Why is Plame's status being kept nebulous to America? Why wasn't Rove, Armitage and

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

Cheney prosecuted for outing a covert agent? I can't see how Libby obstruction justice could have affected them.

I've heard a few theories. First that her status was declassified in order to out her. Another that because Libby lied and obstructed justice, Fitzgerald couldn't prosecute him for the outing. I've also heard Joe Wilson say that it wasn't prosecuted because the law wasn't clear.

The wrong-wing mantra has been that Plame was not covert and it seems that at least one of the jurors agree. He said on Countdown that he didn't think she was covert and he also believed Libby should be pardoned

Although I applaud Fitzgerald for getting 4 out of the 5 counts on Libby, but why hasn't he been clear???

This is bothering the heck out of me.

[Justice]

1. really good question

- if Plame was not covert, then why lie about when you heard about her being the spouse of Joe?

- if not covert, why did the WH seek to reveal her link to Joe Wilson so secretly - why not reveal the link like a hammer, be very outraged and upfront about it - say it over and over and over publicly - change the discussion from the substance (did Iraq try to buy yellow cake) to motive (can't trust what the CIA or Joe Wilson say) the way they do so many other things? It only makes sense for them to provide the information so quietly if she were covert.

- there was a suggestion during the trial that the disclassification was about Plame's status not the intelligence report. Knowing what we know now, I wonder if Fitzgerald would have agreed to interview Cheney and Bush together, and without their being under oath. In many ways, this decision - the deference he gave to them or to their offices - may have effectively prevented him from making the case.

[Lasher]

2. There is a full court press propaganda campaign going on

Plame's classified status as a covert agent is clear:

Early in November 2005, posting in his own personal blog No Quarter, former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson responds further to the ongoing dispute about Valerie Plame's status as a CIA NOC:

There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person “served” overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame[/div>

Arm yourself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x367016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=365005&mesg_id=365005

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

8. I believe btw that they killed two birds with one stone when outing her. To get back

at Wilson but I think more so that they wanted to put a stop to Brewster Jennings.

[Lasher]

11. I think you're right

I believe they were trying to sneak WMDs into Iraq to 'find' there, and that the Brewster Jennings operation got in the way.

I'm sure looking forward to the civil case by Joe and Valerie against these traitors. Who knows what else will crawl out when they start turning over rocks? And the last 3 sections of the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II report should be interesting. Jay's office told me that was going to come out in late spring or early summer.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. Thanks for the news re the last part of the Senate Report! I don't know if you heard

DUers said yesterday that John Conyers was going to investigate the whole Plame Affair!

[Lasher]

29. Oooo, thanks about the Conyers thing. I missed that.

Ain't it great how we team up here to help one another keep current?

I posted that here a while back about the Phase II schedule. See, we didn't want it to just come out immediately. I believe they needed to first replace Whitewash Roberts' Intelligence Committee staff with people of Jay's chosing. Then I figure the remaining 3 sections needed to be rewritten - without having a primary goal of making excuses for the administration's behavior.

This is speculation on my part. The only thing Jay's people told me was the likely timeframe for release of these documents. I have been encouraging Jay literally for years to do what he could to publish the rest of Phase II. Remember, two of the Phase II's 5 sections were released last year, over Roberts' objections, thanks to some Republicans on the committee who crossed over and voted aye.

Jay had been unable to do more. But now that he chairs the committee he is moving ahead. Seeing Jay regain the chair of this committee has been one of my fondest dreams.

Know what I think the report will say? They lied us into war in Iraq.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

36. Lasher "Know what I think the report will say? They lied us into war in Iraq."

No kidding! Laughing but of course it is No Laughing Matter.

Thank you for more info about the inner workings of the committee. I can imagine Jay Rockefeller's frustration all along.

I think once the final part of the report comes out, many of the Republicans are going to be Forced to do the right thing.

They had their hands forced with Nixon and they will have them forced here if they want to protect their own political lives.

