Replies

BS. If that was true, the statute would been applied against Administration officials. No crime was committed. The prosecutor had to entrap people into lying to get indictments. It doesn't say much for a year of work into determining whether any laws were broken. The answer appears to be NO.

("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")

According to the indictment, Valerie Plame WAS still considered undercover and her CIA employment was 'classified'.

That's SOP - it means that Fitzgerald did NOT believe she was covered by the subject acts, as speculated previously by Victoria Toensing and others. what a joke ;(

According to the indictment, Valerie Plame WAS still considered undercover and her CIA employment was 'classified'

"was employed by the CIA and here employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

That does NOT mean that she was considered undercover. It means that her status, undercover or not, is/was not known.

According to the indictment, Valerie Plame WAS still considered undercover and her CIA employment was 'classified'.

Not to split hairs here, but I have not found any substantiation for the claim that she was "still considered undercover" within the text of the indictment. It states that, "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified".

The fact that her employment status was classified does not, in and of itself, mean that she was "considered undercover". The Grand Jury was tasked, among other things, to investigate possible violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information), . . .

Section 421 deals with 'classified information that identifies a covert agent'. While we know from the indictment that her employment status was classified, we do not know that she was a covert agent, and no indictment has (yet, anyways) been issued for such a violation.

Interestingly, neither has any indictment been brought for a Section 793 violation, which presumably relates to disclosure of classified information.

I just read the indictment and this is what I don't understand - if Plame was undercover and classified then according to the evidence in the indictment Libby is guilty of outing her and yet, they haven't charged Libby with that crime. That just doesn't make sense.

I wonder if the wording of the indictment is such that we are to draw the inference that she was undercover, when they know she really wasn't. I think this whole thing is screwed up. In all the evidence they are basically taking the word of reporters as factually in every instance.