Let's get into the Plame hearing conducted by Rep. Waxman today.
Matt Apuzzo of the AP deserves the props we gave him - this story seems to hit the key controversies and presents both sides. Here we go:
(1) Was Valerie involved in sending Joe?
"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.
Yes, it does conflict - here is Grenier of the CIA, as liveblogged by Joyner and Wheeler.
Or here is Special Counsel Fitzgerald's indictment, point 7. And let's note that I am setting to one side the State Department people who also thought Ms. Wilson was behind the trip because they may have been misinformed.
Finally, John Podhoretz provides a funny bit of testimony telling us that, although she did not recommend her hubby for the 2002 Niger trip, Ms. Wilson went to her boss accompanied by the man who did, talked to her hubby about the assignment, and wrote the recommending email. She also (per the SSCI) had recommended her hubby for his 1999 trip to Niger. So please pardon our confusion about her obvious non-involvement here. (And how will this be treated in the movie? Will Val be dragged into her boss's office at gunpoint? Or depending on how they want to position the film, the producer could have the CIA waterboard her into giving up her husband's name - good looking woman, bondage, water everywhere... just thinking out loud and trying to help. TGIF.) [And here is Byron York double-checking with Sen. Bond that the Senate Intel Committee stands by its story.]
(2) Was Ms. Plame covert?
From Matt Apuzzo:
Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.
But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.
Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified. However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame's job was classified.
...
Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag."
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. Maybe they call her the wind. (But they call the wind Mariah...)
The WaPo was OK on this issue this morning as well:
In the CIA's eyes, the revelation of Plame's name in any context, whether she was stationed here or abroad, gave away a national security secret that could have dangerous repercussions. When Novak's column unmasking her as a CIA operative was published on July 14, 2003, the CIA general counsel's office automatically sent a routine report to the Justice Department that there had been an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
As part of normal procedures, the agency made a preliminary damage assessment and then sent a required follow-up report to Justice. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to open a criminal investigation but three months later recused himself because the probe led into the White House. Patrick J. Fitgerald, the U.S. attorney for northern Illinois, became special counsel and began to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."
In February 2004, after reviewing what the FBI had, Fitzgerald widened his investigation to include "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure," plus any efforts to obstruct the probe.
* * *
Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.
"Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials. Plame, who joined the agency right out of Pennsylvania State University, underwent rigorous spycraft training to become an officer in the Directorate of Operations. (The term "agent" in the CIA is only applied to foreign nationals recruited to spy in support of U.S. interests.)
It is funny watching CREW try to lower the bar:
Plame's testimony today "will be very forceful and clear, and there won't be any question what classified means," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington...
No, there probably won't be any questions about "classified", since the key question is whether she was "covert" under the statute.
Let give some props to Rep. Tom Davis:
Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said, "No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."
Well, if this was a good day for the Wilso-philes, what would a bad day look like? I guess we need to see how the WaPo, Times, and LA Times spin it. But keep hope alive! The press did join in the suit arguing that there was no underlying crime, so there is at least a chance that some of the editors and reporters have apprised themselves of the issues. But forget about the columnists.
We Grade The Times:
(1) Was Valerie involved in sending Joe? Their coverage:
Ms. Wilson told the committee that, despite what has been written and said repeatedly, she did not recommend her husband for the trip to Africa. In fact, she said, she had unhappy visions “of myself at bedtime with a couple of two-year-olds” to handle alone if her husband went overseas. (The Wilsons have young twins.)
“I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved,” she said. “I did not have the authority.”
Ms. Wilson said she did sound out her husband about the trip after she was asked to do so, but that her husband was picked for the trip because of his background in Africa.
Nothing mentioning the trial testimony or the indictment.
Grade: F
(2) Was Ms. Plame covert? The closeet they come to acknowledging a controversy is this:
Soon afterward, Ms. Wilson was unmasked by Mr. Novak. That incident led to an investigation to find who had leaked her name, possibly in violation of the law.
Grade: Are you kidding? F.
And under "Random Noise" we will note this:
Administration critics have long asserted that Ms. Wilson’s name was leaked to intimidate others who differed with the White House.
Administration critics have long asserted many things. But did the Libby trial provide evidence that intimidating critics (or punishing Wilson) was the motive?
Just for instance, Richard Armitage of State leaked the Plame info to both Bob Woodward and Bob Novak. Would a reasonable reader conclude from the transcript that he was hoping to intimidate critics?
Did Karl Rove hope to intimidate critics by saying "I heard that, too" to Bob Novak (who was confirming the story he got from Armitage)?
Here is what Walter Pincus speculated about the motive of Ari Fleischer, who Pincus has said was his source:
I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.
Well. If the new Times policy is to free-associate and print random speculation, they might try telling their readers that:
(a) Joe Wilson's critics think that his wife was involved, in some fashion, in sending him to Niger. As Libby said in his grand jury testimony, the implication is that Wilson is not an impartial judge of the White House - CIA intel dispute, a point which the press should have noted.
(b) Valerie Wilson did not have "covert" status as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. 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.
Hey, it has been asserted - we meet the Times standard.
STILL MORE: Ms. Plame's statement and a transcript of her testimony.
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.
Posted by: Pofarmer | March 16, 2007 at 09:21 PM
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
Posted by: Jake - but not the one | March 16, 2007 at 10:01 PM
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.
Posted by: Jeff | March 16, 2007 at 10:54 PM
Posted by: cathyf | March 17, 2007 at 12:14 AM
"""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.
Posted by: Kilo | March 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM
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?
Posted by: willem | March 17, 2007 at 03:14 AM
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.
Posted by: Kilo | March 17, 2007 at 03:42 AM
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?
Posted by: SlimGuy | March 17, 2007 at 03:57 AM
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.
Posted by: A Veteran | March 17, 2007 at 05:07 AM
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 -
We can argue about the meaning of "served" . . . but "carried out covert work overseas" is an invention, pure and simple.(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;
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:
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 05:49 AM
Did anyone catch the drama in the repeated reference to networks destroyed, the stuff of real spies? Anyone checking this for accuracy?
Posted by: bigpapi | March 17, 2007 at 07:01 AM
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.
Posted by: bigpapi | March 17, 2007 at 07:10 AM
Obviously the walk-by aid was the agency uber stud, secretly
covertingcoveting 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?
Posted by: PC14 | March 17, 2007 at 01:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Kilo | March 17, 2007 at 11:25 PM
"""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...
http://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.
Posted by: Kilo | March 17, 2007 at 11:55 PM
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.
Posted by: Ross | March 18, 2007 at 03:04 PM
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.
Posted by: boris | March 18, 2007 at 03:23 PM
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.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 19, 2007 at 09:19 AM
Would anyone know the exact date that Valerie Plame testified to the Senate Committe ?
Posted by: Bill Brennan | March 21, 2007 at 12:36 PM