative. This new information from Novak, changes nothing.

[topsecretk9]

--I've speculated here in the past that IIPA prosecution would require the CIA to divulge information it would prefer to keep secret. --

Yeah, like there is no damage at all to report or the embarrassment she violated CIA rules with her big glossy "here I am" Vanity Fair photo shoot?

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

"Yeah, like there is no damage at all to report or the embarrassment she violated CIA rules with her big glossy "here I am" Vanity Fair photo shoot?"

Maybe no damage was done. I don't know. Do you think the CIA would publicize that damage if they didn't have to? The thought of that must be driving Novak crazy. I'd love to get the details that Fitzgerald provided to justify locking up Miller and Cooper. I don't know how that information will be treated by the courts. If it is classified information how would the "declassification" process work? Couldn't Cheney just instantly declasify it? That must also frustrate the heck out of Novak.

[Syl]

Looking

Your propaganda is no better than Wilson's. Hah! I hope you didn't lose too much money on your bid to have dinner with him.

Plame outed herself to INR which outed her to Armitage which outed her to Novak.

Cheney had nothing to do with it.

[SlimGuy]

By the time the pictures were taken, her name was already on the wires and every intel service in the world would already have done their homework on the name.

Only a clear face picture might have clued someone if she used an alias.

[Looking_For_a_Way_out]

Plame outed herself to INR which outed her to Armitage which outed her to Novak.

Cheney had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Syl

Miller testified that Libby told her of Plame in June. Armitage is not relevant to that leak.

My Cheney comment refers to that information Fitzgerald used to justify locking up Miller and Cooper. Could Cheney unilaterally "declassify" that information? If it would exhonerate Scooter, why hasn't he?

As for Wilson, I have always questioned his role in this whole affair. I don't believe for a second that Plame was outed solely to besmirch Wilson.

[Rick Ballard]

"If it would exhonerate Scooter, why hasn't he?"

Libby wasn't charged for an IIPA or Espionage Act violation. Plame's status is as meaningless as she was, as you noted.

[Other Tom]

"I don't believe for a second that Plame was outed solely to besmirch Wilson."

Let's keep our eye on the ball here. If we want to know why she was outed, the person to ask is Richard Armitage. And for my part, I have never understood why the outing of Valerie "besmirched" Wilson in any way, and know of no one who has ever claimed that it did with the exception of Wilson himself and assorted leftist ho's.

And again, we are in the final stage of the Bush Oppression, and my hope is that from here on out the administration does it, gets away with it, and flips the bird to those who don't like it. Democracy in action.

[SlimGuy]

I find it interesting that some will come to a place which examined this place in the most detailed manner of any other venue on the web and wish to insert their mis information that will fly like a lead balloon.

[MikeS]

911, a monumental intelligence failure.

Iraq's WMD, a catastrophic intelligence failure.

In the case of Plame the CIA carried out either a teensy weensy intelligence failure or a totally insignificant intelligence failure depending how 'covert' Plame was at the time.

[Enlightened]

So if it was a "teensy weensy" or "insignificant" failure - why has it taken FOUR years for the CIA to definitively state Plame's status?

I'm not getting why that obstruction is less obstructive than some emails deleted years ago on a subject that at the time was a non-event?

I can't deal with the left's practice of twisting everything into a colossal mind f---k. By the end of the day their brain cell must really hurt.

[MikeS]

I can't deal with the left's practice of twisting everything into a colossal mind f---k.

I agree with that. I also agree with Cheney's suggestion to Leahy.

[sbw]

TM: The lefty bloggers *do* know her status, but that is a faith-based initiative.

You must mean a "half-faithed" initiative.

[Rick Ballard]

"By the end of the day their brain cell must really hurt."

My understanding is that the brain lacks pain receptors. Even if both of a leftist's brain cells were torqued to the max they wouldn't feel anything. They do get uncomfortable when a synapse fires but it doesn't happen often enough to be bothersome.

[Enlightened]

Ahah. So when their synapses get torqued, the need for ExLax decreases?

[PeterUK.]

"I don't believe for a second that Plame was outed solely to besmirch Wilson."

How does outing Val besmirch Wilson,he thought she was a stripper!

[Tom Maguire]

But at least he's reporting the key fact, that the legal team at CIA felt using the term "Covert" to describe Plame's employment status was the most appropriate course of action to take.

With Imus gone a spot in comedy has opened up.

Did the CIA really say that covert was "themost appropriate course of action"? Based on what?

Here is Novak:

Hayden told me Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman's staff.

Did the CIA guy push for "covert" as most appropriate, or did the Waxman team pound thr table until he said, sure, just keep the qualifier about CIA employment practice.