[Hepburn]

25. I agree.

They were killing at least two birds with one stone.

[Tennessee Gal]

3. See this ..................

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x367016

[Marie26]

4. Maybe she was classified, not covert.

I think it's clear she was covert (NOC) at one point, but it's not clear to me if she still qualified as a "covert agent" at the time her name was leaked. Her identity would still be classified (meaning it couldn't be leaked), but she wouldn't fall under the protection of the IIPA anymore. Under the IIPA, the agent needs to have served outside the US within the last 5 years or have acted as an FBI counter-terrorism agent.


From the Intelligence Identity Protection Act:

The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

[Tennessee Gal]

5. From Newsweek

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek /

Does anyone have a link to the judge's opinion mentioned?

[Marie26]

9. It's hard to say for certain

There's links that point both ways - both alleging that she was, and wasn't, covert at the time her identity was leaked. Fitzgerald himself refused to publically comment on her status:

"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."

However, in the judge's ruling, he stated:

"As to the leaks’ harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame’s work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as “a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years” — representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support."

I'm wondering if maybe she wouldn't qualify as covert under the narrow, technical definition laid out in the IIPA. If she never lived abroad after 1998, but traveled, would that still qualify as "serving," etc. If Libby knew she was CIA, but not that she was covert, would that still qualify as "intentional" disclosure of a covert agent, etc. I think she was covert, but the IIPA definition is so narrow that she might have just missed qualifying.

The Wikipedia link shows some of the conflicting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_plame

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Perhaps in your next to last paragraph you mention what Joe Wilson was alluding to

on Countdown.

From the Countdown transcript -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17500255/

OLBERMANN: But there were no charges pertaining to the abuse of the public trust. There were no charges for the leak itself. There was no charge for endangering a valuable commodity in your wife‘s CIA career, only for lying in the course of the investigation. Is that a negative note sounding behind the positive ones today?

WILSON: Well, I don‘t think so. Mr. Fitzgerald said at the time of the press conference, when he announced the indictments, that justice would be served through the prosecution, irrespective of the crime that was being prosecuted. And, in fact, as we saw in the run-up to the trial, the defense attempted to use what they call graymail. They attempted to get the—force the government to decide how much classified information it was willing to release in order to allow the case to go forward.

Had there been a prosecution for the underlying crime, you can be sure that Mr. Libby‘s defense would have asked for every classified document that ever touched his desk during the six years that he was in office.

So I think the indictment was narrowly drawn, and it was understood that prosecuting under the underlying case, the IIPA, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, might be too difficult because of the way that the act is drafted, and by the possibility of classified information not being available for the defense.

[Lasher]

21. The gray mail defense

That's a good point, Ommm. I wonder if this would be a factor in the upcoming civil case that has been filed by the Wilsons.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

13. self-delete... DU went bonkers on me so it duped. nt

[Lasher]

15. I don't think it's hard to say.

For one thing, an entry in your linked Wikipedia article makes it clear that she was 'covert' as defined by the law, as I said upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x367340#367390

Since she was covert her identity as classified. You wouldn't have one without the other. Libby, Cheney, Rove, and Bush all knew this was classified.

There's not any grey area here, so there's really not two legitimate sides to the issue.

[Marie26]

19. Oh, she was classified.

There's no question about that. I'm just not positive she was covert at the time her identity was leaked. Covert & classified aren't the same thing. The IIPA specifies that the "covert agent" must be classified, AND serving abroad in the past 5 years. Fitz doesn't come right out and say she was a "covert" agent as defined in the IIPA, though he did say she'd done "covert work." It's just a mess. I don't know if we'll ever know the entire truth, since the CIA closely guards this information (w/good reason).

[Lasher]

30. But she had traveled abroad as part of her job in 2001, 2002, and 2003

It says that right in the Wikipedia article, and an authoritative source is cited. This is all I need to conclude she was entitled to protection under IIPA.

