The Questions Not Asked About Valerie Plame
Posted on October 28, 2005
Crossposted at Part-Time Pundit by John Bambenek
During the press conference this afternoon, US Prosecutor Fitzgerald emphasized that no one knew that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA and that her cover has been blown. He said that she needed that cover and the blowing of that cover has harmed national security. After reading the indictment and listening to the press conference. Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.
If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.
A second question not asked is about Valerie Plame’s cover, the assumption seems to be given that she had it, needed it, and she kept it secret. Let’s discuss non-official cover for a moment and its purpose. The entire point of any cover is so that person covered can deal with foreign agents without them knowing they are dealing with an agent of the United States. That’s the point of espionage; it’s to deceive into getting information that would not normally be given. If foreign people would give up the information to an FBI agent, there is no point to having a covered agent.
Valerie Plame had cover so she could talk to people in other countries without knowing her affiliation with the United States, it’s that simple. If there was information that would otherwise compromise the fact that she was affiliated with the US government, her cover would be compromised.
Valerie Plame’s cover was blown the second she married Joseph Wilson (which is probably why she moved to Langley). How can I say this? Two things. The marriage ceremony was public and it creates a public record. In fact, Joseph Wilson made no attempt to hide the name or identity of his wife. Second, no one can seriously think that the known wife of a US ambassador would not have an affiliation with the United States government.
Some argue that her name was disclosed in a Who’s Who record, in talks given by Wilson, or other events. These are irrelevant distinctions because her name, in and of itself does not link her to the government. What links her to the government publicly is her marriage to a US ambassador, even without mentioning she was CIA.
If I was engaging in espionage in Russia on behalf of the United States, I would not take seriously the trustworthiness of the wife of a Russian ambassador. No one would. Perhaps the reason Plame’s leaking was not charged is because her cover was already blown the day she got married.
Others:
All Things Beautiful
Below The Beltway
Point Five
Wizbang
Bright and Early
Blogs for Bush
Poliblogger
The Corner
GOP Bloggers
» Filed Under ACLU, Communism, News
Trackback URL
Comments
20 Responses to “The Questions Not Asked About Valerie Plame”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Don’t you mean the CIA not the FBI?
Libby’s not charged with outing a covert agent because Plame was not a covert agent and even if she was Libby did not believe she was and it would only be a crime if Libby intentionally outted somebody he knew was covert.
Remember that Libby found out that Wilson’s wife owrked for the CIA from Cheney, who was told by Tenet himself. Tenet would not out one of his own agents.
But, also remember that Plame was somebody who woke up every morning and drove to work at CIA headquarters at Langely. Covert agents don’t openly go into CIA headquarters every day (if they want to remain covert.)
I just used FBI as an example because governments tend to have a relationship with the FBI more commonly than the CIA. But largely you are right, and I would guess the reason she was assigned to Langley because of her marriage to Wilson.
Ummm, what exactly does the true nature of her official CIA title have to do with the fact that Libby lied to the grand jury? Quoting from Fitzgerald, “talking points” will not fly.
Who is Libby?
Yeah, so lets give those super-patriot leakers the presidential medal of freedom. That will send the right message to all our agents, covert and otherwise!
We’re not talking about lying to a grand jury. Lying to a grand jury obviously deserves an indictment. The question was why Libby was not indicted for outing Plame, which is what JCB and I were discussing, and the answer is that she wasn’t covert.
Fitzgerald had to indict somebody for something so this is what we get. We’ll see if the charges stick, but it’s hard not to see Libby as the proverbial sacrificial lamb.
Well if Libby lied to the prosecutor, grand jury, and like he deserves to get sent up, even if the leaking was not a crime. That is the difference between Republican and Democratic administrations. We’ll send up our own to face the music when the lie to a court. Hillary, Bill, and countless others, when discovered were lying, prosecutors would not indict for the sake of the country.
The point was not that he should get off, the point was an observation that (1) her cover was blown long before Libby, and (2) Fitz was saying he was leaking, but charged him with perjury (et al).
Fitz said he was the beginning of the phone chain. He had converstaions, dates, emails. I don’t buy the idea he can’t prove Libby didn’t know the status. This was confirmed by his equivocation of “vindicating the interests” which essentially said perjury is good enough.
“The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.”