Here is what Waxman finally said, for non-link followers:

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

What is her "CIA employment status" and how does that relate to her status under the IIPA? Who the heck knows?

But since we know that even now the CIA can't opine on her IIPA status for Rep. Hoekstra, it is hard to credit that the CIA felt it was most appropriate to call her covert - my guess is they gave in to the deliberate blurring sought by Waxman's side.

Bring better spin.

They do get uncomfortable when a synapse fires but it doesn't happen often enough to be bothersome.

LOL. I assume that is a theoretical prediction as yet untested.

[sammy small]

911, a monumental intelligence failure.

Iraq's WMD, a catastrophic intelligence failure.

Don't forget Sandy Bergler's docu-drama. That caper may ensure the intel will always be looked upon as failure.

[lurker9876]

This whole thing about CIA's behavior is so ridiculous. I just cannot believe that CIA would give in to the deliberate blurring sought by Waxman's efforts. Surely CIA had to be smarter than that...until that Michael said she was "covert".

And I keep seeing the double quotes around the word, covert.

What the heck does double quote - covert - double quote mean????

[lurker9876]

This whole thing about CIA's behavior is so ridiculous. I just cannot believe that CIA would give in to the deliberate blurring sought by Waxman's efforts. Surely CIA had to be smarter than that...until that Michael said she was "covert".

And I keep seeing the double quotes around the word, covert.

What the heck does double quote - covert - double quote mean????

[lurker9876]

Sorry for double post. :(

[clarice]

Gosh, TM, you're so cynical. Have you no faith?

[cathyf]

Miller testified that Libby told her of Plame in June. Armitage is not relevant to that leak.

Not true. Miller testified that someone other than Libby told her about Plame in June, and that she went to jail to protect that source, and that she doesn't remember who she went to jail to protect. Armitage would have been a very plausible suspect as the "forgotten" source. Another plausible suspect would have been a colleague of Plame who was also a source for Miller's book on WMD intelligence.

Anyway, please try to keep up with the facts in the future.

[clarice]

cathyf, I emailed your theory on "classified" to Bob Novak in the belief that (a) it is plausible and (b) he was in a better position that any of us to probe that path.

[Foo Bar]

Miller testified that Libby told her of Plame in June. Armitage is not relevant to that leak.

Not true. Miller testified that someone other than Libby told her about Plame in June

?? So the Post got this wrong?

Deliberately and sometimes defensively offering her account in Libby's perjury trial, Miller told the jury that "a very irritated and angry" Libby told her in a confidential conversation on June 23, 2003, that the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war worked at the CIA

[clarice]

Her notes revealed she had that information (Flame, etc.), including Wilson's name and phone number before she ever talked to Libby.

[cathyf]

1) The CIA has never claimed that Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified in May, June or July of 2003. They claimed that her affiliation with the CIA "was classified under Executive Order 12958." Well, Executive Order 12958 was in effect between April 17, 1995 and March 25, 2003 -- so a close parsing of the CIA claim is that on one or more days between April 17, 1995 and March 25, 2003, Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified, but they have not given us any information about her status before April 17, 1995 or after March 25, 2003.

2) The Executive Orders which have defined the classification system are specifically designed to protect Americans' civil liberties. They do this in several ways:

a) The burden is upon the government to clearly designate what information is classified and at what level. Information which the government does not so designate is not classified.

b) Classified information is only shared with people with appropriate clearances, but more importantly, it is only shared with people who have a need to know the information in order to do their jobs, either as employees or contractors of the government.

On Feb 19, 2002, Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson went to a meeting of an interagency task force. They disclosed the information that Valerie Plame was 1) a CIA manager, and 2) married to Joe Wilson, the "former ambassador" that the CIA was sending to Niger to check out yellowcake intel. No one at that meeting needed to know who Valerie Plame was or that she was married to the former ambassador for any remotely job-related reason. No one at the meeting or any time over the subsequent 15 months ever designated the information about Wilson's wife's CIA affiliation as being in any way shape or form classified. According to Executive Order 12958 and Executive Order 13292 (and all of the ancestor executive orders), the information about Plame's CIA affiliation was not classified after Feb 19, 2002 on these two issues alone.

And the direct custody of the unclassified information was
Valerie Plame & Joe Wilson ==>> INR guy
INR guy ==>> INR Report
INR Report ==>> Armitage
Armitage ==>> Novak
Novak ==>> newspaper

3) The executive orders are very concerned that government employees will attempt to hide their incompetence, mistakes, criminal behavior, etc. by classifying them. The executive orders make very clear that no matter what the bureaucrats stamp on the paper, if it's something that the executive order says can't be classified, then it's not classified.

