Was Valerie Plame Covert? Once More, with Feeling

Newsweek has an interesting view of the law, and the usual suspects amongst the lefty bloggers are falling in line behind it - when a prosecutor expresses an opinion in a sentencing memorandum, that is dispositive - case closed, no further questions, move on.

Interesting.  I suspect our friends on the left are able to apply a bit more critical thinking when their political sympathies are less aligned with the prosecutor.  But I stand ready to assist in the current case.

Here are Isikoff and Hosenball:

May 29, 2007 - In new court filings, [Sentencing memo, Plame employment] special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy:  Valerie Plame Wilson, he asserts,  was a “covert” CIA officer who repeatedly traveled overseas using a “cover identity” in order to disguise her relationship with the agency.

Fitzgerald has "finally resolved" the question simply by stating his opinion!  No defense brief has been filed, no judge has ruled, but Fitzgerald has spoken so it is time to move on.

[Let me break the flow with this UPDATE from a subsequent defense filing (p. 9):

The summary described above was provided to the defense along with a companion summary that defined a “covert” CIA employee as a “CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee.”4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines “covert agent” differently.

As I was saying.]

Oddly, the Newsweek headline writers seem to realize the absurdity of this by contributing a "Was She or Wasn't She?" hed, and the authors do manage to inject qualifiers later in the story, as here:

Fitzgerald  attempts to shoot down the idea that the agent's job was mostly analysis.

Patrick Fitzgerald is certainly entitled to his opinion - after all, Rep. Waxman expressed his opinion the last time the left declared "case closed" on her covert status, and yet somehow the case remained open.  As I noted at the time, Waxman quite clearly danced around the question of whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA rather than by the less exacting in-house CIA standard, and did not offer what I described as the magic words, to wit, "Ms. Plame had covert status under the law as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act".

So what was the opinion of CIA Counsel on Ms. Plame's status under the statute?  That would not be fully dispositive either, but it would certainly carry some weight.  Bob Novak followed up on this with various annoyed Republican Congressman, and wrote this on April 12:

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."

So as of April 2007 the CIA had not yet done the homework to form an opinion.

And now Patrick Fitzgerald joins in.  Let's present the entirety of the legal analysis offered in his latest filing (relax - I have the bandwidth, and you've got the time):

First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.

It was clear!  That was easy - gee, why can't the CIA figure it out lo these many years later?  Left unanswered - does "very early in the investigation" refer to the period before Fitzgerald came on?  Just who made this judgment, and on what basis?  Where is the homework?  Who knows?

Lets note some other Unsolved Mysteries - if it was so clear then

(a) why couldn't Fitzgerald make a clear statement of Ms. Plame's covert status in his much-dissected filing in the Miller appeal?  Byron York and Mark Kleiman puzzled over this when Isikoff and Hosenball jumped the gun a year ago.

(b) why wouldn't Fitzgerald save himself some legal tussling and introduce the "clear" evidence? Byron York describes the pre-trial maneuvering which eventually led to mystery trial in which neither side was allowed to discuss Ms. Plame's status.

My guess - Fitzgerald is an aggressive prosecutor and was comfortable moving full speed ahead on what looked to him to be a perjury/obstruction investigation.  For purposes of the Libby trial, he had what looked like a straightforward case which would scarcely be advanced by arguing the question of Ms. Plame's covert status; if he won Fitzgerald would be spared some verbal gymnastics and be able to speculate as to Libby's motive more easily.  But if he lost a key ruling on her covert status, the defense would spend the entire trial hammering the point that this was an investigation about nothing. 

Consequently, he ducked the issue in any forum when it might matter, such as the pre-trial filings.  However in a sentencing memorandum the prosecutor is expected to throw in everything, with special emphasis on the kitchen sink.

So, is Ms. Plame covert?  We now have the belated and uncontested opinion of a prosecutor who was unwilling to argue this point previously to add to the stack of unpersuasive opinions.  My official editorial position remains unchanged - we don't know, the legal work to be establish this has not been done, and we are not likely to find out.

Folks who think the prosecutor gets the first and final word will be satisfied with the current state of play.  For myself, I would at least like to see the defense response (Newsweek says we will get one this week) and I continue to hold out hope that the CIA Counsel will respond to Congress, which will then generate a leak to Novak, if he likes the answer, or to Newsweek otherwise.

MORE:  There are cogent arguments being offered from the left.  Let me cite Jeff (who occasionally graces us with his presence):

[Toensing's] argument is not that Plame was not covert, which I'm sure she'll somehow manage to keep claiming. Her argument has been that Fitzgerald and the investigators knew early on that Plame was not covert, and therefore IIPA could not even conceivably have been violated, and therefore the entire premise of the investigation was flawed and it should have been terminated immediately, thereby eliminating the very possibility of Libby committing the acts for which he has now been convicted and showing the inappropriateness of the whole thing.

But that is just simply wrong, we now can say with certainty. It is the premise of Toensing's argument that is simply wrong. Fitzgerald and the investigators became convinced early on that Plame was covert under IIPA, so the remaining questions were what the relevant actors knew about her status and what their intent was in disclosing classified information about her to reporters.

