*****NOW WITH MORE RIGHT-WING HATEFULNESS******
The big news on the left-leaning sites tonight is that according to a declassified Fitzgerald attachment to a sentencing request regarding Scooter Libby’s convictions, Valerie Plame was ‘covert’ according to the CIA at the time her information was leaked. This was not a part of the case under which Libby was tried, which makes it interesting and suspect that it would be included in the penalty phase, since it is not something that Libby had a chance to address at trial, and the pertinent case law makes it clear that one would have to prove that the suspect knowingly gave away classified information in order to be convicted for the offense of so doing. What we have, then is a prosecutor’s redaction of CIA internal employment records.
Much mud is being tossed at Victoria Toensing, predictably, as a result of the document, without considering that Toensing was describing Plame’s status as a matter of law and with reference to the intended effect of the legislation regarding the unauthorized revelation of an agent’s covert status. Certainly, what was NOT intended is that such a status ought to provide a legal shield for agents who knowingly undertake a disinformation campaign aimed at discrediting an administration that prevents the administration from attempting to set the record straight. For those who are touting this attachment seem not to be able to counter the evidence that apparently proves that Plame perjured herself in her testimony before Congress regarding her role in the assignment of her husband to Niger to investigate information suggesting that Saddam Hussein’s regime had attempted to acquire uranium there.
The attachment makes it clear that the CIA determined that it was more important for the commonweal to pursue a prosecution regarding the leak of Plame’s connection with the CIA than it is to make sure that agents are providing true testimony to Congress and the American people. And the left thinks that’s just wonderful.
UPDATE: Al Johnson at The American Thinker:
But there’s good and bad news in all of this. The good news is this: there’s no need to worry. The fact of the matter is that, contrary to what the Summary states, Plame wasn’t really “covert” for purposes of the IIPA when she was working at the CPD, nor was the CIA taking any particular measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. That was just a story they made up to help Fitzgerald nail a high level neocon–so there’s hope that the CIA’s “tradecraft” isn’t that bad. As Andrea Mitchell stated, “everyone” knew that Plame was CIA. And there’s more. 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.
So, what’s the bad news? Well, the bad news is that some one is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If this information is so readily available, count on it, Fitzgerald and the CIA lawyers all knew it, too. But they don’t want you to know that there are people out there–people with real power and influence who are sworn to do justice and uphold the law–who are willing to frame a political opponent and send him to jail. That’s really bad news.
More from Maguire: 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.
This is getting beyond belief, Fitzgerald is asking that Libby be sentenced for outing Plame even though he wasn’t convicted of it and it is obvious he didn’t do it? Am I fucking reading this right?
you right wing pukes are getting funnier and funnier in your pathetic desperation .
When only some of you with any modicum of brain function are not completely brainwashed by Rush, Rove and the likes still desperately trying to cover and excuse all the lies and smears the country suffered in the last 6 years, not to mention needlessly wasted lives of US soldiers and “liberated ‘ Iraqis
B Moe – You are reading it right. It makes little to no sense. Not a lick of fuckin’ sense.
sashal – Where did your talking points come from. Predictable and unoriginal is no way to go through life.
I think this was determined well before Valerie Plame’s name was leaked.
She was probably covert at one time, although just weeks away from taking a personnel job.
From the way people at the CIA acted, it is difficult for me to believe anyone took her covert status seriously by that point.
She told her boyfriend on their 3rd date (while he was still married) of her CIA employment.
The CIA thought her identity had been leaked in 1997.
The officials that told Libby that she was CIA didn’t mention her status was classified. (if they really did tell Libby anything)
Harlow, the CIA spokesman, confirmed her CIA employment to Novak even after Plame had supposedly warned him Novak would be calling the CIA.
Finally, Plame herself didn’t tell the State Dept people that she was classified/covert when she introduced her husband at the meeting she convened.
If she was truly covert and the CIA wanted her protected, it is a darned shame the CIA was so sloppy with information about her.
If any one of them- including Plame herself- had said at the time that her employment was classified/covert, we could have a very different story right now.
Under oath, Toensing admitted that she didn’t know Plame’s status.
REP. WATSON: No. Reclaiming my time, because this is being timed and members do have to leave.
Did you receive any information directly from the CIA or Ms. Wilson that support your assertion that Ms. Wilson was not a cover officer?
MS. TOENSING: I didn’t talk to Ms. Wilson or the CIA.
