CIA Plame Thread - Questions, Answers, and Outcomes

Various New Whores | 10/18/05 | CT

[CT]

Rush says there is a rumor on the street that the CIA leak case is about to produce some indictments. He also said it was just a rumor, and did not assign probabilities.

I am suggesting we use this thread to get a single post that establishes key facts around this entire matter. For instance:

1. It is widely believed that Joe Wilson's testimony to the select Senate Committee upon his return from Niger is in conflict with his NYT editorial some months later. If so, it would mean Wilson was lying to either the Senate or American public through his editorial.

Please provide news links that establish Wilson's duplicity.

2. Media has variously reported Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent. However facts established when the case first broke had Plame as a regular staff CIA employee working at Langley for the 5 years prior to allegedly being 'outed.' If so, it would mean the law prohibiting naming covert agents does not apply.

Within the last few weeks the usual media outlets have now started reporting Plame as a covert, Division of Operations employee, with no mention of Plame's most current role, and widely known identity as CIA staff.

Please provide news and other links that establish Plame's less-than-covert identity; also how media has 'airbrushed' key facts in this invetsigation that would put the entire case in doubt.

3. There are a number of circumstances, facts, and related information that makes this a very strange case. One common element, however, is how poorly the liberal media has covered it. In particular, how reporters have used inuendo and a new phenomenon - projection - to write stories with little or no basis in fact. Karl Rove is therefore only the latest example.

Please provide any and all links that establish examples of how poorly the media has performed, as well as key examples of media bias.

If there is anything else worth including, please do. It will be most useful if we can get any and all relevant data linked here.

[babydoll22]

Seeing this, I think Bush and Rove are playing poker.We have seen the flop and the turn card. The coming week should be the final card on the river.

The fact that Judith Miller has said that she could not remember who her source is tells me her source is either Wilson himself or a member of the Clinton team.

I do believe as mentioned on an earlier thread that the White House has her on tape to be used at the appropriate time.

[Texas Songwriter]

Fitzgerald is a Republican appointee, but he is a democrat

[fso301]

If it is true, then to the best of my knowledge, there are two people who are centrally involved in this affair who have not been called to testify - Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson. That might be telling.

I think Joe Wilson testified as late as last week.

[Steve_Seattle]

"In another Article he was also asked not to divulge his testimony , as it was critical to the investigation. This does not look like someone that is a target of the SP, but a key witness."

I noticed that, too, and it does make it sound as if Rove's testimony was not the nail in the coffin for Rove but rather an essential piece for some OTHER line of inquiry to proceed.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Those close to the investigation said in June 2003, Hannah was given orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson . . . "

I'll say it for the 50th time in two years: How would revealing that Plame assisted Wilson in getting the Niger assignment "muzzle" him or "punish" him or "discredit" him? It simply doesn't follow; the premise underlying this whole "scandal" has never made sense. Bush and the Iraq War had many critics, many of whom were more important than Wilson and saying far worse things than Wilson. I can't believe that the administration was as obsessed with Wilson as Wilson was obsessed with Bush. This whole thing is completely upside down.

[Steve_Seattle]

"since Wilson has been shown to be a liar, I'm not sure where any of this stands in the eyes of Fitzgerald."

I don't think Fitz is at all concerned with Wilson's lies and inconsistencies, unless they can be found to have a direct bearing on the matter at hand, i.e., the leak of Plame's identity. Fitz is not investigating either the administration's or Wilson's veracity regarding the Niger yellow cake story, in particular, or the Iraq war in general; he is just investigating the leak.

[popdonnelly]

"Those close to the investigation said in June 2003, Hannah was given orders by higher-ups in Cheney’s office to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson . . . "

It appears to me that rawstory is having a wet dream.

[paradoxical]

he is just investigating the leak.



are you sure?
IIRC Ken Starr was not investigating stains and dresses


I do not know the answers but I like post #18

[maryz]

A senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson

They actually wrote that? LOL! One scenario that hadn't occurred to me!

[Steve_Seattle]

"It appears to me that rawstory is having a wet dream."

That's apparent the further you get into their story; for them this will hopefully blossom into a vast Watergate conspiracy, with "all the President's men" indicted on multiple charges, and some Hollywood hunk playing Joseph Wilson in the movie version of "The Outing."

[SirLinksalot]

Here is my personal view for what it is worth:

1) There has been NO ABSOLUTE, IRREFUTABLE and CREDIBLE statement made regarding the status of Valerie Plame at the time her involvement in the Niger trip was exposed.

WAS SHE OR WAS SHE NOT OFFICIALLY A COVERT AGENT AT THAT TIME ?

Most of the people in this thread say she was not and their explanations span the gamut from her being in the USA for over 6 years ( yes, but was her covert status revoked ? ), and her employment in the CIA being known by most of her friends ( so what ?).

Therefore her OFFICIAL STATUS is crucial to the investigation. If she was not officially covert, then the issue is not the outing, because there is no "covert" status to out.

2) Even if her status were covert ( and this is a big IF ), for Rove and Libby to be indicted, there has to be proof beyond reasonable doubt that THEY INDEED BOTH *KNEW* and *MENTIONED* the fact of her covert status to reporters.