Good point, but - just how strong was the good faith determination that Ms. Plame was covered by the statute?  Did the DoJ run their opinion past CIA Counsel, or anyone?  Or did they calculate that it was in their interest to assume the statute was relevant and simply proceed, figuring they would do the work to justify charges under the statute only if more facts emerged to support a charge?  In his Oct 2005 press conference Fitzgerald did spend a lot of time on the improbable claim that investigators investigate facts, not statutes, and only open the statute books after the facts are in.  Made no sense, but that was his position then.  Now we are supposed to believe it was "clear from very early in the investigation", and presume they did the work to support it.  Work the CIA Counsel has yet to complete.  Hmm.

CHALLENGE ROUND:  Let me repeat a point I made last March -my seemingly-simple suggestion remains on the table and unaddressed - CIA pensions are adjusted (upwards!) for service overseas (statute). So, does Ms. Plame's final pension reflect any upward adjustments for service abroad in her last five years?  Surely Waxman can answer this question without giving away state secrets.

Let me help position the goalposts - the Other Tom has argued cogently and correctly in the comments to earlier posts that this would not be dispositive, since it would merely reflect CIA employee practice rather than the legislative intent of Congress when they passed the IIPA.  However, it would be helpful to see the definition of "service abroad" even in that context, and I bet a judge asked to rule on the applicability of the IIPA would have a similar question as to legal practice in other areas.

So although an answer to the pension question would not end the debate, it would shift the terms a bit.  Frankly, I would love to hear an earnest lefty explain why Ms. Plame qualified as covert despite not having received a bump in her pension for service abroad in the relevant time periods; as to how I might spin it, I'll jump off that bridge when I get to it.

So, all we lack is an  earnest lefty - surely Christy Hardin Smith or Marcy Wheeler can run this simple question past Joe and Valerie Wilson?  Dan Froomkin of the WaPo would be another candidate, since he identified the problem and called for more reporting last March.

And one other thing, sort of in the Trust But Verify subsection and it is terribly awkward to mention this, but - not many righties will actually take Joe Wilson's word for much of anything.  However, if he has documentation and can show it to someone credible (I nominate Jeralyn Merritt or Dan Froomkin), that would be wonderful.

I am curious to see whether I get crickets, bafflegab, or a useful answer.  Bets?

NOT FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT:  Glenn Greenwald has a disingenuous reply (pardon my redundancy) in an UPDATE IV which I will excerpt at length before it disappears behind the Salon Wall:

Reynolds also links to a post from Tom Maguire which is so self-evidently dishonest it is barely worth a reply. Maguire says he is still "unconvinced" that Plame was covert and that news reports confirming her covert status are merely based upon the belief that "when a prosecutor expresses an opinion in a sentencing memorandum, that is dispositive." That's just a deliberate falsehood.

Yesterday's story about Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert. That conclusion is consistent with the initial 2003 determination of the CIA that she was covert, the subsequent confirmation from the current CIA Director (handpicked by Bush and Cheney) that she was covert, which in turn was confirmed by Plame herself when testifying under oath, all of which led the Republican federal prosecutor to emphatically state this in court.

But even in the face of that conclusive evidence from multiple authoritative sources (all of which Maguire conceals from his readers by claiming it is all based on nothing more than "Fitzgerald's opinon"), Maguire still says the issue cannot be decided, presumably because Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Reynolds and Laura Ingraham say she was not covert and - hey! - who can say who is right? It's all still up in the air!

1.  As to "Plame's covert status is based upon the CIA's own internal documents which make clear she was covert", I have labored at length to point out that the CIA, in its own vernacular, uses "covert" and "classified" interchangeably without regard to the IIPA.  This was emphasized in my discussion of the Waxman hearing (linked above under "noted at the time") and is not a new point.  However, I did allude to it in the original post above by saying "Waxman quite clearly danced around the question of whether Ms. Plame was "covert" as defined by the IIPA rather than by the less exacting in-house CIA standard".  This semantic point - "covert" is used interchangeably with "classifed" by the CIA but is not consistent with "covert" as per the relavant statute - is simply not controversial, subtle, or new.  I also linked to a Dan Froomkin on-line chat (in the link under "my official editorial position") which said this:

Blacksburg, Va.: How can the question of Valerie Plame Wilson's status at the CIA (covert or not) finally be cleared up?

Dan Froomkin: Wouldn't that be nice? Fitzgerald tried to clear it up yesterday, stating quite definitively that her status was classified. Which means that while she technically may not have been covert by the standards of the IIPA, her identity as an operative was secret, and should not have been disclosed.

Given the continued debate over what is a fact, it would be nice if it were revisited journalistically and definitively.

Greenwald either has not followed the arguments or is lying.  Not exclusive choices, BTW.

2.  Greenwald wrote:

But even in the face of that conclusive evidence from multiple authoritative sources (all of which Maguire conceals from his readers by claiming it is all based on nothing more than "Fitzgerald's opinon")

Gee, I trust you guys to follow links on occasion if you doubt me.  Do you?

3.  More Greenwald:

Maguire still says the issue cannot be decided, presumably because Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Reynolds and Laura Ingraham say she was not covert and - hey! - who can say who is right? It's all still up in the air!

I write my talking points - got it?

Comments

[Cycloptichorn]

Lurker,
So...the more facts we surface, the more CY's comfortable side with facts and outcome is weakening. Either CY does not understand all of the facts or refuses to recognize the facts.