REP. WATSON: Okay. And do you have any information about the nature of Ms. Wilson’s employment status that director Hayden and Ms. Wilson don’t have?
MS. TOENSING: I have no idea.
During Watergate and the Plumbers, the cool thing was to joke about what a bunch of imcompetent clowns and douchebags the CIA was, but we all figured we were just joking. Now? Not so sure. It certainly isn’t funny to think of this bunch of renegades and yahoos getting a pass from the media.
Fitzgerald is asking that Libby be sentenced for outing Plame
Try again.
Why don’t you quote the transcript where she admitted that?
Harlow, the CIA spokesman, confirmed her CIA employment to Novak
Harlow also told Nofacts that shw was covert
Do you really have no idea how idiotic that statement is?
Why don’t you quote the transcript where she admitted that?
I just did.
Do you really have no idea how idiotic that statement is?
OK, he told Nofacts not to use her name:
White House Effort To Discredit Critic
Examined in Detail
By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069.html
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson’s wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak’s call, he checked Plame’s status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame’s name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
Oh, so he told Novak she worked for the CIA, but he couldn’t tell her she was covert because that was classified. Well, hell, that makes perfect sense.
Certainly, what was NOT intended is that such a status ought to provide a legal shield for agents who knowingly undertake a disinformation campaign
Irrelevant and false.
Delusion. Self Deception. Hyperparsing. All in the name of avoiding what everyone else already knows. Or to avoid that ole bugaboo cognitive dissonance.
Good to see someone is still keeping up the fight. I’d be a little worried if there weren’t people still gullible enough to believe Fitz headed a partisan witch hunt. I mean, who else is going to believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? And a post war plan that exists somewhere besides powerpoint presentations.
I’m highly skeptical that someone the press knew to be Wilson’s hubby and who had her cover blown by Aldrich Ames was covert, at least by the definition people generally use.
Was she working in a secret operation? Yes, but the Turkish intelligence service had already blown that cover in 2001. She was known to work for the CIA by the press, how exactly covert is that?
Just because I haven’t pissed in a fan yet tonight: Toesing was testifying regarding the strict definition of covert in regards to the applicable laws, laws she had drafted. The CIA obviously has its own definition of covert, which many of us regard as rather unique and quite curious. For Fitzgerald to pull out newly released CIA documentation that had nothing to do with the charges, trial or conviction of Libby, and use them to try to justify harsher sentencing seems a bit suspicous to me.
That is not an argument, steve. Care to try to explain that?
So when is someone going to get charged with outing Plame, heet?
Don’t be coy. You know why, superguy.
No, you didn’t. Read the question Toensing was answering again.
She is not saying that she doesn’t know what Plame’s status was. She’s saying she has no idea whether she has information that Hayden and Plame don’t have, which is an appropriate answer to a fairly stupid question.
After all, where did
Dick CheneyKarl RoveScooter libby get that information he leaked in the Grand Outing? Or something. I’m sure they totally slipped it to Toensing in support of the vast right wing noise machine.Richard Armitage, right? It’s a good question, heet. Don’t be coy.
So a super-secret agent bravely protecting the country from a fascist take-over gets brazenly outed, risking the lives of her entire family, and all you clowns can get out of it is a perjury conviction of a second rate political hack? Shit, boy, we did better than that with nothing to work with but a damn blow-job! You suck harder than Monica, dude.
That is not an argument, steve. Care to try to explain that?
The law doesn’t say anything about what the underciver agent may or may nothave done.
So he was convicted for not remembering about telling the truth about Wilson lying. He was not even charged with “outing” Plame, presumbly because she was either previously outed, not in a status where she could be outed, or the case for same did not meet the legal requirements. But now, they want to toss in the “outing” claim in the sentencing for not remembering telling the truth about Wilson lying. Brilliant.
Toesing was testifying regarding the strict definition of covert in regards to the applicable laws, laws she had drafted.
And the Hannity whore didn’t KNOW Plame’s status.
PABLO –
Before that, Toensing stated that she had received no information about Plame’s status from either the CIA or Plame.
She knew Plame’s status UNDER THE FUCKING LAW, which is all that mattered. Whether or not she was considered covert in the bizzaro language of the CIA doesn’t matter if it is not the same as THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Like it is apparent to anyone reading your interpretation of Toesing’s testimony above that you are a FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE MORON, but you probably would manage to avoid that as a legal description.
