Larry Johnson: Gee, Valerie was Undercover

[cal04]

The latest revelations from David Corn and Michael Isikoff confirm what me and my CIA colleagues (Jim Marcinkowski, Michael Grimaldi, and Brent Cavan) have said for the last three years--Valerie Plame Wilson was an undercover security officer when her relationship with the CIA was exposed by Rober Novak. Prior to today's news, Raw Story and MSNBC reported that Val was working on Iran. Corn and Isikoff's scoop says it was Iraq and provides some pretty meaty details to back it up. This much is certain:

Valerie Plame was working undercover as a senior CIA operations officer.
Valerie Plame was working on issues related to Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to keep America safe.
Valerie Plame traveled overseas as part of her undercover work and was protected under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Valerie Plame was betrayed by President Bush and his political appointees.



Anyone who claims Valerie and Joe are the cause of this are goddamn morons and beyond the reach of reason. Joe and Valerie Wilson did not write Robert Novak's op-ed. Bob Novak did and he knew better (CIA asked him not to put out the information). Joe and Valerie Wilson were not sources for Bob Novak. That falls on the shoulders of Karl Rove and Richard Armitage (at least). Thinking Republicans should be horrified at this news. With their silence and acquiesence to the lies and calumny directed at Joe and Valerie, they are setting a troubling precedent.

Republicans are endorsing the exposure of a CIA operations officer. If Republicans can do it, then maybe, someday, Democrats in hot water may decide to engage in the same shameful behavior. That's an action that shouldn't be in anyone's playbook.

more
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/05/gee_valerie_was_undercover

[longship]

1. Recommended and kicked.

Hey cal04, good snag.
:kick:

[bananas]

2. k&r nt

[bleever]

3. Also K&R.

The magnitude of this crime will take years, and untiring repetiton, to be understood.

[mikelewis]

4. Then we have a problem with Mr. Fitzgerald...

Since there was no indictment of either Karl Rove or Armitage (or Novak, Cheney or the rest of the "leakers" for that matter) then we are left with only a few conclusions about Mr. Fitzgerald. Either Fitzgerald isn't interested in prosecuting this crime or... no crime was committed that he could prosecute.

Republicans have been claiming that her status wasn't classified... why? How is it possible that she could have believed she was classified but in fact, was not? Is the Unitary Executive capable of "secretly" declassifying an agents status? I understand that it's not "technically" legal to declassify this information but that does not mean that it wasn't done. (It's illegal to spy on people without a warrant and it's illegal to lie your country into war, too).


If Plame's status was classified, Fitz would have no choice but to follow the law and indict Rove. Everyone says Fitz is a straight arrow so I tend to believe he would. However, if Bush, or more likely Cheney, declassified her status then Rove and Armitage did nothing "technically" illegal. The order to declassify her status would be a "get out of jail free card". If by claiming some mystical power of the Unitary Executive, Bush and Cheney were able to figure out a secret argument for disclosing her status, this "crime" would not fall within the scope of Fitzgerald's ability to prosecute. This would be a Constitutional issue and would need to be addressed by Congress. I guess this means we may never get to celebrate Fitzmas.

[Missy Vixen]

5. It's not a question of "not being interested"

>Either Fitzgerald isn't interested in prosecuting this crime or... no crime was committed that he could prosecute.<

After reading the analysis by those who know a lot more about the law than I do, this is what I've learned. Libby was not charged with espionage or with leaking because the charges would be greymailed out of court ASAP. Libby's attorneys have been attempting this maneuver and getting nowhere with it, since the charges filed against him are so narrowly drawn to begin with.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Those who think that Rove skated haven't been keeping up with things. There's a reason he wasn't charged.

Julie

[midnight]

6. I must say I don't know what it is that I have not been keeping

up with, but I like your optimism. If there is any hope out there of prosecuting these criminals will it come from the trial against Libby?

[Raster]

9. Here's my hunch, Julie: I think if the House turns in November, we are

going to see several major occurrences. The first will be some type of conclusive action from Fitzgerald. Consider this: kkkarl's main responsibility is to ensure a rethuglican House. The unthinkable for the 'thugs is John Conyers with subpoena power. And according to just about EVERY reputable poll, the House is set to turn. The public is so pissed off, the Senate may turn also. That would just about ensure that most of the bush* misadministration would have to answer to some authority for their actions of the last six years. And there is no one more (A) set to burn than our boy kkkarl; and (B) no one that could give a better tour of the bushco* secret graveyard.