[Marie26]

42. Yeah

She traveled, but was traveling enough under the statute, or did she need to be stationed abroad? Johnson is not an official source, however informed he may be. I think it's possible, even probable, that she was still a covert agent as the CIA defines it. But since charges weren't brought under the IIPA, there's no official record of that. And I still think that the statutory definition of a "covert agent" is so narrow that Fitz might have had trouble w/it.

[Tin Man]

16. Knowingly revealing her covert status, EVEN TODAY, would be an IIPA violation - this includes Fitz

To this day, ANYONE knowingly revealing Plame's covert status could be prosecuted under the IIPA. This is why Fitz only refers to Plame status as classified rather than covert, and also explains why Fitz elected to prosecute the case as he did (perjury, obstruction) rather than as a violation of the IIPA - to do so would have required the discussion of classified info in the court and greatly increased the complexity of the prosecution.

[Marie26]

23. That makes sense.

But then what about Larry Johnson? And the judge? I see your point - if anyone knew she was a NOC through gov. channels, and disclosed that info, they've also potentially violated the statute. Maybe that's why Fitz was so circumspect about her actual status. But if what you're saying is true, no one could ever prosecute a case under the IIPA, because the prosecution itself would reveal their covert status! And that can't be right.

[Lasher]

17. Keep it up, Tennessee Gal, you're doing good.

:thumbsup:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. She was still working covertly for "Brewster Jennings" when she was outed. Also, the CIA wanted the

prosecution and they would have known what her status was in regard to the law.

Thanks for this!

[rebel with a cause]

7. A stupid question, I guess

But if Libby obstructed Justice, what justice did he obstruct and should that not be the topic of conversation? I mean we all know the answer to what justice was obstructed, but do the majority of people know that.

[jbonkowski]

10. The CIA NEVER comments on the status of employees

That's why Fitz is always careful to say her employment was "classified" but not "covert". He certainly has been told the details, but the public will not be told directly, no matter how much has been leaked by the White House.

Of course the Repubs know this, so they can keep claiming she wasn't covert, because no one who knows can contradict them.

Fitz said in his press conference way back when the charges were brought against Libby that he couldn't prosecute the outing precisely because those involved lied so much that he couldn't figure out what really happened.

The prosecution could not address Plame's employment status in court, because it was not relevant to the charges, and her status is still classified information. Any conclusions about her status made by jurors is in the complete absence of information about it, so the juror on Countdown doesn't know more about her being covert than you or I. Actually, probably less than you or I, as no details about her employment were introduced in court. Most of us have heard about her working in non-proliferation of WMD at Brewster-Jennings. None of the jurors did.

I assume the juror thought Libby should be pardoned because Libby was just following orders from the VP, which was made pretty clear in court.

jim

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

14. This seems to make the statute absolutely worthless. eom

[mmonk]

20. The story America will believe is that she wasn't covert.

The reasons for this are obvious. The administration will not be held accountable. They have free reign in spite of the opposition party controlling congress.

[npincus]

22. "wrong-wing"-- like it!

and haven't they been WRONG on everything?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. lol! Yes! IMHO too, WRONG ON EVERYTHING! That means both

WRONG on their positions and WRONG on the facts.

I believe in the Power of Words as Things and to call them (the WrongWingers)"right" gives them more energy and power. Not unlike pro-life and Anti Choice.

[Hepburn]

24. I think, but am not sure...that I have the Armitage thing figured out.

Please...if I have any facts wrong, someone correct me, OK?

As I understand it, Armitage went to the FBI approx 3 months before Fitz was appointed and Armitage spilled. Ashcroft was in charge of the investigation at that time ~~ or at least the Ashcroft-led DOJ was in charge. Since Armitage spilled and apparently told the truth, the decision to NOT prosecute was made back then. As I understand it, once someone has been given a "no prosecution" pass by the DOJ unless other facts arise, they are out of the picture. Apparently nothing later came up that showed that Armitage told anything but a straight story or that he was covering for anyone, etc.

