Libby Verdict reached

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7030602020.html

 

this deals with 1 and 3.

 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

An editorial that draws its own conclusions without dealing with the case evidence, and a blog entry that relies on the Senate investigation? The Senate thing was a joke - they were covering their own butts after they voted for the war and wanted the evidence to match. The fact that a CIA employee countered Wilson's claim is a good piece of evidence, but if that's the most damning thing they have (which it appears to be), then I see no case.

[Cknolls]

It is good to know that testifying under oath to the Senate means nothing.

 

Why didn't the CIA have Wilson sign a non disclosure agreement?

[kapkomet]

I'm sure he did sign some sort of NDA, but obviously it didn't matter.

[NorthSideSox72]

It is good to know that testifying under oath to the Senate means nothing.

 

Why didn't the CIA have Wilson sign a non disclosure agreement?

Its not any specific testimony I'm questioning. What makes their investigation and resulting analysis worthless is that the Senate had too much of a personal stake in the outcome regarding pre-war intelligence.

[kapkomet]

Its not any specific testimony I'm questioning. What makes their investigation and resulting analysis worthless is that the Senate had too much of a personal stake in the outcome regarding pre-war intelligence.

That's really an ironic statement if you think about it.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's really an ironic statement if you think about it.

ironic? I'm not seeing it I guess. I just think you can't have your judge and jury for this be people who have such a CYA stake in the outcome.

[Balta1701]

"covert" and "classified". Learn the difference.

 

The end on Valarie Plame.

So...Mrs. Wilson is testifying before Congressman Waxman's committee today. Part of her opening statement included this paragraph:

In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counter Proliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer, whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence.

The same statement, as I understand it, has been repeated a couple of times so far. Therefore, if Mrs. Wilson was not actually a "Covert operative who had traveled overseas" and who's ID was being protected by the CIA as has been claimed by supporters of the President...as far as I can tell, she would have just perjured herself.

[kapkomet]

She definitely walked RIGHT on that line. But she'll get a free pass (see Sandy Turdburgler), it's ok.

[NorthSideSox72]

She definitely walked RIGHT on that line. But she'll get a free pass (see Sandy Turdburgler), it's ok.

Or, maybe she told the truth. She is under oath after all. What's the proof she lied?

[kapkomet]

Or, maybe she told the truth. She is under oath after all. What's the proof she lied?

Because if she was in Langley, she wasn't "covert". Once you are assigned back to the home office, your "covert" status is no longer in effect.

 

Her argument was "I WAS covert, I AM covert, and I WILL ALWAYS BE covert"... which is nothing more then playing up the C_O_V_E_R_T word and getting it out there as many times as she can for the cameras. It's kind of like Bill Richardson. He'll always be "Ambassador" Richardson, as will her husband always be "Ambassador" Wilson. Again, though, her "agenda" is to use the word C_O_V_E_R_T as many times as she can to make it stick.

 

As a matter of fact, she had to admit that she wasn't "covert" in the hearing as well, because Waxman asked the question, and she had to say "no" to that question.

[Balta1701]

As a matter of fact, she had to admit that she wasn't "covert" in the hearing as well, because Waxman asked the question, and she had to say "no" to that question.

USA today is liveblogging the event, and I think that their summary disagrees with how you're presenting it, so I'd like to know your source.

Update at 11:05 a.m. ET. On being "covert:"

 

Though she believes she was a "covert" agent covered by a separate law that makes it illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of such an operative, Plame conceded to Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., that she was not told by CIA officials at the time of the leak nor afterward that her status was legally defined as "covert."

 

Asked by Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., about her status, however, Plame said:

 

"I know I'm here under oath. I'm here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency." Cummings also pointed out that, as the committee chairman said earlier, the CIA director has authorized a statement saying Plame was a covert officer.

....

Update at 10:29 a.m. ET. She was "covert:"

 

The question of whether Plame was a "covert" agent when her identity was revealed in 2003 has been greatly debated. The issue is important because leaking the name of a "covert" agent violates a specific law designed to protect such operatives.

 

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., just said he has been told by the CIA, in a statement authorized by CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, that "Miss Wilson's CIA employment status was covert." (Plame does go by the name Valerie Wilson, but is most often referred to in the media as Valerie Plame, her maiden name, because that is how she first came to be known when her name was leaked.)

[kapkomet]

USA today is liveblogging the event, and I think that their summary disagrees with how you're presenting it, so I'd like to know your source.

 

I heard it on a news clip on my way back to the office at noon. I think it was ABCNews, one of those quick clippies.

 

I haven't heard it again, but I haven't listened either.

 

On that, I'd actually like to see a transcript, because how I heard it was the way I described it, but I wonder in what order and how the questions were asked... that's one that context change can be very slight.

 

Edit:

 

Maybe it wasn't Waxman - but someone asked her "were you told that you were covert?" and she said no. So maybe my "definition" here is off.

Edited March 16, 2007 by kapkomet

[Balta1701]

Maybe it wasn't Waxman - but someone asked her "were you told that you were covert?" and she said no. So maybe my "definition" here is off.

Ok, I think that closely tracks with the first bit I excerpted there, the question by Tom Davis.

[FlaSoxxJim]

CIA Director Hayden: ‘Wilson Was Covert’

 

During House hearings today, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) announced that CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

 

Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she “had not been stationed abroad within five years.” Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

[kapkomet]

Well, forget the hearings. She's a babe.

 

 

(and I'm kidding... I don't care about that, but it's funny).

 

This is all a semantics game. People knew who she was, BEFORE the White House people supposedly got involved. Otherwise, there would have been a lot more charges brought up by Fitzgerald.

[Balta1701]

This is all a semantics game. People knew who she was, BEFORE the White House people supposedly got involved. Otherwise, there would have been a lot more charges brought up by Fitzgerald.

I think the reason there were no more charges brought by Fitz is actually pretty well established. The law about outing a covert CIA operative requires not only that the person outed be a covert CIA operative who has done work overseas in the previous 5 years, it also requires that the leaking be done with the intent to harm national security. The first point I think seems to be established pretty well as correct, but, based on the statements from Mr. Armitage, the first leaking appears to have been accidental. Both Bob Woodward and Robert Novak have testified that Mr. Armitage appears to have accidentally leaked Mrs. Wilson's employment status to Novak. Without witnessed who could testify to intent, it would have been impossible to charge Mr. Armitage.

 

And once Mr. Armitage let the cat out of the bag, that law couldn't be applied any more. Once she was outed by someone, the White House was legally allowed to do whatever they wanted with her name, because that law was no longer applicable. They may not have even known that they weren't the first group spreading around her name, but nothing mattered with respect to that law, as long as they didn't lie to the people doing the investigatin.

[kapkomet]

I think Mr. Armitage is covert, seeing as how he's NEVER mentioned.

[Balta1701]

I think Mr. Armitage is covert, seeing as how he's NEVER mentioned.

LOL