Wrongo. My side isn't weakening one bit, because Libby has already been convicted. My side has already prevailed in a court of law. There's nothing left to weaken. No amount of logical argument on your part will change the outcome. I'm sure that sucks for those who believe that Libby is guilty, but it's the way things have turned out.

I believe that the defense team has plenty of appeals points.

Like what? You can't appeal based on logical arguments, but only based upon some failure on Walton's part during the trial. I doubt they will be sucessful with such an appeal.

In addition, I highly doubt Libby will be able to stay out of jail while appealing. There's no real reason for Walton to let him do so; his situation is no different than any other defendant who has been found guilty of violating the law.

[Enlightened]

"My side has already prevailed in a court of law."

Where oh where did those Russert FBI notes go?

Oh wait - Missing evidence and docs apparently don't bother - your side.

Fake but Accurate - that's your motto and you're sticking to it.

And your so proud of convicting a man without all the facts.

[lurker9876]

Wrongo. My side isn't weakening one bit, because Libby has already been convicted. My side has already prevailed in a court of law. There's nothing left to weaken. No amount of logical argument on your part will change the outcome. I'm sure that sucks for those who believe that Libby is guilty, but it's the way things have turned out.

So what if Libby was convicted. It doesn't matter whether he was convicted or not. What matters is that Libby was not given a fair trial by jury. No, our argument won't change the outcome. Only the court system can.

There are plenty of appeals points that the defense team already has and can convince the Appeals court.

I don't care whether Libby spends time in jail as long as he is appealing. There are things that Walton failed to do with respect to the trial that are erroneous. Then there's the pardon.

He has not been proven to violate any laws. Fitz convinced the jury based on lack of evidence AND not reasonably beyond reasonable doubt.

[Jane]

And your so proud of convicting a man without all the facts.

That's the part that really bothers me - the complete pride in screwing someone. It does not bode well for our legal system.

[OnTheThirdRail]

In Fitzfong's sentencing addendum it says that the CIA declassified VP's cover status in Oct 2005... then why did he tell Walton during the trial that he had no idea whether VP was covert or not!

Sounds like he lied to a judge to me - which wouldn't be a first since he also lied to a judge in order to get him to compel Judith Miller to testify.

[Cycloptichorn]

Fitz convinced the jury based on lack of evidence AND not reasonably beyond reasonable doubt.

He must be a better lawyer than I thought.

[Sara]

He must be a better lawyer than I thought.

No, just a better liar.

[Enlightened]

Hmmm- Lying to a faux grand jury is criminal, lying to a judge is good lawyering.

I wonder what an appelate court thinks about lying to judges - oh wait - this will probably just get sent to the 9th circuit, so forget about an appeal or the truth ever really coming out.

[Seixon]

After reading Robert Baer's book See No Evil, I think I know what the meaning of "served abroad" means quite well, and it's not a little jet trip for the weekend.

Robert Baer served abroad, meaning he was in different posts in different countries for months or years at a time.

Taking a plane to Europe to chit chat with some people and then return home is not "serving" abroad.

Larry Johnson has been hiding behind the fact that covert means the same thing as secret, dancing around the IIPA just like Waxman did.

It seems also that Larry Johnson has been privy to secret information this whole time, because talking points he had many months ago were just now revealed by the brief CIA history on Plame released today.

Johnson's been saying for months that the CIA will only acknowledge that she's been with the agency since January 2002. I always asked him to qualify that statement, since it seemed to come out of no where. He never did. But now it was part of the CIA's brief on Plame's history with them. Hmmmm.

[Deagle]

It's really good to get back into the Plame Blame Game... I side with Tom's reasonable debate, and enjoy his rational conflict resolution. Can NOT say the same for others.

[topsecretk9]

Seixon

--Johnson's been saying for months that the CIA will only acknowledge that she's been with the agency since January 2002. I always asked him to qualify that statement, since it seemed to come out of no where. He never did. But now it was part of the CIA's brief on Plame's history with them. Hmmmm.--

I suspect this is why he received his "shut your damn mouth" note from the CIA just after covertiness Plame was at the hearing.

[Enlightened]

"Johnson's been saying for months that the CIA will only acknowledge that she's been with the agency since January 2002."

Hmmm. Do you know if Johnson has been saying Valerie Plame would be acknowledged or Valerie Wilson?

I wonder if she kept her maiden name after she married Wilson, and was on the CIA payroll as Valerie Plame.

Then, suddenly on or about Jan 2002 her name changes to Valerie Wilson - covert agent.

And in February Joey boy is being sent to Niger.

To me there is an obvious attempt to disconnect the one (V Plame) from the other (V Wilson) by the CIA and by Fitzgerald.

[BCrago66]

How dare you challenge the integrity of Glenn Greenwald!

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog...um...from his blog on the senate floor!

Rick Ellensburg

[BCrago66]

How dare you challenge the integrity of Glenn Greenwald!

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog...um...from his blog on the senate floor!

Rick Ellensburg

[Maybeex]

Fitzgerald used the Jan 2002 date in most of his filings about her employment. I never knew why, but now I see that's what the CIA will admit to.

