Rep Davis (R) at Plame hearing: "If you don't know someone is covert...

[magellan]

...then it's not a crime if you out them."

Not his exact words (unless I got real lucky) but the sense of them. And he kept hitting this inane point throughout the hearing today.

Now in essence he's right, provided you also don't know the person works for the CIA. But Bush, Cheney, Rove, Fleischer, Novak et al did know VWP was with the CIA. So is Davis claiming this administration is SO incompetent that they just assumed her status was non-covert without even bothering to ask?

JHC, I'm a political newbie and even I would know better than to go around blabbing the name of someone I just happened to learn worked for the CIA. These people have worked in and around the government for DECADES. Cheney also spent a lot of time at the CIA before the Iraq invasion. Are we supposed to believe that none of them -- not a one -- thought better of publicizing the name of a CIA agent without first checking to see if that might do some damage to national security??

I know I'm not the only one saying :wtf: and fuming at the usual lame excuses the Right comes up with to justify the criminal actions of the Bush** regime.

[texpatriot2004]

1. Mr. Davis was trying too hard to blame the CIA not the

Administration

[magellan]

4. Yes, of course, it's all the CIA's fault

It's not the administration's fault they got hold of an agent's name and decided the best course of action was to give it directly to the press!

[texpatriot2004]

6. I don't think anyone could have anticipated that she was a

covert agent. :sarcasm:

[Monkeyman]

7. Lets Blame Cuba

[bananarepublican]

38. No... no... nooo! KSM outed Plame! n/t

[Broken Top]

17. Rep. Davis and Valarie Plame Hearing

Davis opened the door to the false claim that Ms. Plame was not a "covert" agent and had not traveled overseas on missions within the past five years. Why should anyone be surprised that this rotten party is attempting to discredit Ms. Plame. Personal destruction is their main mission in life. They've already ruined her careeer so why not ruin her integrity also.
If you listened to the people testifying following Ms. Plame, Victoris Toensing's entire testimony centered around the "law" the "statute" and the meaning of "covert" vs. "undercover" or "classified" and her contention that under the statute/law Ms. Plame was not a "covert" agent of the CIA and, therefore, outing her was not a crime. In fact it had no significance whatsoever and Ms. Plame is just a crybaby. Toensing said she wrote the "law" and she knows what it means and repeated that over and over. So folks, it depends upon what the meaning of "is" "is!"
Broken top

[JDPriestly]

32. I apologize, but I think it appropriate to re-post this post.

Definition of covert agent.

50 U.S § 426. Definitions

For the purposes of this subchapter:

. . .
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(4) 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.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?titl...

Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapt...

It is a defense to a charge of violation of this provision if the identity of the covert agent was publicly known.

As I recall, Plame stated that she was
(A) a present or retired . . . employee of an
intelligence agency . . . 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;

Victoria Toensing claims that Plame was not a covert agent based on her knowledge of the legislative history and intent of the Act. Apparently she claims to have been a party to the drafting of the statute.

Under the plain language of the statute, it would appear that Plame was a covert agent. Did I miss something?

[Kagemusha]

2. Plausible deniability is supposed to be, you know, plausible.

If it's not plausible it loses a bit of its strength.

[texpatriot2004]

13. A bit, yes indeed it does ROFLMAO nm

[texpatriot2004]

3. I think Davis is looking for Capt. Obvious to say to agent X that

they are "covert" - duh, why would they say that? They shouldn't need to.

[magellan]

14. Just like his asking Plame what her supervisor said to Novak

He seems to think the supervisor should have called Novak to tell him not to print VWP's name and that she works for the CIA because she's covert. Well, they can't say that because she's covert. DUH!

But it's even stupider to believe that not being told that gets Novak a pass. You don't ignore a phone call from the CIA suggesting something shouldn't be printed...unless you've got friends in higher places, evidently.

[texpatriot2004]

19. Exactly! And my point is if someone is hired to be a CIA agent

and they are clearly assigned tasks which are "classified" or "covert" and their superior has to specifically state and explain to them that they have a status of "covert" or "classified" then I am thinking that their employment may soon end. How ridiculous. As a superior in that position, I am not going to spell it out; if you cannot connect the dots then I need someone who is less deft.

[magellan]

23. "And your name will be..."

"Natasha?"

:rofl:

Sorry, ironically (or cynically, perhaps) FOXMO was running "True Lies" tonight. Even SHE got it....

[texpatriot2004]

27. Yes, see...

and you'll be wearing clothes to work and shoes.

ROFLMAO:rofl:

Funny about "True Lies"

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. Where's Boris Badenov???

Old Bullwinkle reference and Russian opera pun, as well. (Boris Gudonov by Modest Mussorgsky).

