Posted on 10/19/2005 12:09:54 AM PDT by freedomdefender
No, she doesn't. What Victoria Toensing clearly says in that commentary is that the mere divulgence of her name was not a violation of the law, not that Valerie Plame's status wasn't covered by the law.
If she was "covered" then why was her husband telling reporters, neighbors and friends about her "job" at CIA? It wasn't a secret.
Does a "covered" person drive to work at Langley everyday?
How does a person married to a former ambassador expect to be "covered" when she shows up at a Clinton state dinner with that husband?
Why would anyone at CIA be expected to say anything while this case is being investigated? I think they have said quite enough already. They already have BIG ENOUGH MOUTHS by talking to "reporters" before any of this started.
******
Is Fitzgerald Over-Reaching on Leak Case?
by Victoria Toensing
Posted Oct 18, 2005
There now appears to be consensus that no one violated the 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act in publishing the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame.
It’s a hard law to violate. Its high threshold requires that the person whose identity is revealed must actually be covert (which requires at the least a foreign assignment within five years of the revelation), that the government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the person’s identity, and that the revealer must know that the government is taking those measures.
OK, Mr. Wilson - let's see your tax returns for the past four years.
Including the book deal and speaking fees. lol!
The CIA referred the investigation to the Attorney General. They would not do so if the IIPA did not cover disclosure of Valerie Plame's status.
The rest is much sound and fury, signifying nothing.
So says you.
ADVERSE REPORT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H. RES. 417
Section 426(4)(A) of the statute defines the term covert agent to mean: (1) a present officer or employee of an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information and (2) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States. At this time, it is not clear whether Plame is, or was, a covert agent, nor is it clear whether Novak's sources have, or had, access to classified information. Wilson confirmed his wife worked for the CIA in his 2004 book, but most CIA employees are not covert agents.
I'll wait for the investigation by Fitzgerald to end.
I'll wait for the investigation by Fitzgerald to end.
Not a bad idea, but you weren't waiting when I replied to you initially.
At this time, it is not clear whether Plame is, or was, a covert agent, nor is it clear whether Novak's sources have, or had, access to classified information.
No, I didn't. I said as much myself to begin with: "It's hard to figure out what's true and what's not in all the spin, but here's how I look at it."
I hope the following is not true...that the mere referral for an investigation into whether the law was broken, automatically binds the Prosecutor and GJ to the view that Valerie Plame was a covert operative.
I'm obviously no legal expert, but something is wrong with this picture, if it were the case. The referral could be just one more effort by rogue CIA agents to destroy the Bush Administration. Such wrong actions could potentially be behind any referral, could they not?
How could merely the act of referral predetermine a Prosecutor's judgement as to who falls under what law and whether or not the law was broken?
Mary Matalin, John Hannah, Cathie Martin, and David Wurmser....
Since they all testified, I'd say that they are ALL informants, as are Rove and Libby.
For that matter, even the President and Vice President.
How does the media get away with turning these non-stories into shocking headlines?
The author, David Shuster, is a big time Bush hater and he is not afraid to admit it. Plus, if Fitz has a witness that can testify to some huge conspiracy within the WH to do something illegal, then why, according to the NYT is this going on:
"In recent days, Mr. Fitzgerald has repeatedly told lawyers in the case that he has not made up his mind about criminal charges."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/19/politics/19leak.html?ei=5094&en=adcf3adabff56617&hp=&ex=1129694400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
In addition, MSNBC is referring to a legal brief over a year old. Since that time, there has been more testimony from witnesses that Fitz was trying to get.
David Shuster....good one.
Since there is "only one source," the non-CIA people who "leaked" her connection with the CIA, could not have known without a doubt that she was "covert."
If any of those people goes down, I hope it is Mary Matalin, that useless good for nothing idiot.
I'm certainly not implying anything of the kind. I'm sure Fitzgerald proceeded to confirm whatever Plame's status was in the CIA. At least three CIA officials testified to the grand jury: George Tenet, Bill Harlow, and John McLaughlin.
The point that I've been making is that if Valerie Plame's status was not covered by the IIPA, then there could not possibly have been a violation of the IIPA, and the CIA would certainly know that. So, why on earth would they investigate her disclosure as a violation of the IIPA and report it to the Attorney General as a potential violation of the IIPA if her status was not "covert" as defined by the IIPA??
It makes no sense to me at all. Regardless of what people come up with to imply that she was not covered by the IIPA, the fact that the CIA obviously regards her as being covered tells me that she was covered. In other words, that she was "covert" in some applicable way.
The whole reason why this investigation is taking place is because the CIA officially notified the Justice Department that a potential violation of the IIPA had occurred in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity. If she was not "covert" there could be no violation of the IIPA. Ergo, if the CIA says that a potential violation of the IIPA occurred when her name was disclosed, that's a darn clear signal that she was "covert" as defined by the Act.
Do you have a link to the doc the CIA used to refer this to the Justice Dept or the letters the Justice Dept wrote to Fitz regarding his instructions?
I think those would be interesting to see exactly what was involved.
Absolutely not. I am not saying that the IIPA was violated. In fact, I seriously doubt that it was. All I am disputing is the people who are saying that she wasn't covert to begin with. It makes no sense for her to not have been "covert" because if she wasn't then the CIA would not have investigated it as if she were nor referred it to the Justice Department as if she were.
That does not mean that what took place was a crime. For it to be a crime, whoever divulged it had to know that the information was classified and had to intend that it be revealed to the public in order to disrupt intelligence activities. That's a whole nother ballpark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.