Englightened- I'm no truster of Fitzgerald, but I'm not seeing any fancy tricks with the use of her name.
I can see his assertion falling apart on her lack of overseas posting or the CIA's affirmative steps to protect her identity. I don't think calling her one name or another makes a difference.

[lurker9876]

OH, Tom just got infiltrated by sockpuppetry!!

[maryrose]

CY,
Sorry about your eye.
Just a quick observation. The lack of evidence provided to Libby [his notes et al will fuel his appeal case. He won't do jail time and I know the Left will be disappointed in that. Everyone knows this was a witch hunt from the get-go. Fitz is a zealot who believed Val was covert-she was not. He'll not get Cheney-ever-so get over yourself...

[lurker9876]

Jan. 2002 must be her return to work from her extended leave of absence.

[PeterUK.]

"Libby kept telling the Grand Jury that he needs his notes with him in order to answer the questions more accurately. They wouldn't let him have access to his notes."

"Made False Statements and committed Perjury."

The US justice system turning into the "Central Committee of the Albanian Sludge Farmers" again.

"How dare you challenge the integrity of Glenn Greenwald!"

The "Boys from Brazil".

[anduril]

seixon:

Taking a plane to Europe to chit chat with some people and then return home is not "serving" abroad.

Precisely. The article at AT quotes Toensing:

Victoria Toensing is the attorney who drafted the IIPA. She, too, testified before Waxman's committee, and she had handy the Senate Report on the IIPA, that spelled out what the Act was intended to cover. Referring to page 16 of the Senate Report Toensing stated (under oath): "Notably, the legislation limited coverage of U.S. citizen informants or sources (agents) also to situations where they "reside and act outside the United States." Toensing then quoted Joe Wilson's (self) absorbing autobiography to show that Plame had returned to the US in 1997 and had never "resided and acted" overseas again.

Note: Toensing is quoting the Senate Report directly where it says "reside and act." Not "reside and/or act." "Reside" is mandatory for qualification under the IIPA. Nobody should care what CIA Speak is--it's IIPA Speak that matters. The Agency lawyers who drafted that Summary are simply lying sacks of s**t. They can read the Senate Report and the Act itself as well as anyone else, and since the IIPA was drafted precisely with the Agency in mind, as a result of Agency resulted problems, it should be a significant part of their basic training as Agency lawyers. There's no way around it: they're lying. Sure they'll say they were using their own Agency vernacular, but no sane person can doubt their intent to deceive.

Seixon

--Johnson's been saying for months that the CIA will only acknowledge that she's been with the agency since January 2002. I always asked him to qualify that statement, since it seemed to come out of no where. He never did. But now it was part of the CIA's brief on Plame's history with them. Hmmmm.--

I have no idea what that's about. If you look at the Summary:

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

they're obviously not denying that she worked for the Agency prior to 1 January 2002. They just say where she was as of that date, with no explanation for selecting that date as a cutoff. When you think about it, she couldn't have come on board as an operations officer assigned to the "Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq." That wouldn't be credible.

[hoosierhoops]

Yes Jane..this was a political show trial..
I worry about that...
Let me repeat what i have said before..again and again.
You never ever ever lie to prosecutors or any legal entities..period amen.
If you can't remember then say that..
but you never misrepresent the facts in the case..I really don't care if Plame was CIA, DOD, undercover or just a lowly civil servant. This goes for all of us my friends..Don't believe me? Try it some time in your town and see where it gets you.
Still, unfortunately..this was a political show trial and I feel bad for Libby that he got caught up in it..He is a damn good man that served our gov't with honor..it is a real shame this was blown out of proportion.

[Maybeex]

Jan. 2002 must be her return to work from her extended leave of absence.

It's hard to know. When were the twins born?
I always assumed they went with Jan 2002 because that's right before she suggested Joe for the job, although that could be after her maternity leave. According to Hubris, she started in the CPD in 1997.

[OnTheThirdRail]

Reading Fitz's sentence filing:

"First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press."

What... now this is ridiculous. I am thinking now that either Fitz has an evil twin that writes his filings or he has MPD. He said in court that he didn't know whether she was covert or not. If I was Walton I would be throwing a "Fitz" right now because he got bamboozled!

[lurker9876]

Yes Jane..this was a political show trial.. I worry about that... Let me repeat what i have said before..again and again. You never ever ever lie to prosecutors or any legal entities..period amen. If you can't remember then say that.. but you never misrepresent the facts in the case..I really don't care if Plame was CIA, DOD, undercover or just a lowly civil servant. This goes for all of us my friends..Don't believe me? Try it some time in your town and see where it gets you. Still, unfortunately..this was a political show trial and I feel bad for Libby that he got caught up in it..He is a damn good man that served our gov't with honor..it is a real shame this was blown out of proportion.

That's just it. Libby kept saying he couldn't remember but Fitz kept badgering him under undue pressure according to the 8 hour GJ testimony. Also, imagine being interrogated for 8 hours.

Guess Libby just couldn't say it in any way, shape, and form numerous times but it wasn't enough for Fitz.

[Maybeex]

He said in court that he didn't know whether she was covert or not.

Did Fitzgerald say he didn't know?

