I Am Ending This Plame Nonsense
Written by Mike on July 5th, 2005(I am sorry for the lack of posts recently, I have been on vacation to visit my cousin in Thailand.)
For some reason the Left seems to have forgotten that this story was long ago shot down and seems to think that the recent grand jury investigations have something to do with treason, allow me to burst your bubble.
From the Washington Post, dated Jan. 12th 2005: The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?
It’s time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling “government interest,” i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.
So the two people who wrote the law don’t think a crime was committed. But it gets better.
When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.
This also shows that Rove isn’t even remotely in danger of being charged. The best is yet to come though.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week’s work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as “covert.”
She worked at a desk at Langley, she wasn’t a covert operative and the only reason she was described as such is because she worked in the generally sensitive field of weapons proliferation. There is much more to the article than I have posted, but I’ll leave you with this last bit.
If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson’s wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified — or that “affirmative measures” were being taken to protect her cover.
Case closed.
5
AM
Excellent work fisking the whole affair. Joe Wilson must be hella pissed he didn’t get that Kerry Administration appointment at State.
5
AM
lol, yeah. Joe has issues.
5
PM
Thanks for wrapping up your Kangaroo Court.
5
PM
Spike, stop using rhetoric and respond to the points presented by the two people who wrote the law. You can’t of course, so you’ll stick to rhetoric.
6
AM
Michael, I know that one of the two people who wrote the law served under Reagan, therefore Ed Meese, so I’ll assert that there may be some partisan bias in their interpretation of the law they wrote. I can’t speak for the authors motivations for asserting clarifications of the statute at this point in time but it does seem curious that the clarifications come now. I also know that interpretation of law and its application is the domain of the Judiciary, that body of government that is Constitutionally separate from the Legislature. No doubt the authors of the statute could take advantage of the timeliness of seeing their statute be put to the test of jurisprudence while they still live and breathe by filing an amicus brief. Which leaves the question of rhetoric: an apt description of the entire thread and the spin around whether there was prior knowledge or not. Given that Fitzgerald continues to aggressively pursue the case one might draw the conclusion that a crime has been committed, talking points notwithstanding.
6
AM
These clarifications (as stated in my post) came January 12th, 2005. They are NOT coming out just now. This story was dead a long time ago that is what I am trying to explain to you. Only people who haven’t been paying attention are panting over this case seven months after it was debunked.
“Given that Fitzgerald continues to aggressively pursue the case one might draw the conclusion that a crime has been committed, talking points notwithstanding. ”
Fitzgerald is prosecuting what and whom? Nobody knows because a grand jury hasn’t even decided that this case is worthy of going before a judge and jury yet! There are no indictments. There are no charges. No one even knows what is being investigated and who is the target of the investigation. Stop assuming things and look clearly at what is known and unknown. Novak is cleared, Rove will be cleared (if you understand the law as written), the only people who look like they are in trouble are two reporters and we don’t know why at this point they are even being targeted. They may very well be innocent of a crime.
“. . . so I’ll assert that there may be some partisan bias in their interpretation of the law they wrote.”
Or maybe (if you follow Occam’s Razor) he really is trying to tell everyone that no crime was committed. Just maybe, crazy idea I know. Don’t blindly follow the left over a cliff on this one pal, because that is where this case is headed, nowhere.
6
PM
Thanks Mike,
I have been saying this on my show all along. First, is or was Plame EVER a covert opertaive, and obviously if she isn’t why are we even wasting our time. Secondly as you point out there is NO CRIME here at this point. Thank You for clearing this up, I will speak about this today on my show. Not enough people know about this.
J.R.
6
PM
“Fitzgerald is prosecuting what and whom? Nobody knows because a grand jury hasn’t even decided that this case is worthy of going before a judge and jury yet! There are no indictments. There are no charges. No one even knows what is being investigated and who is the target of the investigation.”
Granted. Then you go on to say:
Novak is cleared.
How do you know this? If you can show that Novak has been cleared, I might be willing to agree with you that “Rove will be cleared” but in my view that’s not a fair assumption if I use your first statement as a given basis of argument. Your statement on Novak and Rove being cleared contradicts the simple assumption that no one outside of Fitzgerald’s office knows the true status of the case. If you can, please show me otherwise. The fact that the investigation continues suggests to me that it is far from over.
Following Occam’s Razor here:
-Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t seem to be one to waste time on matters that are going nowhere. He’s spent much of his career on Islamic terror cases, and was nominated for U.S. Attorney by the Republican Senator from Illinois under the current Bush administration. Why would he be wasting time on investigating a case that may appear to have been decided in the court of public opinion? To that point, a Court of Law is far and away more authoritive than the court of public opinion. To conflate the latter with the former is disingenuous at best.
Your assertions that ‘everyone knew’ are an attempt to obfuscate. Let me give you an example: Several years ago, after 10 years of friendship and meeting his mother on several occasions, my friend tells me that she is relocating because she’s retiring. From what? “She was a spy” he whispered. This was news to me; I wouldn’t have guessed that this sweet old well-mannered woman was a national security asset. Now, I have come to this knowledge after the fact. Is it fair to assume that since she’s retired it is no longer an issue whether or not this was a secret? No, because I don’t know what she was working on, didn’t ask, and wouldn’t want to ask or know. Is it fair to state that because I now know that a person was a spy makes it public knowledge? No; clearly this knowledge came to me in confidence by the tone and after the fact. There is a vast difference between knowing something is a secret and actively using it as the topic of a politically charged, nationally syndicated op/ed piece. Had I chosen the latter course, I have no doubt I would be placed under investigation and likely charged.