Alright, steve, explain to all of us the various necessary components required to prove a violation of the law in question. This should be quite simple, since he was surely indicted for “outing” somebody, no?
Which also isn’t “I don’t know what her status was.”, but rather “I did not get that information from Plame or the CIA.”
Reading is fundamental, Steve.
Maybe we could check with the person who wrote the sumbitch. Anyone seen Victoria Toensing?
Well, isn’t that special.
I think Toensing is German, if you are at a loss for ethnic slurs, steve j. I know that isn’t as easy a target as Michelle Malkin or Condi, but it may help a little.
Pablo – I suspect his knowledge of the components of the law is limited to “Plame was outed for political reasons” !!!!
I have to say that the aggressively ignorant are kind of entertaining, and even more fun to watch you and B Moe skewer them.
Yes, he confirmed to Novak that she worked there. *Then* he bothered to check her status, although the Wilsons contend they had already told Harlow that Novak would be calling. So super secret agent calls the CIA *press office*, says “Help! I’m about to be outed!” and the Harlow says, “fiddle dee dee. I’ll start thinking about that tomorrow”.
The stuff about asking Novak to not use her name is just plain ridiculous. Joe Wilson’s wife’s name was public information. Either warn Novak off seriously or don’t.
As I said, she may have been legally covert. It’s just that nobody- including her- treated her that way.
Which ironically is technically correct. What is at issue is who outed her and for what political reason.
B Moe – Doesn’ t the law have a variety of qualifying aspects ? ie. the speaker has to be in a position where they would know the agent’s status, the person has to know not suspect that the agent is classified in a manner that requires it to be concealed, and the CIA has to actively work to conceal the identity. I believe that there may be even more provisos than the ones I listed.
Simply put, no amount of facts or logic will change steve’s mind, as facts and logic were not required when he arrived at his position.
I’d tweak that a bit to say that she may have been considered covert by certain measures, but not by the legal definition, or at the very least not as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
And really, when you drive from your house to freaking Langley every day, how covert can you be?
JD, yeah lots of fun, but I think this one cashed out. Bummer.
sooper-sekrit covert.
They were nothing but drive-by feces flinging assmunchers. Mental midgets of the highest order.
Probably not.
Although I’ll still contend that even if the CIA meant for her to be covered by that legal definition, it was the CIA and Plame herself that didn’t take the affirmative measures necessary to keep her protected.
We know this because no IIPA violations were charged. That means either
a)she didn’t meet the definition or
b)Rove, Armitage, and Libby weren’t told of her status and therefore couldn’t violate the law.
In order to meet the legal definition of covert, didn’t the individual have to have had a full time posting overseas within 5 years of the time of the alleged outing ? It is my understanding that the overseas classification does not count individual trips, or temporary assignments. If that is the case, she had been stateside for at least 6 years prior.
How “covert” of an agent can you be when you drive in through the front gates of Langley every day?
Yeah. Then there’s that.
Here’s the law.
Right from the top, there’s a problem with prosecuting under this.
So for starters, repeating what you’ve heard on the cocktail circuit doesn’t violate the law. And given that everyone seems to have gotten the word about Plame through that mechanism, the only people who could be liable under the law are Bill Harlow and Valerie herself.
But wait! Here she is at the Waxman hearings:
WATSON:… But some people are still trying to minimize your service by suggesting you really weren’t at risk and that your position was not classified because you worked at a desk job at the CIA headquarters at Langley , Virginia …
MS. PLAME WILSON: Absolutely, Congresswoman. And I’d just like to add that when an operations officer—when they are posted in the field or back at headquarters—we are given training to understand surveillance detection training so that we understand very carefully that we are not being followed and that we feel very comfortable that our status can be protected.
—-
see? She even drove to Langley every day in a sooper sekrit manner. I believe this. I do.
Yes, yes. And yet, Libby was found guilty of criminal obstruction of justice. Why would he do that if Valerie “outed herself” or whatever other stupid nonsense you fuckwits are jerking each other off with over here?
Why would he do what, heet? Find himself guilty?
If you are asking why he would obstruct, the prosecution’s case during the trial was that he was afraid he was being investigated for violating the IIPA, the espionage law, his NDA, or that he would get in trouble politically after he had promised the President that he wasn’t involved.
Their case at trial was never that he actually did violate any of those laws, or even that he ever thought he violated those things. Simply that he was afraid someone else thought he violated those things, so he lied to make the investigators go away.