[Other Tom]

Cycloptetc.--First, I think it has now been established beyond even the wildest dreams of the most hashish-enhanced flowermoonbats that Cheney did nothing wrong in the criminal sense. (As to whether he did something wrong in the eyes of his critics, who cares? He got elected twice, and they'll have to stew in their own juice on that one.) When you have a special counsel with a laser-like focus on you for three years and you don't even get a whiff of an indictment, you are only a wrongdoer out there in psylocibinland.

Second, and on an actually serious matter. I begin with the understanding that matters are admissible at sentencing hearings that are not even close to being admissible at trial. Libby's mother, I assume, could take the stand and swear that Scooter was always a good boy. But I also assume that she would have to say so under oath, and that if she did so Fitz could ask her whether it was true that Scooter used to do it with goats out behind the barn.

That much is (I think) a given. What is troubling to me is the unsworn and unexamined stuff. Can that come in for sentencing?

By the way, I don't doubt that Libby is guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. I think it is far less serious than the crime for which Sandy Berger suffers few consequences, and far less serious than Marc Rich's flight from justice. I assume he's guilty, and I hope he gets pardoned. And I hope that the pardon pisses the loonies off so bad they come busting out of their tie-dyes.

[topsecretk9]

"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent," Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed.

anduril
I'm sure you noticed that both an Insty emailer and Instapundit both referred to Fitzgerald's "lame" investigation and as Fitzgerald as "lame"

Kaus says - 3 times and it's a trend!

[Sara]

OTTR - How 'bout a little legal fantasy? Walton is so steamed when he realizes what a fool Fitz made of him, he overturns the jury's verdict and throws Fitz in jail instead. LOL.

[Dale in Atlanta]

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

What the CIA and Fitz-magoo here are doing, are playing a very Clintonian parsing of words and Meanings, to come up with the broadest definition of "covert", in order to nail Libby, and provide Fitz with "cover" to do so!

I've been reading this blog for over a year, and do comment on occasion, but not that much.

Anyway, this is something I don't see any of you commenting upon, so I'm assuming either you don't know, or you've missed the significance of it, regarding this case.

Anyway, the fact that I am telling you this, indicates that I have let on I actually know a little bit about the CIA, and have in fact, in the past been inside the building a couple dozen times!

So, enough said on that.

Bottomline, the CIA with this finding or whatever, that Plame was "covert" and that Fitz is trying to exploit and the Leftist Lunar Chiroptera are using to betray their Ingnorace, is the fact from the quote above, Plame worked in the CPD, Counter Proliferation Division.

The Counter Proliferation Division, is part of the old Directorate of Operations (also mentioned above, which has no significance to most of you), but which has since been renamed the past two years as the "National Clandestine Office".

There are other "Directorates" inside the CIA, but the major two, were/are: the Directorate of Intelligence, and the Directorate of Operations (NCS now)!

The Directorate of Intelligence is pretty self-explainatory; that's all the desk analysts, country experts, etc.

The former Directorate of "Ops", that was the "sexy" Directorate, all the budding/imitation/wannabe "James Bond" types go there!

It's main functions were things like: da da...Counterproliferation, Covert Action, and Collection!

In other words, they were the "Operators", the "Action" people; and the DOI people are the bookworms and the analytical weenies!

Anyway, this whole thing boils down to the fact that IF you were/are a DOI person, the CIA really doesn't care if anyone knows who you are, or that you work for them; you just can't obviously disclose classified information, and you wouldn't want to take out a fullpage ad in the WaPo, saying you work for them!

Ah, but the old DOO weenies, what we called in the military the wannabe "snake-eaters"; guys who thought they were a combination of Arnuld, Rambo, Tarzan, James Bond, all in one!

I knew dozens of "Ops" guys; on an individual basis, not bad guys, a lot of former Marines, some of whom I knew real well!

But, if you were in "Ops"; NO ONE WAS SUPPOSED TO KNOW!

It was an institutional mindset, and I'm not knocking that, there's obviously good reason for their identities not being "public".

I knew two friends from the Crops, for years; hell, both of them were in my sword arch at my wedding, they left the Corps, and both joined DOO together, and "disappeared".

Whenever we'd hook up, or talk, or later on have a beer together, I KNEW, and they KNEW that I KNEW that they were in the DOO, we all KNEW; but they'd never SAY they were DOO!

Just weren't supposed to "say" or confirm it!

Anyway, that's why the CIA is now pulling this crap, with this UNCLAS "memo" saying that Plame was "covert"; it's based solely on the fact that she was a member of the Directorate of Ops, nothing more, nothing less!

There is NO LAW, saying that ALL members of DOO are "covert" or "classified", and that their identities MUST be protected at all costs!

Nothing at all; it's just an internal CIA thing!

Since Plame was riding a desk, in OPS; the CIA is "fudging", and pretending she's covered by this, but their completely ignoring the FACT that a0 according to the IIPA she was NOT "cover" nor "classified" in any way b) she had been specifically recalled from NOC/overseas on purpose, because her cover had been blown first by a Russian agent, then by our own State Department to the Swiss and the Cubans c) she had no Offical DOO postings overseas within the previous 5 years, so she didn't fit the LEGAL definition of "covert" anyhow....