It could be Fitzgerald is just waiting for the beast to have some teeth before he lets it out of its cage.

On edit: Or perhaps this will be the true October Surprise!! Revealed just in time for the November election...

[H2O Man]

7. Shallow. n/t

[mikelewis]

11. If Fitz is on the level...

which I believe he is, then why no indictments? There is no longer any doubt that Rove leaked the name to Novak, so either releasing the name was a crime or it wasn't. Is there some grey area I'm not aware of? Doesn't the law state, very explicitly, that revealing a covert operative is illegal? At this point in the game, years after the leak, is it unreasonable to assume that there will be no indictment of Rove or Armitage or anyone else for this "crime"? The case appears stalled, there's been very little activity (other than some unsubstantiated rumors of secret indictments and some alluding to a Fitz master plan), so if all the parties have confessed to leaking this information, when will they be indicted? Why haven't they been indicted already? Obviously there's a reason that this "crime" isn't being prosecuted... so what is it? Was revealing the name of a covert operative a crime? If Cheney had declassified that information, would it be a crime? What other factors could exist that would render this crime not a crime?

[H2O Man]

15. possibilities ....

Some possibilities of why Rove hasn't been indicted for leaking Plame's name to Novak:

{1} He evaluated Rove's testimony, and determined that Rove did not meet the requirement of knowing Plame's status.

{2} He evaluated Rove's testimony, and determined that he would be unlikely to get a conviction on the charge of exposing a CIA operative.

{3} He evaluated Rove's personality, and decided that Rove could be "turned" to provide testimony in a future trial against another co-conspirator.

{4} He asked the grand jury for an indictment, and they failed to return one.

There are four possibilities regarding the issue of if Rove committed a crime by revealing her name to Novak. Like Libby, there are reasons to believe that investigators were more focused on his lying to them in the cover-up. I think it was the June National Journal that had the report about FBI concerns that Novak and Rove agreed to lie about Rove's role. Because it would have been a phone call between the two of them, it becomes nearly impossible to "prove" in court.

While some may argue otherwise, the VP can NOT legally declassify the identity of a NOC, especially not for political purposes. This is very well documented and explained in Rep Henry Waxman's 4-6-06 letter to President Bush, including the enclosed 3-10-06 memo from the Congressional Research Service.

[GeorgeGist]

10. Fitzgerald has a reputation...

for playing his cards extremely close to his chest. I think it's foolish to conclude he's bluffing before he finishes finessing his hand.

[mikelewis]

13. I don't think he's bluffing... not in the slightest...

I am just wondering why he hasn't indicted anyone for releasing her name. On July 14th 2003, Novak printed the information that Valerie was "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." If her status was covert, then why no indictment? How long does he plan on holding this one "close to his chest"? It's been over three years since her name was released. If revealing the name of a covert agent is a crime (and apparently it is), why on Earth is no one being "frog-marched"? What possible reason could Fitz have of not indicting Rove or Armitage when it is clear that this information was classified?

However, if her status was not covert and Fitz is not allowed to release that information due to national security concerns, then Armitage and Rove did not commit a crime. If this is the scenario then they were releasing declassified information and Fitz's investigation into criminal activity regarding the leaking of a CIA agent to the public is over. I don't think Fitz is bluffing, I think he's got no case. If he did, he'd most certainly prosecute.

[Missy Vixen]

18. I'm going to explain this very, very slowly

This question comes up a lot. I am not a lawyer. I've just spent the past two years reading about this case. I'm sure H2OMan and the ladies of firedoglake could do a much better job, so I will pinch hit till they get here.

>What possible reason could Fitz have of not indicting Rove or Armitage when it is clear that this information was classified?

Here's one more reason for a non-indictment. Greymailing.

If Patrick Fitzgerald charges espionage or leaking, to my understanding (and please, H2OMan, correct me if I am wrong,) the statutes are so poorly written in the first place that charging them opens up the greymailing can of worms.

Greymailing: Attempting to bring classified information into open court as a way to get the case dismissed.

