Posted on 03/16/2007 5:55:58 AM PDT by Mo1
Edited on 03/16/2007 5:57:55 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
ON CAPITOL HILL Valerie Wilson Testifies
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) chairs a House Oversight and Government Reform Ctme. hearing on the disclosure of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. The hearing will look into whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of Ms. Wilson.
FRIDAY, C-SPAN AT 10AM ET
"Well...what if, this hearing was a sort of payback to PLAME, to help her civil case against Bush, Cheney, Rove???"
TxSleuth, See point 2) in my post 1391
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1801823/posts?page=1391#1391
"I'm not talking about the press. Do you think that the US Government should release the names of CIA employees?"
I take it you are trolling. I have already answered this question.
Government employees are restricted in what classified material they can release by various executive orders, agency rules, and the rules of their own clearances.
As a matter of fact the only person so far successfully prosecuted under the IIPA was a CIA agent, who told her boyfriend the names of some "covert" (under cover) CIA officers -- in Ghana.
VT...must not be as jaded as we are...it sure doesn't come as a surprise to me that no other reporters picked up on that.
Did you see VT on Hannity and Colmes?? Alan was as bad a Waxman..kept badgering her, but wouldn't let her answer a question once she started saying something that didn't square with their version of events.
And I have NO cable; tell me what she says!
GMTA!!! LOL
I agree 100%. She also outed herself to one of the biggest blowhards around when she told Wilson on their THIRD date that she was a covert agent for the CIA. I don't think you have good judgment about a person's character in such a short length of time; therefore, I wouldn't consider her a trustworthy covert agent. No one questioned her on her own lack of character, did they?
Hey TXsleuth, good to see you here. Been a long time. I am sure you've been on the threads, but just wanted to say hi since the other thread we were pinging each other to.
"I agree 100%. She also outed herself to one of the biggest blowhards around when she told Wilson on their THIRD date that she was a covert agent for the CIA."
Moreover, she told this to a man in a hotel room in a foreign country. This is almost the classic set-up for trapping spies.
Weirdly, the IIPA allows intel officers to "out" themselves. But who knows what else she told Joe.
In any case it was surely a violation of her own security clearance regulations. I wonder how she passed her subsequent polygraphs -- unless she is a good liar.
This is exactly right. Watching VT trying to explain this to Colmes, I could feel her frustration. It's a simple concept, I don't understand why there's so much analysis and debate about it.
Plame was a CT, a Career Trainee, as verified by our friend Larry Johnson. CTs are ALWAYS covert/undercover. That's their status at the CIA. No matter what they do, no matter where they rotate, for the lengths of their careers. It's merely a status. You can't determine if someone is covert or not by analyzing what job they're doing at the moment. You are or you are not.
Covert employees do move to overt status, usually as their careers progress, and there's a personnel process to that and their status officially changes. You don't move in and out of this status as your job changes. There are no areas of gray--you are covert or you are not and anyone working with you knows your status.
CTs go through a special training program and generally will always be covert, even if they're working as analysts at HQ with all co-workers being open employees.
However, what was important in this case was to determine if she was covert as defined by the statute--this is different than was she covert or open. This takes analysis, examination of the law, examination of her career and other facts.
What needs to be investigated here is why we had the ridiculous investigation we did when one attorney can sit down with some personnel files and a copy of the statute and make the determination that she, while a covert employee, was not covert as defined by this law.
yep, and the MSM goes along with it. There really needs to be a stronger voice that reaches out with the truth besides FOX news and conservative radio.
"What needs to be investigated here is why we had the ridiculous investigation we did when one attorney can sit down with some personnel files and a copy of the statute and make the determination that she, while a covert employee, was not covert as defined by this law."
Media pressure. Gutless Department of Justice. Gutless White House.
Ms. Plame is a real airhead liberal democrat.
basically what she said at the hearing .. though brought up the date of the memo and the date Cheney rec'd his briefing
Alan totally ignored that and accused her of trying to change the subject about whether Plame was covert or not
Alan .. like Waxman didn't want to hear the "under the law" part
No, it will not "settle" anything legally, anymore than Fitzgerald's case against Libby did, though Fitz kept referring to the status as "classified", in order to "justify" to the public his "investigation".
I don't know if civil court (especially in DC) is even going to dwell on this particular issue any more than criminal court did in Libby's case, i.e., how do you prove that someone is not "covert", especially in case like Valerie? She just claims that she was, and try proving that she wasn't (there are no documents to the contrary, except obvious common sense)... And IIPA is a criminal statute, it is irrelevant in civil court. I don't think that civil court in DC will even bother with the statutes covering intentions, any more than Walton's court did.
Don't forget, the lawsuit was filed in US District court in DC, they don't need proof of being "covert" for DC jury ( and they don't need unanimous decision, either ).
However, if it became incontrovertible public knowledge in the course of Congressional hearings that she absolutely, positively was not "covert" in any legal or common sense - that would completely derail Wilsons' civil lawsuit, as well as destroying publicly Fitzgerald's reasons for "investigation" and throwing cold water on Libby's trial.
Democrats understand what publicly "covert" Plame means to them - their entire attack against administration depends on that - and they kept pressing that issue during hearings; by deliberately keeping it fuzzy ("Hayden told me..." and such), they don't bother with legalities and only care about public relations aspect... Republicans had a chance to make her "covert" claims outright laughable, yet they blew another opportunity to defend administration and, by extension, themselves.
I wouldn't argue against it. It also provides some needed final chapters for her book/movie...
I don't think any of this will be settled. They benefit from the confusion.
Waxman shut down Victoria when she was trying to clarify the law today....
Well said.
Victoria represents all that is good in America. She never gave up, never got cynical or snarky.
She kept her brains, her wit and her good sense about her while they came after her with everything they had. They know they need to neutralize her to keep their charade going.
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.