Talk about begging the question…how come no one, after FOUR YEARS of a special prosecutor investigation and relentless media coverage, has been convicted of outing a CIA agent, heet, you walking waste of carbon molecules? The best that Fitzgerald could come up with was obstruction of justice on one of Bush and Rove’s political “B” teamers. Have you stopped molesting your household pets long enough to consider just why this might be, or do you simply let your preconcieved opinions dictate your interpretation of reality?
Um, heloooo? It’s because of a super-secret evil Bu$hco conspiracy to protect Cheney and KKKarl Rove from prosecution. And it’s worked, so far. They even made Jason Leopold look like a fool after he uncovered the truth!
Occam’s Razor, man.
And now you’re going to see the 5th used more than Paris Hilton at a post prom party.
There. Fixed it for you.
Just to play the straight man, here, I’m guessing that given this revelation, Fitz will certainly have to haul Libby back in court and charge him with violation of the IIPA or some other applicable statute. It’s not double jeopardy because he was never charged with that kind of thing to begin with. And then, of course, the whole fucking thing will fall apart, because there has to be one point at which the classified information is transferred from the hands of someone who is authorized to someone who is not authorized. And of course the CIA has lists of authorized holders of this information; I’m guessing if the IIPA has been violated, the CIA will have to make such a list available.
Again, I rather doubt that a White House lawyer would be on the short list, and I also doubt that the deputy Chief of Staff is. Condi Rice would have been, I’d think, and perhaps one or two others outside of the CIA; I doubt anyone at State would be. I’m willing to see myself disproved in this matter, though; a little more information from the CIA would be helpful. I’m not getting my hopes up, though, because it took FOUR YEARS for this fairly relevant bit of news to come out. That’s assuming this news achieves the status of “new information”; both aspects of that are suspect, in my mind.
Now, I’ve heard people make the case that Libby should not have blabbed, even if he was just the middle-man, because even he ought to know that the identities of CIA employees ought to be kept out of the public eye. I say: sure, yes, Libby may certainly be guilty of stupidity, or having poor judgement, but that’s a ways away from a felony violation of the law.
Admittedly I might be a pud-yanking imbecile for thinking these things. As if that makes any difference at all as regards the truth of the matter.
Unless you’re heet, in which case it makes all the difference in the world.
No, I’m afraid that wound was self-inflicted. You can’t credit Rove with everything, even if your inside man says you’ve got indictments.
I admit, though, that I could be Karl, or that Karl might be paying me to say these things. Hell, we could all be Karl.
Even heet. Especially heet. If I were Karl (and I probably am), I’d want to invent someone like heet.
heet. The proctologist’s asshole.
heet. The proctologist’s asshole’s asshole.
Merry Fitzmas, Steve J., but there’e still no pony under that traditional Fitzmas Pile OF Horseshit.
You folks are wild.
1. It is up to the CIA to define who is covert and who isn’t, it doesn’t matter whether you think she should be wearing a trenchcoat and hat and slinking around.
2. The covert statute has very narrow language that stipulates that people must knowingly pass on classified information. If a person like, say, a Vice President of the United States tells you something and tells you to talk to reporters about it and then that info turns out to be classified it becomes harder to prosecute you.
3. When Libby lied about when and where he heard about Plame, it became even harder to pursue the case. Hence, the perjury charges.
4.The info about Plame is included in the sentencing phase to show the gravity of what Libby was covering up.
It’s not that hard to understand.
No, it isn’t.
It isn’t, however, up to the CIA to decide who is covert after the fact, nor is it up to the CIA to alter the letter of the legal definition of covert. That may not be what’s happening, but how would we know?
But rather more straightforward to prosecute the VP, which is what I’ve been saying.
Ok, fine. But as we know Libby lied, I’m guessing, we know know who passed on this information to Libby? If so, I’m guessing that Fitz is pursuing the wrong quarry.
If Libby didn’t know that Plame was covert at the time, how could he have known the gravity of what he was covering up? I think you’re assuming information not in evidence.
Val and Paris: separated at birth?
Before Fitzgerald ever was assigned to this case, it was known the Tim Russert disputed the story that he had told Libby about Plame. In fact, investigators knew that before they interviewed Libby for the 2nd time.