He charged what he could reasonably hope to get a conviction with. Would those here rather have a conviction on something that's also a crime (obstruction of justice/perjury,) or would they rather watch the espionage and conspiracy charges filed and thrown out of court as quickly as Cheney and Rove's attorneys could produce all kinds of classified information, try to air it in open court, and get the case thrown out in the guise of "protecting national security"? Let's face it. There's enough crimes to go around here, and more than one way to skin a cat.

I have no idea why Mr. Armitage was not charged. Perhaps his information is so valuable that he has made some type of agreement. Then again, he says he has not consulted an attorney since this started. I don't know. One of the possible reasons Karl Rove has not been charged is because he is now available as a defendant's witness. It's best to have him be Libby's witness rather than the prosecution's, according to the reading I have done, because he is then subject to having the prosecutor slowly roast him on a spit. He also has not been indicted and/or pardoned, so he is available as a witness. Here's a question: Why would it be necessary to issue a "you're no longer a target in this case" letter if there had never been a letter stating that Rove was targeted in the first place?

I hope the above makes things clearer, and I hope the recent character attacks on Patrick Fitzgerald in the mainstream press means the pot of water the Bushies all sit in while he's been slowly turning up the heat beneath is getting a bit hot for them.

Julie

[petgoat]

16. "Everyone says" Fitz is a straight arrow.

But not me. As a prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh ('93 WTC bombing)
case in 1994 he was surely aware of one Ali Mohammed, a US Army
Sergeant who had given weapons training to the Blind Shiekh's al
Qaeda cell and was not prosecuted. Mr. Mohammed's subsequent
career is an interesting one, and books on it are due out soon.

By 1998 Fitz was negotiating a plea bargain with respect to Mr.
Mohammed's participation in the African embassy bombings. Mr.
Mohammed was never sentenced, and nobody knows where he is today.

In '94 Fitz was 34 years old. A young man has little choice but to go
along with the crookedness around him or give up his career. The
question with time is: Do you become as crooked as those around you,
or do you use the power gained by your years of sacrifice to fight back?

To me, Fitz is an unknown quantity.

[Major Hogwash]

8. If there isn't another indictment within the next 60 days, it won't matter

Because they will have won.

This election is extremely important in order to elect Democratic politicians who will make the Bush admin accountable for their actions.

However, if there are no more indictments between now and Halloween, then they will have "run out the clock" on the Plame CIA exposure case, just like they did in Iran/Contra.

And it won't matter anymore.
Because they'll remain in power after the election, and then they will just let the case grind its way through the court system - for years, with appeals and appeals of appeals.

Because they are the system.
And that's what's wrong in America today.

And all the while, George Tenet is as quiet as a church mouse.

[chill_wind]

12. Here's what John Dean had to say almost a year ago

An Open Letter To Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald From Former White House Counsel John W. Dean
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Nov. 18, 2005





November 18, 2005

The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald
Special Counsel
Bond Federal Building
1400 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Dear Special Counsel Fitzgerald:

Excuse my being so presumptuous as to send you this open letter, but the latest revelation of the testimony, before the grand jury, by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has raised some fundamental questions for me.

In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004 you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are "plenary." In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States.

In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that "A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information."

If, indeed, that is the major focus of your investigation, then your investigation is strikingly limited, given your plenary powers. To be a bit more blunt, in historical context, it is certainly less vigorous an investigation than those of your predecessors who have served as special counsel -- men appointed to undertake sensitive high-level investigations when the Attorney General of the United States had a conflict of interest. (Here, it was, of course, the conflict of Attorney General John Ashcroft that led to the chain of events that resulted in your appointment.)

The Teapot Dome Precedent


much more (long)

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20051118.html


It is quite thorough and a bit scathing of tacks and developments to that date. And AfAIK there's been little to nothing that has come out of Fitzgerald's office in the near full year since. At the same time, I'm well aware of Fitzgerald's larger than life reputation at DU...

Still, I no longer know what to think or how much to keep hoping, or even speculating.

I hope all will at least read it from beginning to end for another cautious perspective.

[mikelewis]

14. Fitzgerald is unimpeachable...

even if he doesn't produce any qualitative results. Hey, but at least he got Libby for lying.

[petgoat]

17. Where's Ali Mohammed? Does he know and isn't saying?

Or doesn't he care?