[texpatriot2004]

34. Tying Natasha to the railroad tracks nm

[Penndems]

5. If you don't know someone is covert...

You keep your mouth shut and assume that they are.

Guess that concept is too deep for Tom to conprehend.

[magellan]

21. And all the other RW yahoos spewing the same talking point

But it seems that national security and logic take a back seat to protecting Bush** and his cabal. As usual.

Needless to say these same people would line up to lynch a Democratic administration that did this. And the impeachment trial would have been over three years ago.

[Penndems]

26. If this had occurred during the Clinton Administration, the right would've been marching on D.C.

with tar, feathers and firearms, no mistake about that. They would be shouting from the rooftops about what a treasonous SOB Bill Clinton was.

They're firm believers in selective outrage. :mad:

[sellitman]

8. My dog ate my homework

Just as plausable.

[texpatriot2004]

15. And all those times nobody ever believed it...yet, it is just as

plausible.

ROFLMAO

[Old and In the Way]

9. Interesting how many Republics didn't show up for this.

Wonder why? They freaking over at FR...where are the Republics defending Bush? Only 2 bothered to show. They couldn't figure out why...maybe because no one wants to defend the indefensible?

[Monkeyman]

11. They are all out crying in their beer

[texpatriot2004]

16. Yeah, especially on the record and on film eh? LOL nm

[DRoseDARs]

10. What an odd perversion of the "Ignorance of the law" defense & it holds about as much legality too.

Which is to say, "None." :shrug:

[napi21]

12. I think what he's been hammering, and Toensing did the same, is

with regard to the violation of the law, written back in 1982 that requires an accuser to prove 5 things.

Knowledge that the subject was a Covert Agent
Intent
Agent must have worked outside the US within the last 5 years
The oversea's assignment must be long term and not just a short trip.
If in the US, they must have only been back from an overseas assignment for 3 years or less.

Both Davis & Toensing were completely ignoring any other violations the WH leakers may have done by shopping Valerie's name to the Press.

It was a nice try, but it didn't seem to work!

[magellan]

20. Unless they were trying to enrage every decent person listening to them

THAT worked magnificently!

I've really had it with the elephant-sized dumps the Republicans take on the laws of this country.

[JDPriestly]

33. 1982-- pre internet, pre computer, pre Google. Pre-Bush corruption.

Ways of doing business and politics have changed. Clearly the laws need changing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

40. No, No, No -- as recently pointed out, they are by definition a Covert Agent

If their employment status was classified.

Therefore, the person who broke the 1982 law specifically,
is the person in a position to know Plame worked for the CIA AT ALL,
and that person broke it BY DEFINITION.

because the CIA did not publically acknowledge her identity,
meaning, despite the lies of "journalists" like John FUnd,
she was a covert agent.

(John Fund said Gonzoles was gone, by the way --
a big turnaround in two nights.)

Intent is the only X factor. but conspiracy (Cheney,
Scooter and Rove dividing knowledge of covert status with
responsibility for dissemination) shows intent.

Also, if Rove improperly used clearance to look up the names of
covert NOCS on the NOC list, that is a separate crime on the same
order of magnitude, or greater, as what Clinton's aide did.

The person does not have to KNOW that they were posted overseas
or for how long, THAT is determined at trial since it is info
that a person would not have access to even if they knew she
was a NOC and intended to divulge it.

What do they teach these assholes (politicians, media) in schools?
Why can't they follow complicated transactions anymore?

[Garbo 2004]

18. People with security clearances, such as Libby & Rove, have an affirmative duty

to check whether such information is classified and if so, not release it to others not authorized to receive such information.

[orwell]

43. Bingo...

...they actually sign a document to that effect when they receive their security clearance. They are bound to ask the appropriate agency if they are not sure, or lose their clearance.

[Patsy Stone]

22. Davis was dancing as fast as he could

He earned his supper today; and the extra whining on the side about the amount of notification he received was a nice touch.

I really wanted Waxman to say, "Consider yourself lucky you received any notice. At least we don't make your party hold its meetings in Storage Room B."

[Justice Is Comin]

25. He tried to be so blase'

as if the hearing was important only to insure nothing involving "accidentally" outing a CIA agent happens in the future. That there was no wrongdoing here.

What a tool.

He also didn't like the answer that he was trying to lead the witness to, that there was no requirement to conduct a parallel investigation. He really didn't want the guy to say that.

And, I got the feeling that Valerie was just salivating to get the chance to tell more than she did. Notice how she jumped at the chance to knock down those "true" rumors every time she got a question. I wish Henry had kept the hearing going another two hours. She had loads of info she was ready to unload, and we didn't hear.