Rather than try to get past that “obstruction” by confronting Libby with that knowledge, Fitzgerald chose to let him repeat his Russert assertion. If Fitzgerald thought this lie was standing in his way of getting the truth, he had the ability to dispense of it. He didn’t.
1a. No, it isn’t.
1b. Trenchcoat and hat aren’t necessary, but affirmative measures to conceal your CIA employment are, and they’re lacking.
Not if you’re authorized to receive that classified information, and Libby certainly had the clearance. What we don’t seem to have is any evidence that any person like, say, the Vice President, had access to that classified information to pass along.
How does that work? The case against Libby was based on contrary recollections of others. What info would Fitz be missing if he knew Libby was untruthful? It follows that he knew what the truth was, or he wouldn’t have been able to prosecute Libby. Where are the IIPA charges?
And what was he covering up?
Congress defined it and the courts check to see if the facts fit the law.
Eh, don’t worry. Separation of powers is just a Rovian jedi mind trick. Feel free to ignore it, leftard.
Or to put that into English:
“Unless the boy concerned owns up, I shall beat the entire school. I’ll teach you the meaning of justice if it’s the last thing I do.”
On your bike, john.
john – The relevant statute was linked to above. Go read it, and then come back and explain how sadly mistaken you are.
heet, steve, et al – It is practically comical to read your screeds. The dissonance between your reality and actual reality is remarkable.
To update … she was likely outed prior to this. She and Joe apparently made no effort to hide her position. She was not posted overseas within the relevant time frame. The CIA was not taking affirmative action to ensure her identity remained hidden. She drove into Langley every day. Yet all of the above, which are not in dispute, still lead you to believe that she was “outed”. Going through life without thinking has to be difficult.
I know when my cover was blown back in the 30’s, I did a photo spread in Playdude to add even more gravity to the offense.
All bases must be covered.
I remember when Hugh Grant was blown in Sunset Boulevard he took similar steps to mitigate the offence.
C’mon, using information like this is common in every criminal case during the sentencing phase. You’re being obtuse.
It is not up to him to stop Libby from committing a crime. Perjury is a crime, they gave him chances to clarify and he lied.
Libby was most likely covering for the fact that the VP told him about Plame first. It doesn’t matter though, even if they did not break the law in the narrowest sense, lying about it is illegal.
I have to admit, I don’t see why you are so keen to defend these guys. Even if they didn’t break the law it was wrong. From the comments here, I would say most of you think it was ok simply because you disagree with Wilson’s position on the war.
This is fun, but you folks are allergic to facts. Libby was busted dead to rights by multiple sources, not just that left wing freak Russert.
Is this one of your facts?
I think I probably am allergic to that sort, especially if they are presented as “facts” in a criminal case.
Are you real?
Has heet bothered to grace us with an answer to this special inside knowledge? What is it, heet? Mason’s intervention, friggin’ laserbeams, Rove’s mind meld?
Or could it be the law was not ever broken and Fitz knew that from the start, even if the CIA though differently.
I would say that no one who was involved in this affair covered themselves in honor and glory. But that would include everyone, including Plame, Wilson, Fitz and Russert as well as Armitage, Libby, Novak and Cheney.
I’ve looked at life from both sides now….
Try it sometime…
john – Feel free to continue to ignore the relevant aspects of the law. We still await the indictment for Plame being “outed”, though Jason L assures us it is imminent.
Jesus, don’t they even have a cover story to explain her status?
No, we are pissed that Wilson lied to the press about his findings and not only has no one called him on it, they have made the treasonous sonofabitch a hero. And before you ask me for evidence, put “Joe Wilson” in the search bar up there and spend an hour or two learning something, it has been covered extensively on this site on several occasions.
BJ – Isn’t it practically comical how willing the moonbats are to ignore the roles played by Plame, Wilson, and Armitage in this fiasco ? Some quote about means and ends comes to mind.
Well, JD, we are dealing with modus operandi, aren’t we?
For people like heet (or as john would say, “those folks”) it isn’t enough that there is plenty of blame to slather over all of the participants. The Bushco Nazi meme must be fed with an absolute telling of the sorry tale, Bill Maher style, of a dedicated, super secret agent doing vitally important work on WMD’s, don’tcha know, who suggested but didn’t recommend her husband for an overseas posting that was not suggested but practically ordered by evilcheney. Then both are trashed by the nefarious Rovian career stompers, culminating in both Wilson and Plame being forced at gunpoint to pose in that convertible.