So, that's the genesis of this bullshit by the CIA, they're pulling a Clinton, and defining the definition of "is"; and it's a fraud; doesn't matter if it's internal CIA "policy"; her identity, and billet, were NOT protected by law, or act, and her and lying Leftist Husband, sought to undermine a President and US Foregin Policy, and I hope that eventually, they are prosecuted not only as they deserve, but as a message that as a GS-14 weenie, and a wash-up former no-account broke-dick Ambassador to third world countries, YOU don't get to decide US Foreign Policy!

[anduril]

anduril
I'm sure you noticed that both an Insty emailer and Instapundit both referred to Fitzgerald's "lame" investigation and as Fitzgerald as "lame"

Kaus says - 3 times and it's a trend!

Posted by: topsecretk9 | May 30, 2007 at 10:27 PM

TSK9, nothing personal, I was just trying to make a point. "Lame" sounds so, well, "tame!" Doesn't fit the case--although I'd risk being banned if I used the appropriate lingo. I guess I was reacting to some of the conservatives out there who have taken a casual attitude toward this case. Me, I'm with those who see this as a horrible precedent in both political and legal life in this country--a frame-up in plain view and the people who should be the guardians of the common weal are, by and large, saying nothing.

[anduril]

BTW, TSK9, Kaus really disappoints me on this. I would have expected he'd be one of those principled liberals who'd be all over this outrage. I know he has his own pet interests, but he's usually fairly acute on legal matters.

[topsecretk9]

On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.

they're obviously not denying that she worked for the Agency prior to 1 January 2002. They just say where she was as of that date, with no explanation for selecting that date as a cutoff. When you think about it, she couldn't have come on board as an operations officer assigned to the "Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq." That wouldn't be credible.

according to open source-
• They lived together at the Watergate before they were married

• They were married April 1998

• He was at the NSC from 1997 to 1998 - retired July 1998

• Twins born January 2000

• Returned to work in the spring of 2001, she is back in "CPD's modest Iraq branch". (Hubris)

And Maybee
You will appreciate this - with the new info out

"Rather, Plame said, the idea was proposed by another officer in her division. She said her only role was to ask her husband whether he would be interested.

"I was somewhat ambivalent at the time," Plame said. "We had 2-year-old twins at home, and all I could envision was me by myself at bedtime with a couple of 2-year-olds."

[TXMom]

"and I hope that eventually, they are prosecuted not only as they deserve, but as a message that as a GS-14 weenie, and a wash-up former no-account broke-dick Ambassador to third world countries, YOU don't get to decide US Foreign Policy!"

I hope and pray this happens Dale. I truly do because otherwise our rule of law will become a joke and all of us will suffer because of the misuse of "justice" in this country.

[SMGalbraith]

Quick off-topic palate cleanser.

Brilliant (but lengthy) piece by Paul Berman on Tariq Ramadan and the European liberal/left's response to radical Islam (Link).

Hirsi Ali fans will definitely want to read this.

SMG

[topsecretk9]

-anduril -

I did NOT take any offense, I was just being silly. I did see Kaus on blogging-heads in the last few months say that Wilson was just a blowhard (Robert Right too!) so I think the whole thing bores him and he's pretty much ribbed Kristoff to pieces on his disingenuousness and dissembling too...imagine Kaus's hate mail from his side of the isle when he dares to say anything remotely off Townhouse sanctioned talking points...the Townhouse Greenwald culties can be brutal.

[Maybeex]

You know, Dale, I actually appreciate the CIA's institutional desire to protect its sensitive employees. I can see how they might have been upset to see a CPD employee's name in print, and how that would have frightened other employees.

My problem is (well, one of them is) that they were involved with this situation as it was unfolding. They seem to have done nothing to stop it.
I would love to know if the CIA ever told Valerie her husband was drawing unwanted attention to her and her department.

I mean, how about the guy that talked to Grenier? Did he walk over to her desk and tell her she was playing a dangerous game?

[Other Tom]

OK, unforgivably off-topic once again, but once again utterly essential. I am speaking, of course, of the following link to part seven of the matchless, absolutely essential, ten-part IBD series on the whey-faced carbuncle Carter. Here it is:

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=265417967242140

Enjoy to the fullest. Bequeath it to your children, and to your children's children.

[RichatUF]

from tsk9...

...Man...if there is any truth to Seymour H's article -- the forgeries were the job of the VIPpers and Valerie's little reference to "last go around" and the "IC is STILL wondering" and the shear desperation of her trying to get government people involved and on board, I'm starting to think Wilson's trip was to debunk the forgeries - only to save their own and their partner VIP's asses for having put them there...

Truth in a Sy Hersch article, that is a big "if"...also, Hitchen's makes the point the best-why counterfeit a worthless bill? If Plame and Wilson were trying to debunk the forgeries, then why wait, and hell the IC had just been punched in the gut with 9/11 and the anthrax attack [remember that went down when the first set of Niger documents showed up, and the anthrax attack fit well into the Clinton "strategic crime" thesis that the CIA supposedly worried about all through the 1990's].

The WMD case was one part of a larger argument: as the DOE analyst said, "...the administration will look foolish-the tubes and Niger..." Funny, Plame-Wilson was involved in both...

also ...the shear desperation of her trying to get government people

Don't forget that Joe Wilson was making phone calls too: Walter Kansteiner comes to mind; I think Wilson puffs this up in his book

RichatUF

[Maybeex]

Yeah, tops, I saw that. When I scoffed at it and said it showed what a liar Plame is, Jeff told me I was being really really nasty.