What is widely known is that the effort to put Valerie Plame’s name in print was conducted out of the West Wing, as many as 6 journalists have gone on the record as such. Time will tell how these offenses are resolved. Why the administration that talks the talk of ‘national security’ would permit this breach is beyond me.
Lastly, it’s unfair to assume that there is a left/right in this case. The exposure of a CIA asset is a crime against our nation, especially since 9/11.
6
PM
Spike, you are not reading anything I am writing. Either that or you are not comprehending it. This has become very frustrating for me. This is not what I call intelligent discourse. You keep returning to points that have already been covered. I am gonna go over this one more time, and then if you don’t get it, you’ll just have to watch events unfold without understanding why what you thought was going to happen hasn’t.
Point 1.)
“Novak is cleared.
How do you know this? If you can show that Novak has been cleared, I might be willing to agree with you that “Rove will be cleared” but in my view that’s not a fair assumption if I use your first statement as a given basis of argument.”
Did you read the fucking Washington Post story dated almost 7 months ago? The two legal experts who wrote the damned law have said, clearly, explicitly that Novak has not broken the law they wrote. They then go on to say that Rove didn’t either. Did you miss that? Now read this bit from the article again (or for the first time) carefully and slowly:
“Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.”
Do you comprehend what the hell they are saying? The two people who wrote the law just explained how Novak and Rove are safe from prosecution. Now, tell me how much more you know about the law and legal proceedings than them.
Point 2.)
“Why would he be wasting time on investigating a case that may appear to have been decided in the court of public opinion? To that point, a Court of Law is far and away more authoritive than the court of public opinion. To conflate the latter with the former is disingenuous at best.”
Where have I said anything about public opinion? Where have I said, “Because most of the people think this isn’t a crime it should be forgotten?” I haven’t said, or implied anything like that. I have based my statements entirely upon the expert legal opinion of the two men who wrote the law in the first place. Public opinion be damned.
Point 3.)
“Your assertions that ‘everyone knew’ are an attempt to obfuscate.”
Really? Except for the fact that many people in the DC establishment DID know she was in the CIA. So I am not clouding the issue, rather I pointing out the fact that in reality she was NOT undercover. Her identity was NOT a secret. Now this throws cold water on any charge of treason so you don’t want it to be true. Sorry, but it is.
Point 4.)
“Several years ago, after 10 years of friendship and meeting his mother on several occasions, my friend tells me that she is relocating because she’s retiring. From what? “She was a spy” he whispered. This was news to me; I wouldn’t have guessed that this sweet old well-mannered woman was a national security asset.”
This is rich. How did you know that she was a spy even after they told you? She might have been just like Valerie Plame who has worked a desk job at Langley for the past nine years. This family anecdote is charming, but I don’t see how it relates to the facts of this case.
Point 5.)
“There is a vast difference between knowing something is a secret and actively using it as the topic of a politically charged, nationally syndicated op/ed piece.”
Ahhhh, there you go assuming again. You have no idea how Plame’s name ended up in the Novak piece. At the time he was charging nepotism against her and her husband (not a charge without merit by the way). It is almost a certainty that Novak knew well before he spoke with Karl Rove that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in weapons proliferation. Novak is one of the most well connected men in DC. So why hasn’t Novak been charged? Because Plame wasn’t undercover and Fitzgerald is well aware of this by now.
Point 6.)
“What is widely known is that the effort to put Valerie Plame’s name in print was conducted out of the West Wing, as many as 6 journalists have gone on the record as such. Time will tell how these offenses are resolved. Why the administration that talks the talk of ‘national security’ would permit this breach is beyond me.”
You are assuming again, that the reason Plame’s name was mentioned is that the White House was trying to “out” her. How could possibly know the intent behind including her in the story? You couldn’t but you would like for the White House to have committed a crime here so you convinced yourself that this is what must have happened, unlikely as it is. It would seem the most obvious reason she was mentioned is because she requested her husband go Niger, when he had no knowledge of the country or nuclear proliferation, but he was willing to try and make Iraq look less dangerous than it was. It was political nepotism.
Last Point.)
“The exposure of a CIA asset is a crime against our nation, especially since 9/11.”
So is ignorantly charging treason. This story is dead. It is being resuscitated by the Left because they think they can nail Rove. They are blinded by their target. Everyone who knows what the fuck they are talking about knows this story was a non-starter back when it first blew up in the run up to the 2004 elections. I am not going to debate this any further. I would like to read your response (if you want to write one that is), but I can’t keep posting the exact same set of facts only to have you throw up family stories and heaping gobs of rhetoric without offering any, not a single contradictory fact to what I have already presented.
6
PM
Michael, everything you’ve written would be regarded as hearsay in a Court of Law. Even the opinions of the legal minds who wrote the law are incidental to the matter at hand. Need I explain further? They are not the Judiciary, they do not have the authority of the Court. Until the case goes to Grand Jury, everything that can be written, speculated or concluded about it is conjecture.
The truth is this: the case continues. One reporter has agreed to testify in order to avoid jail and another has been found in contempt.
It’s an active case, Michael. Get with reality.
7
AM
Today’s news alerts are in…. And as I stated before PlameGate does have legs. No one knows exactly what is driving this investigation. I assume that, at the least…. Rove may be indicted for purjury. I read in one article that Bush & Cheney have now hired lawyers to represent them concerning this investigation(I doubt the validity of this one story,as of this day and time, however.) But Mike and others…..Wishing this away won’t make it happen.