Which makes the following phrase fron john
an indictment and conviction, case closed.
Nothing less than complete and total blame for all things Bushian is acceptable to our bitter, angry leftards.
Whither nuance?
The unintentional irony is contained in john’s phrase:
Hmmm. Didn’t some people try to apply this very same criteria to a certain former Governor of Arkansas? Wonder how john felt about it then…
Going though life replacing inconvient reality with your own speculation is the same as not thinking. You don’t actually know what Valerie Plame did, neither do I. You are guessing. Last I read, she was working on nuclear proliferation related to Iran through a front company called Brewster Jennings. This was all destroyed, including the front company, by the leak. Plame’s covert status is about more than her personally.
Short answer: Yes john, you are right.
Additionally, just thinking what these clowns did is wrong seems to get me labeled a moonbat. Cool. I’m impressed you guys don’t care that the DOJ, a republican hardcore prosecutor (currently bringing down a Democratic machine in Chicago) and a jury all seem to think that a crime was commited. I guess you don’t trust our system.
John, your initial assertion was that Libby impeded the investigation and therefore hampered any prosecution. Pointing out that perjury is a crime does not rebut the notion that Fitzgerald did not lack information because it was available from other parties.
On the basis of what evidence is this “most likely”?
John, you really need to scroll up to your 7:07 comment and reread it so that you can refresh your memory as to what the fuck you were talking about. The topic is not and was not whether Libby committed perjury. The question is whether Plame was outed in violation of the law. “They got Scooter Libby!!1!” is not evidence of that, period.
And yet they don’t seem to think that Plame was outed in violation of the law, do they, john? So, what does this have to do with Libby’s perjury sentencing?
That’s very, very true, john. So what’s the deal with this?
Most curious.
Then her husband probably shouldn’t have been running around telling people she worked for the CIA, huh?
Long rebuttal: No john, you are a dumbass who won’t address the issues. Scooter Libby was not convicted of outing Plame, the perjury charge he was convicted of related to the investigation itself and had nothing to do with whether or not Plame had been outed. No one has even been charged with outing Plame, and the person who wrote the relevant law has stated point blank that she was not legally covert. Yet Fitzgerald has introduced new evidence at the sentencing trying to get stiffer sentences against Libby by implying he outed Plame.
QUESTION AUTHORITY!
Ring any bells?
Hahahhahahahaha!!!! Are you serious? On one hand we have the arguement that what Libby did wasn’t a crime and anyway wilson/plame had it coming and lying isn’t a crime if there isn’t another crime, etc. Then you argue that Clinton did it, so I must have thought it was ok. Attached at the end of a cute screed putting thoughts in my head. Nice!!
In which post did I say ANY of this?
As far as my “most likely” comment, unlike you I am willing to admit what I do not know. I was not in the room with the VP and Libby. I can only extrapolate about it from what I have read about the case.
john – a crime was committed, yes. That is not in dispute. Libby lied. The crime committed was NOT that he “outed” anyone, as he did not. Please provide evidence that the front company, and all of their work in re. Iranian WMD’s was destroyed as a result of the leak. We eagerly await same.
Once again, john. Read the applicable law, and then come back here and explain why you are so wrong. Is it willful, or just aggressive ignorance?
Once again, as you appear to be dense, and maybe repetition will work … the crime was for lying to the federal investigators, which is not in dispute. Having said that, he has not been charged with “leaking” Plame’s identity, “outing” Plame, or whatever else you wish to call it, despite Leopold’s assertions that it is imminent.
I am always pleased when these topics come up again. It is truly important to continue to rebut this nonsense paraded about by the media and the Left. This whole scenario is a picture perfect example of the media and the left creating a narrative, and then melding the story to fit same, even when the facts do not support their narrative.
At the risk of coming late to the party where so many ardent PW regulars are just so wrong AND obnoxious, let me just award “Biggest Prick in The Thread” Award to JD, who imagines posting a link to a statute is the interpretation of that statute.
I know, Pablo and B Moe are close behind in this glaring rearguard action and their prickishiness is in evidence, but no one can hold a candle to you, JD!
Boiling your genius points down, one arrives at this amazing fallacy: “how can the CIA know what covert is! What do they know!”
