Replies

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. There's only one source that know's Valerie Plame's status without a doubt: the CIA. They're not talking, but their actions speak loud and clear: they reported that a potential violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act took place. That tells me this: whatever Valerie Plame's status at the time, it was covered by the IIPA.

The statement can also indicate others or another. Or even that Plame/Wilson or either are responsible for such an action.

There could still be someone else, yet to be identified, is the point because as to Plame, whatever her status, she was not being secretive nor "covert" in her employment status with The Agency and seems to have quite literally been taunting people to CALL her "a secret agent" for purposes of something similar to a "trip and fall" claim against a business.

I find the VANITY FAIR photos and their Plame/Wilson eagerness and willingness to participate in a COVER STORY with SPREADSHEET PHOTO of them both PRIOR TO their claims that she was "outed" to be a tad too eager to be found out.

They could very well be covering for someone else, is my point, which makes far more sense to me, trying to lead people astray as to target and individual/s involved...it seems to me to be the "hey, over HERE" ruse to send a pursuit over the border, so to speak.

That tells me this: whatever Valerie Plame's status at the time, it was covered by the IIPA.

The person who wrote the law says that it doesn't cover Valerie Plame.

snip

Those lawyers “familiar” with what is going on in Fitzgerald’s investigation have likely based their opinions on the types of questions the prosecution team has asked their own clients, who are presumably only witnesses. One theory is that Fitzgerald is looking at a general espionage law, 18 USC §793. But that law prohibits a person from revealing national defense information such as ship movements or submarine base locations. It was never intended to criminalize the mere act of disclosing a CIA agent’s name. Why? Because when Congress considered prohibiting revealing a covert person’s identity, it stated in the accompanying report that such disclosure should be prohibited only under limited circumstances to “exclude the possibility that casual discussion, political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of illegality or impropriety in government” would be chilled by the law.

Congress intended to criminalize only disclosures that “clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States….”

Similarly, a conspiracy “to discredit Wilson for his statements critical of the White House’s use of intelligence,” another reported possible Fitzgerald approach, does not violate any law. If it did, every administration since George Washington would be guilty of a crime.

Ms. Toensing, a founding partner of diGenova & Toensing, is an internationally known expert on white-collar crime, terrorism, national security and intelligence matters.

That tells me this: whatever Valerie Plame's status at the time, it was covered by the IIPA.

So, what was she doing then, spying against the American people in direct violation of the US Constitution?

There's only one source that know's Valerie Plame's status without a doubt: the CIA. They're not talking, but their actions speak loud and clear

Certain elements within the CIA have been at war with the administration for the last 5 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/10/wbush10.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/10/ixnewstop.html

The CIA is not a friend of the administration or the American public. They've spent more time trying to "get" VP Cheney than they've spent trying to get bin Laden.