[Patsy Stone]

28. This should have been a two day affair

Although I'm not sure I could have sat through anymore of Davis, I would have loved to have heard much more from Valerie. Truth be told, I felt sorry for Knodell. The other guy didn't care. Oddly, he seemed to be okay testifying that they had an obligation to come forward after they learned her name, and he sees no reason they shouldn't have. Ooops.

I posted this in another thread, but Victoria Toensing was a pip. I could have used another hour of her for comic relief.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=432722&mesg_id=433413

And a HUGE shout out to Paul Hodes. I would not want to face him in a courtroom.

[Justice Is Comin]

35. I said the same thing about Hodes.

He was the star on that panel today. Had Knoddel peeing his pants. No let up, just one Mark Fuhrman moment after another.

The information that he forced I believe will be all over the talk shows this weekend. The news media is in a dazed state right now. They haven't even been able to recover from what was heard yet.

I believe it will slowly metastasize and be huge by the end of next week. Thanks to Paul, and I'm his new biggest fan.

[texpatriot2004]

29. While Davis and Westmoreland whined about lack of time, etc.

that's what I was thinking too. Yeah, tell it to someone else asshole after the bullshit that the Rethug Cover-Up Congress pulled for nigh on six years!

[Schema Thing]

24. "affirmative responsibilty" is the phrase you're looking for

and the gentleman sitting to the camera right of Mr. Knodell kept making that clear; "cover" is too damn important to be left up to rules and regulations; if you have security clearance, it's your duty to get it right, even if you have to take affirmative action to protect an agent's cover.... EVEN if you don't know for sure their status, it's your duty to find out or protect as if they are undercover.

[texpatriot2004]

42. Mr. Leonard wasn't that his name? nm

[JDPriestly]

31. The source of their knowledge was classified at the time the

information was originally learned. At least one or two of them knew that the document naming Plame was classified at the time they read it and learned her name.

The outing was done in a very public manner -- by contacting a number of JOURNALISTS. Do you think that Plame is the only CIA agent whose name is or was known to Cheney, Rove, Libby, Matalon, etc.? How many other CIA agents has one of them outed by contacting JOURNALISTS and telling them the CIA employee's name? And if CIA agents aren't unintentionally outed to JOURNALISTS every once in a while, why not? Of course, it is because no one wants to risk outing a CIA agent. There are potential criminal penalties for such "mistakes." Certainly a person who mentioned the name of a CIA employee to a JOURNALIST without first making sure that the CIA employee is not considered to be a covert agent could lose his or her security clearance.

I could believe that Plame was outed inadvertently to several JOURNALISTS within a relatively short time if such outings were fairly frequent, but they aren't -- at least not in cases in which the person doing the outing failed to check first to make sure the CIA employee wasn't covert. And CIA employees aren't frequently outed to JOURNALISTS or in instances when the employee's husband is in the news and the outing is "newsworthy" only because of the relationship between the employee and the newsworthy spouse.

The argument that the outing was unintentional just does not make sense. The argument that those who outed Plame did not realize that she was covert is weak. If the applicable law does not prohibit inadvertent outings, it must be amended. Also, there needs to be more oversight and more clear-cut rules regarding who can classify and declassify, how information is classified and declassified and how classified information should be handled by legislatures and employees of the executive alike.

On the one hand, information should not be declassified and disseminated for private political purposes. On the other hand, information should not be classified in order to prevent the public from obtaining enough information to form intelligent, well-informed opinions about public policy and the conduct of government.

[pnwmom]

36. The impossible dilemma for the CIA

is that they can't confirm to a reporter or anyone else that she is covert without divulging classified information and breaking her cover!

That's why the CIA couldn't be more direct with Novak. They did all they could and Novak is such a moron -- or such a traitor -- he didn't care.

[bananarepublican]

37. K&R. This is a very strong point that needs to be made again and again. n/t

[ellacott]

39. Also, they keep forgetting about the memo that was labelled "secret"

They had this memo on the plane to Africa. They knew at that time that they should divulge her identity.

Waxman pointed out that even if they try to quibble about her covert status there still is an executive law that was broken.

[Cass]

41. We're not talking about a couple of yahoos with no experience or knowledge of the treatment of

classified information. We are talking about the frigging White House. Certainly White House employees know how to properly treat classified information. This talking point does indeed make them look like incompetent buffoons at best and treasonous bastards at worst.

I cannot and do not believe for one second that they did not know Plame was covert. Logically, its just not possible for the White House to have been clueless about this. As soon as they started digging up info on Wilson, his wife's employment was sure to be disclosed because it was the White House on the receiving end of the info. Who at the CIA is going to tell the White House "no, you don't have a need to know"?