The facts in this case is relatively simple:
1. Plame was covert, as defined by the CIA’s counsel’s office and their internal procedures. Just because “she only went overseas on temporary assignments doesn’t mean she’s covert” (one of the dumber things you’ve ever typed, JD, and that is saying something), still means she was doing agency business with a cover overseas. Seriously, if you all would take the blinders off for a second, you could see that. But, nothing can get in the way of a good narrative with you folks.
2. Her name was outed in the press. No one was charged with this “crime,” because the statute says “knowingly” and “intentionally.” And, while Scooter Libby may only rank above JD in lawyery abilities, certainly Libby read the statute (or his counsel did) and he knew better than admit to knowing she was covert (hell, he might have not…given the competence of this administration, checking on that detail probably went over his head. You know, Pablo like the jokes on “According to Jim” go over yours).
3. The CIA, apparently mistakenly believing they knew who was covert within their organization (next time, B Moe, they will check with you), referred this for criminal investigation, Libby lied, and was convicted of perjury. His conviction will be pardoned in January of 2009. He will write a book and he and David Addington will become the new heroes of the PW crowd, as they will be the moral arbiters of the “Global War on Terrorism.” I mean, a convicted liar and an ultra secretive man who believes the American people are terrorists? Most likely, Pajamas Media has pre-ordered the book.
You defenders of the impossible are profanely droning on and on about an issue that is solved…Congress passed a law, the Executive (see the CIA) interpreted it. You can parse all you want; you can claim Joe Wilson lied; you can mope and cry and post links to statues, but you’re wrong. She was covert.
Now, whether Libby should be punished more because his perjury was about a covert operative is a question for the judge. The reason this is important, however, is political. It is so once again the pro-war right in this country can be shown to believe things that are just plainly untrue. This entire thread is a bunch of revanchist kooks arguing agaisnt facts that are already in evidence.
With the notable exception opf MayBee, who is wrong, but who at least is not an ass about it.
JD, Pablo, and B Moe…it’s like the Axis of Evil with just a little less intellectual heft than your average 5 year old.
On which hand did you find that, john? Cite, please.
Nobody is arguing that perjury is not a crime. We, on the right, thought it was a crime when Clinton did it, and it is no less of a crime when Libby did it. You continued conflation, apparently intentional of the crime of perjury and the alleged crime of “outing” a covert agent has not been shown to have occurred, but don’t you go and worry about those little facts over a small technicality like that. I know it does not fit your narrative.
If you have thought this scenario through, as you profess to have done, how would you explain the actions and the roles of Plame, Wilson, and Armitage in all of this ?
What leads you to believe, other than BDS, that – A) an “outing” occurred, and B) the information that precipitated this “outing” came from the Vice President ?
FWIW, I harbor no illusions that you might actually address the facts of this case, but thought I might steer you in the right direction.
hah! Coming from Bush supporters, this is rich! I thought it was treason to question authority? Isn’t that was Wilson did?
John: your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Please call RIF immediately.
This refered all the way back to heet’s conclusions, not yours. Your simple statements came up later. None of the paragraph quoted was directed specifically at you but more towards heet, hence the phrase;
Sorry to disappoint you.
I stated no such thing. You are still stuck in a circle jerk that we’ve argued something that we haven’t. Quote one person who has asserted that Libby wasn’t guilty of perjury. We have argued that adding mention of Plame’s ouster is bad form for sentencing when no charges have been brought nor is there any evidence that that particular crime has been committed.
This is what I said earlier:
How, exactly, do you get your foaming conclusion from that statement?
As far as the Clinton snark, I stand by it. Too often in media or in person I heard the excuse that it was only sex and we should understand why he
committed perjurytold a little fib. It’s not a blanket indictment of the Libby conviction but an amusing little irony check, nothing more.I’ll have the RIF van beep its horn when it’s outside your house…
</blockquote>On one hand we have the arguement that what Libby did wasn’t a crime…<blockquote>I think you’re having a hard time keeping track of the arguments, not to mention the actual events. Libby was convicted of perjury, which is a crime, and which no one has argued is not a crime. Libby was neither charged nor convicted under the IIPA, because, well, he didn’t commit an offense as defined by that particular law. If someone violated the IIPA, it was Armitage, but that’s not even entirely certain since it seems unlikely that Plame was covert as defined by the IIPA. If the CIA thought she was covert, they are either phenomenally stupid or don’t understand what the law says they should do to maintain that covert status. Not to mention that it just flat seems like bad fieldcraft to have someone who’s covert go to work at CIA headquarters every day. About the only way that would be considered covert would be if she was involved in espionage for the other side, a la Robert Hansen.