Plame/Wilson had to act like he didn't want to go for 2 reasons:
1- so that elevated the importance of the mission, and also the degree of interest the VP had in it.
and
2- to distract people from the fact that yeah, maybe there was a reason to bring his wife into it, even if accidentally. He needed her to not have been involved so that her outing was strictly for revenge.

So not only did she not suggest or recommend him, she was really against his going. He sacrificed their familial happiness for this trip the VP begged him to go on, and look what the VP did to him in return!

What a ruse. He should have just told his story about the yellow cake and been done with it.

[RichatUF]

Dale in Atlanta says...

...What the CIA and Fitz-magoo here are doing, are playing a very Clintonian parsing of words and Meanings, to come up with the broadest definition of "covert", in order to nail Libby, and provide Fitz with "cover" to do so!

I've been reading this blog for over a year, and do comment on occasion, but not that much.

Anyway, this is something I don't see any of you commenting upon, so I'm assuming either you don't know, or you've missed the significance of it, regarding this case...

Its been mentioned, even in this thread. Silly isn't: Valerie Plame, Valerie Wilson, and Valerie Plame-Wilson all the same person, but in Fitzlaw, naming one isn't naming the other. I wonder how much NBC paid for their decoder rings

RichatUF

[topsecretk9]

I get the feeling...

from Posted by: Dale in Atlanta | May 30, 2007 at 10:35 PM

...That Plame had no regard what -so -ever for her colleagues and felt that she and her husband were better, smarter and more deserving than the grunt marines types who didn't get Hermes ties and manicures and other fine people who weren't french mongers.

(and Oy Vey if those stupid people happen to be jewish! Wilson says they are parasites - Jews that is)

[Dale in Atlanta]

RichatUF: sorry, I try to read every comment, but you all are so into the minutia sometimes, stuff that I am just amazed that you know, that I miss somethings...

[RichatUF]

Dale in Atlanta...

I wasn't trying to get cheeky. Check the old threads for the Russert testimony-in response to one of defense's questions, his response was: 'I did not name her'

Drive a truck (or maybe a late model Jaguar) through that...it is interesting that this has the feel of the "it dedends on what the meaning of is, is"

tsk9 says...

...that Plame had no regard what -so -ever for her colleagues and felt that she and her husband were better, smarter and more deserving than the grunt marines types...

This was the same reasoning that Hannsen and Ames used-"the smartest guy in the room" problem

RichatUF

[RichatUF]

tsk9 says...

...Oy Vey if those stupid people happen to be jewish...

Hum...the Israeli election was May 15 1999

Clinton's "new toy" meets in Washington with the Administration to get those 'peace talks' back on track

RichatUF

[topsecretk9]

Rich
--This was the same reasoning that Hannsen and Ames used-"the smartest guy in the room" problem--

True that...Ames was pissed when Reagan increased the budget in order to hire more FRESH people - Bush did this too, I think.

[clarice]

I believe on Wilson's part (and Plame's) their motivation was largely to advance their political interests by helping Kerry.
This latest crap filing on covert underscores my earlier belief that Plame was working with some people in the CIA who were illegally meddling in domestic politics. Whoever wrote that memo was being utterly disingenuous..It is undated so we have no idea when it was prepared, but I assume it was done in connection with the referral. And by know most of us know what an utter crock it is. Until the Waxman xommittee hearings when the CIA was called on this "covert" tap-dancem, however, it provided cover for the political harassment of the WH. I would not be surprised if it wasn't also passed up to the Ct of Appeals in the Miller case and found its way at least in summary form to the grand jury in the Libby case.

Sometime before I die, I want to know the names opf the assholes behind this. And I surely want them to pay the price for their perfidy and the ruination of a decent patriotic man.

[clarice]

Sorry--for all the typos--It's late and I'm packing to go home:

Should read:"And by now most of us know what an utter crock it is. Until the Waxman committee hearings when the CIA was called on this "covert" tap-dance, however..."

[SlimGuy]

The part that bothers me, is there are people out there, and most know who they are, that are sitting on the info that can connect all the dots and they are not coming forward.

It's not just the sins of commission here, but also the sins of omission.

It is easy to deduce many who have the info locked up that could clear a lot of this up and have totally allowed this to go forward and still are in placements where they were to begin with.

Analysis of the pieces available is fine, but it is not hard to tell who likely has the rest and they should be pressured to come forward or taken out of the marketplace of influential positions.

[SlimGuy]

People are run off nationally syndicated radio shows because of badly formed interactive remarks that cross the line, but those who with malice and forethought with much advance preparation time purposefully throw ethics out the door and their is not a sense of backlash.

If as a country we ignore this lack of moral grounding and just accept it as part of the status quo, then the punishment will fit offense.

Myself I would hope for a different path.

[Jane]

So I want to know if typepad is targeting me for my general bitchiness about the left these days or for some other reason.

And have you guys read Pat Dollard re: Iran and the build-up of our troops just offshore? If so, what are your thoughts. (I'm not even going to try for a link because that is when typepad started rebelling).

[DouglasS]

Hmm, let's see. Hayden. Appointed by the Bush administration. Said Plame was covert. Fitzgerald. Appointed by the Bush administration. Said Plame was covert.