WE DON'T KNOW OF SUCH ACT. All we know as of this time is that Rove and Libby DID mention her involvement in the trip of Niger by her husband, Joe Wilson. Simply mentioning such invovlement WITHOUT mentioning her status DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SOMETHING THAT IS ILLEGAL or CRIMINAL.

3) The most worrisome element about this for Rove and/or Libby will then be --- whether or not her involvement ( i.e., recommendation of Wilson to the Niger trip ) was CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

If it indeed was classified information ( and I don't know that ), then we have a case of Rove and/or Libby leaking classified information and THIS is illegal and indictable.

SO, IS HER RECOMMENDATION OF THE NIGER TRIP FOR HER HUSBAND *CLASSIFIED* INFO ? Does anyone know ?

4) If her involvement is classified info, then for me, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SAY THAT WILSON's TRIP TO NIGER IS NOT CLASSIFIED EITHER.

You do not de-classify the nature of a trip only to classify the details of the trip. ONE SHOULD COME *TOGETHER* with the other. Wilson's trip *AND* Plame's involvement ( i.e., her recommending him ) SHOULD BOTH BE CLASSIFIED !!!

Now if both are classified, then I don't see why if they indict Rove and Libby for leaking classified info, they should not indict Joe Wilson too.

After all, the entire case got started because Joe Wilson WROTE ABOUT HIS TRIP IN THE NY TIMES ! Which means, he broadcast classified info to the whole world !

Therefore, if Rove and Libby are going to be indicted for leaking classified info, Joe Wilson HAS TO be indicted too.

Anyone disagree with my analysis ?

[Perdogg]

You must of heard Peter Lance on C2C am.

[shhrubbery!]

You were right to preface that article with 'LW Kooks'...

The first paragraphs sounded remotely plausible, but my Bias/BS-o-Meter started clanging when I hit the line...

"Hannah was given orders ...to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson...when he started questioning the administration’s claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East..."

Then the BS-o-Meter jumped off the wall after I read...

First: "Others close to the probe say that if Hannah is cooperating with the special prosecutor then he was likely going to be charged as a co-conspirator and may have cut a deal..."

And second:

"The revelation that Hannah has become a prosecution witness ..."

Which is it? Is Hannah a confirmed "witness for the prosecution," or is the writer blowing reefer smoke?

Whoever the loon is, he can't keep it straight within one article.

[Eagles Talon IV]

Don't forget that Wilson was also caught in a lie by the 9/11 Commission when he claimed that documents used by the Admin to prove their case about the yellow cake were forged. The problem was that those documents weren't even known until AFTER Bush made his SU speech. When he was confronted by this by the 9/11 Comm his answer was he "misspoke".

Sure he did.

[yankee doodle andy II]

All CIA employment is classified - even the receptionist. And it is declassified on a case by case basis meaning that when the receptionist is hired, she is specifically given a clearance to reveal where she works. I know it sounds like a big deal but it isn't. If you call the CIA to ascertain if someone is an employee, you will either get a "yes" meaning it's a non-covert position or you will get no answer at all. That's what Novak got when he called about Plame. If Valerie was ever covert, then you are not allowed to reveal that she is currently a CIA employee - that's illegal. Revealing the name of a formerly covert agent exposes everyone they've ever worked with to danger. Valerie Wilson was known as an employee of Brewster Energy. When her identity as a CIA agent was established, Brewster Energy was revealed as a CIA front. That's where the problem comes in and why the CIA referred for investigation.

Whether someone is a desk jockey or not is irrevelant. Being a spy is dangerous, stressful work and they come and go. They spy for several years and then spend years at the agency. At a later point, they may very well go back out into the field. Valerie can't do that now. Every connection she established is lost.

I have a brother who was with the agency for many, many years. It's a tough life. We should be careful not to make it tougher.

We'll see about this mess.

Oh, and if his trip was classified, he would have been indicted ages ago. One wouldn't need a special prosecutor for that. Anybody at the Justice Department could handle that in a couple hours. That would make the Sandy Berger case look like the biggest spy trial of all time - it would be that easy.

We know the info was classified, we just don't know if it's intentionally leaked or not.

[fedupjohn]

"In another Article he was also asked not to divulge his testimony , as it was critical to the investigation. This does not look like someone that is a target of the SP, but a key witness."

I noticed that, too, and it does make it sound as if Rove's testimony was not the nail in the coffin for Rove but rather an essential piece for some OTHER line of inquiry to proceed.

DING DING DING DING We have a winner. Give that Freeper a cigar.

[eureka!]

Re#24 Yep. Indeed, none of the leaks are coming from the WH or Fitzgerald. This thing has a direction that the presstitutes simply refuse to acknowledge. Interesting too is that the NY Slimes and Miller are getting hammered by some of their peers. Perhaps eyes are opening, albeit reluctantly. Sure will be interesting to see what Fitzgerald comes out with, if anything...

[small voice in the wilderness]

At a later point, they may very well go back out into the field. Valerie can't do that now. Every connection she established is lost.

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't the fact that she and her husband posed for a Vanity Fair article entitled Double Exposure pretty much seal her future fate with covert operations? seems to me she outed herself with that debacle.

[Sam Hill]

"Whether someone is a desk jockey or not is irrevelant."

You don't know what you are talking about.

If the agent in question has not had a covert overseas assignment for five years prior, the Agent Protection Act of 1982 does not apply.

Which is what this was supposedly all about.