More Media Spin
Here's another revolting example of MSM fawning over Valerie Plame, this time by the AP. She's repeatedly referred to as a "covert operative" for the CIA -- in total contravention of the findings of Mr. Fitzgerald, apparently, for it's a crime to leak the name of a "covert operative" and no one's been charged with doing so.
Apparently, she and her husband were "stricken" after Bob Novak made reference to her in his column. Well, she must be some CIA agent, if she couldn't foresee some risk of exposure in permitting her husband to lie publicly in the pages of The New York Times about a mission she was instrumental in securing for him.
Sounds to me like there are certain predictive and risk assessment skills missing. If all the CIA agents are like her, no wonder they missed both 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union.
One more question: Who, at the CIA, leaked classified information -- namely, the fact that a criminal referral had been sent to the Justice Department in Ms. Plame's own case? And why doesn't anyone want to look into that breach of security?
Apparently, she and her husband were "stricken" after Bob Novak made reference to her in his column. Well, she must be some CIA agent, if she couldn't foresee some risk of exposure in permitting her husband to lie publicly in the pages of The New York Times about a mission she was instrumental in securing for him.
Sounds to me like there are certain predictive and risk assessment skills missing. If all the CIA agents are like her, no wonder they missed both 9/11 and the fall of the Soviet Union.
One more question: Who, at the CIA, leaked classified information -- namely, the fact that a criminal referral had been sent to the Justice Department in Ms. Plame's own case? And why doesn't anyone want to look into that breach of security?
posted by LadybugUSA at 6:10 PM
7 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Yawn, another RWTP (Right Wing Talking Point) to knock down. This time we have the "Valerie Plame was not covert" hooey. Let us look at the facts...
Patrick Fitzgerald, in his Press Conference, said, Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us.
So, Valerie Plame's status as an agent was intentionally secret, classified, and not widely known. This is precisely what the word "covert" means. Now, it is possible that there is some other definition in play, so let's look at Carol's evidence.
Carol wrote, She's repeatedly referred to as a "covert operative" for the CIA -- in total contravention of the findings of Mr. Fitzgerald, apparently, for it's a crime to leak the name of a "covert operative" and no one's been charged with doing so.
It is also a crime to disclose classified material to a person or persons without sufficent clearance to receive them--the Espionage Act. Under the Espionage Act, the discloser has an affirmative responsibility to determine whether the material is classified or not (i.e., not knowing is not an excuse).
We know that Valerie Plame's status was classified. Adding this to what is alleged in the indictment on the leaking front, it is clear that Scooter Libby could have been indicted for violating the Espionage Act. The fact that he wasn't says nothing about the facts at hand. Similarly, not indicting on the IIPA says nothing about Fitzgerald's conclusions about whether or not Valerie Plame was "covert" or not.
Carol's claim is equivalent to claiming that a prosecutor must indict on every charge they have evidence for. This statement is false. Carol is a lawyer, and must know that this statement is false. Carol has lied.
I sure hope Mr. Fitzgerald bothers to indict on all charges they find evidence for, especially if they actually find evidence for a leak (which I don't believe he has, regardless of what he said at his press conference about Valerie Plame's classified status or more indictments would have been announced. Maybe there's more to come, but I doubt it.) Isn't that the supposed crime in question, leaking her "covert" status? Otherwise, what the devil has he been doing with my tax money for the past two years?
Let me get this straight. You shouldn't indict on a perjury or obstruction charge even when THOSE acts prevents the prosecutor from obtaining the necessary evidence to indict on the Espionage Act.
Lesson to all would-be felons:
In Carol Liebau's America all you have to do is lie on the witness stand. Prosecutors are morally obligated not to indict you on the "lesser" charge of perjury so you can get off on a technicality!!!
I guess crime DOES pay! You just have to cover your tracks well enough.
First, it is my understanding that perjury is not indictable if it is not relevant to the inquiry at hand. Second, is it suggested that Libby woke up one morning and said, hey, I'll fix Wilson, I'll out his wife? How would that fix Wilson? It wouldn't, of course, so why do it? I'm asking. I think Libby woke up one morning and asked, who would send a Kerry hit man on a mission like this? Don't we sanction private citizens who interfere in foreign policy matters? Isn't it the White House who sends emissaries to look in to foreign policy matters, not the CIA. I'm asking.
Exactly. Suppose as a witness one were asked, Do you have any knowledge of this crime? Your response might be, none whatsoever. A lie? Of course, because its been all over the papers. Relevant? Not at all. Perjury? Not at all. Misleading? Not at all. And hey, it is the duy of all Americans to lie to investigators. Do you have any knowledge of this crime? No, I did don't want to get involved. Perjury? Of course, hells bells we could have everybody in America in prison on this criterium.
No, by all means, indict for perjury or obstruction. However, in this case, there is no indication that the alleged perjury in question actually obstructed the ability to discern whether a leak had occured or not. There are lots of opportunities to lie in which the lie ends up having nothing to do with the supposed crime. Fitzgerald can indict Libby, but what he revealed by uncovering Libby's alleged lies doesn't lead him any closer to finding the "leaker" (or even the lack thereof.)
Post a Comment
<< Home