The investigation is ongoing. Perhaps they hope to uncover the motivations. Motivation can be the difference between “manslaughter” and “murder”.So it’s not that they can’t indict without knowing the motivations, it’s that the indictment won’t be full, just, and accurate without knowing the motivations–something that future investigation can uncover.
In the meantime, there’s obstruction of justice–which sends a message to others that are under investigation.
Who is this guy anyway? I never heard of him till all this stuff happened. Rove is walking, and this guy is taking the fall. Since I’ve never heard of him before, I don’t see why I should care about all this.
I think it’s great that you got the CIA mixed up with the FBI and then you tried to cover up the mistake by saying you meant to do that because you were trying to do help the less saavy.
If one were reading the official republican talking points and not pulling out of one’s butt one might at least try to get the significant facts correct.
It detracts from the rest of your thesis.
How is it that we insist that lying to the grand jury is only bad when its Bill Clinton on the stand?
It’s all Bill Clinton’s fault right? -just like the massive deficit and 9/11.
Sheesh!
“Mr Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller…” quote from Fitzgeralds press conference–
so how did he not out her? I think it is only being able to prove intent that is missing from this being a crime
and given that we are at war, don’t you think that Libby should have erred on the side of caution when dealing with the identity of a CIA agent
servant-
Learn to read. At no point did I imply Valerie Plame was in the FBI. Ever. The fact that you are twisting my words beyond comprehenion to make it so indicates that you have no intelligent argument to make.
Chris-
There is no intention needed to make this a crime, only that the person knew the agent was covert and that the agency took affirmative measures to protect the identity. He didn’t have to “mean” to do it. Maybe he should have had caution. Maybe the CIA should have reacted to Novak BEFORE the column ran. Maybe Wilson should not be running off his mouth about his wife-arranged junkets for the CIA either.
“The question was why Libby was not indicted for outing Plame”
As you pointed out, the law requires that the leaker know the victim was covert. It’s possible that the investigation disclosed that Libby only learned that Plame worked for the CIA, but not that she was still covert. Which, despite claims to the contrary, she was: Fitzgerald made a point of mentioning that during the news conference.
I know Fitz is selling, I’m not buying. He can say that all he wants, but he has converstaions, he has Libby who managed to figure out the Wilson’s wife sent him on the trip, but didn’t bother to ask what she did?
What’s idiotic about this whole charade is that Fitzgerald knew about a year and a half ago that nobody violated the law by outting a covert agent, and the investigastion really should have stopped then. Why in the world did it contine at taxpayer’s expense when the prosecutor already knew the law had not been broken?
I just used FBI as an example because …
Please, just say “I MADE A MISTAKE”.
That was one of the worst and full of misinformation acticles I have ever read.
Just to clear this up for everyone. He was not indicted for the original charge of outing the Plame because that change requires you to show a harmful intent not just that you did it. Fitz couldn’t prove the harmful intent so he charged him on the other counts. Not because he had to (he’s only spent 1/40th of what was spent trying to take down Clinton) but because Libby lied his arse off trying not to get caught which got him caught. Same thing that happened to Clinton except Clinton lied about a personal matter like you Mom asking you if you masterbate and Libby (along with the rest of them) lied about things that could potentially effect national security.
Peace
Why do we allow open comments again? So we can provide an outlet for lies?
If you read the statute here are the elements that are necessary to show there was a crime:
1) The person’s status was classified.
2) The agency took affirmative steps to protect the agent.
3) The leaker let it out anyway knowing the above.
Harmful intent is nowhere in the statute… AT ALL. And for reference, Fitz spent 2 years… unless you suggest we spent 80 years trying to take down Bill Clinton starting at about the time his Grandfather was a fetus, then your math is off.
Libby apparently lied, and he’ll rightly go down for it. But all you lefties have is ad hominems.
Bravo John! You took an obviously paraphrased description and slammed it because the verbage didn’t match up. I was actually taking your side on that point. On the Clinton deal I was talking dollars not days hense the word spent which you know asa a word smith could refer to either.
Point is if there was no criminal intent the outing charge isn’t valid and it just always seems too damn hard to prove what someone was thinking doesn’t it?
You’re overusing “criminal intent”. In theory, you can NEVER prove the thoughts of someone else. So therefore, there is no such thing as a criminal. What an absurd proposition.