It is clear to me that the CIA has an internal process for removing an agent from covert status that is quite apart from the laws Toensing wrote regarding the legal definition of what constitutes covert.
The differences in the Plame case seem to be over administrative or clerical issues.
As in:
“She is no longer legally covert by definition, but we here at the CIA haven’t finished stamping, counter signing, and refiling all the documents”
No different than any other government agency.
Take the IRS…
Try to get a lien lifted. You can pay the full amount with certified check in person. They will give you a receipt and a letter saying the IRS has recieved a payment. This is all semi- official.
The official lien release paperwork arrives somewhere within two years.
Technically by law the lien is released upon payment, but internally the IRS has not released the lien until all the paperwork has been done. The lien will remain on your credit report until that day. So if you want to borrow money to buy a home or a car, you will need to bring your receipt and letter.
Naw, Wilson’s just your run of the mill lying reactionary leftist.
what are you talking about? paragraph 1(f) of libby’s indictment states “At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.”
OK, everybody, pack it up. timmyb has declared the entire affair settled science so there is no longer anyreason to even live!
Just how many mirrors do you have in that Indiana home and do you ever wrench your neck with all of the preening?
Someone tell timmy’s mom he found the new hiding place for her gin.
Timmah!, you always take that one home with you.
Well, there is that pesky law I cited a ways up, and the fact that her husband was running around telling people she was CIA.
I suggest that you attempt to absorb this conversation between Armitage and Bob Woodward a month before Novak published his column. Somehow, I’m confident that you’ll fail to grasp the significance of it, what with you being one of the dumber people gracing the intertubes.
Yes, apparently Bill Harlow, the CIA public affairs officer, did not grasp that Plame was covert when he confirmed her CIA employment to Novak. He must be quite a dumbass, eh Timmah!?
Not if it’s overturned on appeal.
And no one has been accused of violating it, have they, Timmah!?
But her husband and the CIA had no problem telling people who she worked for. Why wasn’t anyone charged with blowing her cover, Timmah!?
What facts are those, Timmah!? That Plame was covert? Not according to the IIPA, she wasn’t.
Good luck, timmy b! I’ve been called a moonbat, a dumbass and have been accused of BDS.
And who is this Jason Leopold you guys keep bringing up?
This one kills me. I did address the “facts” in my first post. Since then I have been responding to you and your buds’ fact free inanities.
You guys are great. I WOULD like to be an authoritarian apologist, so please “steer me in the right direction”.
upyernoz;
Do you need one of us to explain the difference between “indictment” and “trial?”
Google it, people!!
And what have you read that you’re extrapolating this from, john? Greenwald, perhaps?
timmah – Coming from you, that is an award I will be proud to accept.
Now, let’s go point by point, as I want to give your inanity the credit it deserves.
The statutory definition of covert says that you are absolutely wrong. Is this intentional, or just a result of insufficient information? I will let others be the judge.
The statute indicates that one has to have been posted overseas within 5 years. I indicated that temporary assignments and trips do not meet the statutory definition of being posted overseas, which is consistent with the views of the author of the statute. If I am wrong, which I am not, please explain.
There are other relevant aspects of the statute that would preclude prosecution under the statute, as outlined, repeatedly, above, by myself and others. Should you wish to continue to ignore the relevant aspects of the statutory language, that is entirely up to you.
What they consider to be covert and what the statute requires may not be the same. I know that is a complicated concept for you, and do not expect you to grasp it.
The rest of your post is just childish nonsense, assuming much of the leftwing conjecture to be facts.
This is the best you have ?
Please enlighten us as to whether or not classified and covert are interchangeable terms. While you are at it, please explain to us the difference between an indictment and a trial.
john – Given what we know to be true about Armitage’s role in this fiasco, what leads you to believe that – A) anybody was “outed”, and B) if “outed”, it was done by Libby ?
If Plame was “outed”, why hasn’t anybody been charged with a crime? Or, is the existence of an investigation proof of a crime to you ?
C’mon, using information like this is common in every criminal case during the sentencing phase.
Possibly we ought to have some agreement on what defines “information”. What you’re talking about is nothing of the kind. I’m guessing that what some putz can say, but not substantiate, in comments isn’t going to sway the sentencing by any perceptible amount.
Nor is any amount of crowing by some random putz named john.