According to various publicly available sources, Plame was paid under an "undercover" employment designation either as a result of agency inefficiency (they didn't get her moved into an overt employment category in a timely manner after she moved into an overt job), or was a result of the CIA hiding the fact that they had a person without qualifications to be a WMD analyst in that position. Either way, the executive orders are very clear that whether it was inefficiency or embezzlement that put her paycheck in the "covert" accounting category, according to the lawful orders of the people in charge, the information was not classified.

Imagine that a CIA agent lied about having a set of informants, and claimed that he needed money to pay them. Then he took the money and used it to bet on horses at the track, and made up the "informants'" information which he submitted. Whether he gets caught or not, this wouldn't make the results of the horse races classified information. The government has quite precise definitions of what makes something "classified" and getting paid for out of an account designated for "classified" activities is neither necessary nor sufficient.

[Foo Bar]

Her notes revealed she had that information (Flame, etc.), including Wilson's name and phone number before she ever talked to Libby.

Hmmm... if her notes clearly revealed that "Flame" was in there before she talked to Libby, then the Libby defense didn't do a very good job of establishing that sequence while Miller was on the stand. The best they could get out of her was that she could not be absolutely, absolutely certain that she first heard about Plame from Libby.

Anyway, I got the impression from cathyf's comment that she was denying that Miller testified that Libby told her about Wilson's wife in June. I guess not. I guess I misread it.

In any event, suppose Miller had first been told about Plame from some other source. If we presume there was something not OK (maybe not illegal, but at least sloppy) about telling reporters about Plame prior to the Novak column, would that first leak to Miller have then made it OK for Libby to tell her about Plame? I don't think so. It still comes down to not believing Miller when she says Libby told her about Plame on the 23rd.

[Other Tom]

"If we presume there was something not OK (maybe not illegal, but at least sloppy) about telling reporters about Plame prior to the Novak column..."

How about if we don't presume that?

[topsecretk9]

ACk...I couldn't read all the through so i could tourettes

But since we know that even now the CIA can't opine on her IIPA status for Rep. Hoekstra

WHY NOT? I mean at this point it boils down to a simple YES she was a covert agent covered under IIPA or NO she was undercover, but not covered under the IIPA. Period.

After four years and no damage assessment you'd think they could CONCISELY (an Intelligence agency mind you!) answer THIS simple question.

Sum Tang UP!
2 ways here

If the CIA who referred this to the DOJ found Plame being referred to as an agency operative even after affected agency was the one to confirm in a 6th paragraph column violated the IIPA - they would want since they referred this to the DOJ to produce even the most slight anything that would vindicate their having asked for it - given the rabid, tunnel vision focus of the media.

OR

the only reason the CIA would NOT vindicate themselves would be to protect themselves from something...

At this point, all I can wonder is what does Plame have on the CIA -and more importantly WHY? -- this is looking more and more like a blackmail situation by the minute.

I am pretty sure that the hiring of Wilson was a violation of her employment and probably of the CIA's - and I wonder too if the his security clearances (or how that went) is involved with this - but there is something weird here, because they will not give her the pleasure of being the one thing she wants either - or maybe doesn't want?

Also, is this idea is in any way true, it may be that Plame used illegal method to obtain the crap she holds over their heads - who knows.

OH...there is another Sanction buster busted....how did Plame miss this one so close to Boston, let alone her area of expertise?

Vt. Exporter Sentenced on Federal Charge

Andrew Huang, 60, of Cromwell also was ordered Tuesday to pay a $5,000 fine, said Kevin O'Connor, the U.S. attorney for Connecticut.

Huang originally was charged in May 2006 with conspiracy and acting as an agent of a foreign government, but reached a plea agreement last December.

He originally was accused of conspiring with Chinese officials to sell $27 million in telecommunications equipment to the Iraq government from 1999 to 2001.

The equipment allowed Iraq to maneuver its forces when the U.S. invaded the country in 2003, according to James Trainor, supervisory special agent for the FBI's counterintelligence squad in Connecticut.

Huang admitted in his plea agreement that he lied when he told an FBI agent in April 2006 that he had not represented or acted on behalf of a Chinese company in the sale of fiber optics equipment from China to Iraq.

"I was scared and nervous," Huang said at the time.

Huang, a lieutenant in the Taiwanese Air Force before arriving in the U.S. in 1976, was the president and owner of MacAndrews Inc., an export business in Middletow

Wasn't JCW international and Rockcreek in the "telecommincations" biz - well, we know William Jefferson was...Ironically fighting to have his emails et al privileged.