It also appears that Armitage was not part of the WH cabal on the outing of Plame and he did not received his info on Plame from the WH but from another source.

Further, the fact that Armitage was a leaker ~~ that does NOT exculpate others who did leak or those, like Libby, who tried to cover for other leakers and, as we saw, got charged with perjury and obstruction and convicted on 4 of 5 counts.

FWIW.

[Tin Man]

27. It's funny that Armitage just happens to be a signator to PNAC Iraq policy letter

In fact, Armitage signed in first row.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[Hepburn]

28. If Ashcroft had not recused himself...

...for a conflict of interest, IMO most of those involved would have gotten a free pass like Armitage did. Since it was a criminal referral from the CIA, basically Ashcroft HAD to act. That was something he could not ignore. So, he opened a criminal file because he basically had NO other choice on something that serious coming from the CIA.

And, yeah, all those people stick together. If Ashcroft had remained, IMO, this would have been covered up from the beginning. Nothing would have come out of that referral except a closed investigation way back when.

[Lasher]

32. Armitage didn't know she was classified.

Since he didn't know this he was not in violation of the law. Fitzgerald said so. The rest of them knew.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. I have a hard time believing, that Armitage with all of his experience didn't know. Maybe

he said he didn't but I don't believe it. There is a red flag here too because of his connection with PNAC.

He had a stake in Rebuilding American's Defenses manifesting and Joe Wilson was a roadblock to war.

[Lasher]

41. You might be right but Fitz said that he didn't know.

I have a hard time giving Armitage a pass but decided to just go with what Fitz said.

[Hepburn]

40. Thanks for the info...

...I have heard it both ways on this. The thing that I see the most is that when the DOJ gives someone a "no prosecution" letter, that ends that unless something else comes up ~~ like lying, etc.

I get so sick of people saying Fitz gave the free pass ~~ it was Ashcroft who did this, or at least approved it, since he was in charge of the investigation when this took place. Whether Armitage knew or did not know ~~ Fitz had NOTHING to do with giving him the "get out of jail free" card.

[librechik]

26. the judge said it was irrelevant in the perjury case,

so it was never clarified--except by everybody who is actually in a position to know the truth.

The wrong wing is nothing more than a propagand machine, and they are working overtime to push their "alternative narrative" of Plame's story. That's the loudest so the mild truth re-emphasizwd by Fitz, is that she was a NOC and they are by definition undercover and classified. Certian Americans would rather believe a pleasing lie than a simple truth.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

31. And this frustrates me to no end and yesterday almost to the point of tears.

[librechik]

33. I know.Way 2 many reach -thru- the-screen

-and-strangle-that-worm moments up the ying yang. Victoria Toensing on the NewsHour just about gave me a stroke. I don't know how i'm going to get though the next two years...

[GeorgeGist]

34. Why didn't Bush/Cheney ,,,

defend Scooter if no crime was committed?

Fitzgerald is a putz.

[wiggs]

35. No good answer to your question, is there. We're running up

against the same wall that has kept Sibel silent for three years. It's not just RW, it's not just MSM.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

38. Yes it is also MSM. I was appalled yesterday when the person in for Keith didn't correct the juror

when he said that he didn't think Valerie Plame was covert.
Keith wouldn't have let that pass.

[SoCalDem]

43. When this whole thing "broke",it was to the administration's advantage to have it that way

nebulous.

They see no reason to change things.

The CIA is under the control of the white house, so, the FBI.. they follow orders.

As long as there is "unresolved status" the press is too mealy-mouthed to dig and get to the bottom of things, so her status will always be in doubt.

To me, this raised the biggest doubt of all.. If they were UNSURE about her status, to out her was a BIGGER "sin".. If they took the time to investigate her status, and did it anyway, what does that say about them?

If they investigated and found her to be "fair game", it PROVES that there was a vendetta. If they did NOT investigate, it shows them to be careless buffoons..

Lose-lose!