Tom, I think I see your point: Bush appointees can't be trusted.

I think I see your other point: outing a covert agent should be considered proper behavior unless an IIPA conviction is achieved.

Similarly, we know that OJ Simpson's behavior was proper. After all, he wasn't convicted either.

[Enlightened]

"Similarly, we know that OJ Simpson's behavior was proper. After all, he wasn't convicted either."

No actually what we learned from the Simpson case is that Juries are indeed biased when presented with prejudicial opinion as fact.

[DouglasS]

"[people who treat] prejudicial opinion as fact"

Sounds like you're talking about youself and your pals here. Here's a simple example. We're often told that she drove to Langley every day. Really? I've never seen proof of this. Have you?

We're also told (by implication) that no covert agents have ever done such a thing. Really? I've never seen proof of this. Have you?

Here's another example of presenting "prejudicial opinion as fact:" your implied claim that Fitz did such a thing.

[topsecretk9]

I just found this funky site - The Memory Hole...also has the reports

>>> This heavily redacted list shows the closed investigations conducted by the CIA Inspector General from the beginning of 1997 to October 2004. It was obtained by researcher Michael Ravnitzky via FOIA.

Material - such as the closing memo or final report - on any closed investigation can be requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

Recurring themes include mishandling of classified material or information, child pornography, theft or misuse of government funds, fraud, retaliation, impersonation, mishandling of weapons, misuse of government computers and phones, conflict of interest, etc. (Keep in mind that the CIA IG, like all investigative bodies, investigates allegations which may or may not turn out be true.) Some of the more intriguing investigations listed:

Lying to Congress - Allegations [redacted] (3/10/1997)
CIA Activities in the Honduras in the 1980s (3/24/1998)
Alleged CIA Experiment on Brain (4/1/1998)
Misleading Congress on Human Rights Abusers (11/23/1998)
Allegations of Biological Experiments in Viet Nam (1/14/1999)
CIA-Contra Cocaine Connection (1/19/1999)*
[redacted] Allegations of Drug Trafficking (3/22/1999)
Wrongful Death of Former CIA Officer (9/15/1999)
Missing Hand Grenades [redacted] (date redacted)
Dumping Hazardous Material into Potomac at CIA HQ (2/9/2000)
Unspecified Iran-Contra Allegations [redacted] (2/22/2000)
Bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade (3/2/2000)
Allegation of Misleading Congress (11/17/2000)
Unclassified Network Intrusion (2/27/2001)
Omission of Facts From Official [redacted] Reports (4/25/2001)
Possible Propaganda Using Agency Employees [sic] Names (6/27/2001)
Alleged Concealment of Terrorist Related Information (9/25/2002)
Allegation of CIA Involvement [redacted] (2/4/2003)
... Claim of Anti-Military Sentiment at CIA (2/6/2003)
Possible Compromise of a CIA Program (5/13/2003)
Alleged Failure to Timely Exploit Terrorist-Related Information (5/16/2003)
Alleged [redacted] Pedophile (5/20/2003)
Weapons Shipment Incident (9/30/2003)
Unauthorized Interrogation Techniques (4/12/2004)
Potential Unlawful Raid on Premises [redacted] (6/14/2004)
Deadly Force Incident in Iraq (7/1/2004)
Allegation of Abuse by Iraqi Female Detainee (7/8/2004)
Allegations of Questionable Intelligence Activity (9/3/2004)

[JM Hanes]

tsk9:

Do you find the "Allegation of CIA Involvement [redacted] (2/4/2003)" as intriguing as I do?

[hoosierhoops]

So it goes in a case brought by an unaccountable prosecutor now requesting an unreasonable penalty based on evidence he never introduced at trial. This is America?
Editorial WSJ this Am..

Wish I had said that....

[psmatatoes]

hey, the evil librul msm is perpetuating the myth of valerie plame's non-covert status again:

1. Valerie Plame wasn't a covert operative.

Wrong. She was.

Granted, this wasn't so clear at the start of Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation, so Libby's allies argued that the beans he spilled weren't that important to begin with. In fact, many of the officials who knew about her classified CIA status kept mum, which let Libby's pals jump to assert that she wasn't an undercover operative at the time of the leak.

But a CIA "unclassified summary" of Plame's career, released in court filings before Libby's June 5 sentencing, puts this one to rest: The CIA considered her covert at the time her identity was leaked to the media. The CIA report said that Plame had worked overseas in the previous five years and that the agency had been taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her CIA employment. That echoes the language used in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to reveal the identities of covert CIA officers.

When Libby was convicted, some conservative pundits complained that Fitzgerald had presented no compelling evidence at trial that Plame was covert. But that wasn't for lack of evidence; it was because Libby's lawyers convinced the court to bar any mention of her status during the trial, arguing that evidence suggesting that her job was classified would have been "unfairly prejudicial" to their client.

The CIA isn't famous for its clarity, but it's being pretty blunt on this issue: Langley says she was covert. Which other spook bureaucracy do you need to ask?

[cathyf]

psmatatoes -- there is a whole thread on this: Plame Mythbusters

[battery]

I think its perfect. But my opinion is still you need to think on your comment.

[sophy]

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy runescape .

[LOTRO Gold]

When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!