Judge Dismisses former CIA Operative Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Against

[ReillyT]

I've enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. You and I seem to be of the same mind on the subject. The only real problem I had with Fitzgerald is how he avoided proving Plame was covert per the statutes in the Libby trial, yet brought it back up during sentencing whilst at the same time claiming that Libby should only be sentenced for the crimes he was convicted of.

Personally, I'd like to see Plame charged with perjury and the like for her contradictory statements before Congress regarding her role in sending Joe to Niger. But I doubt the Democrat majority or Reid will allow that to happen as doing could be devastating to their main political tool - the war.

Thanks. I am so tired of the Plame saga that I just want it to end, although I find myself getting pulled back in on this thread. Don't blame Fitzgerald. He was working within the rules of the system, prosecuting to the fullest extent.

I say let Plame alone. She didn't actually ask for this notoriety, and while she has played it up the last several months, perhaps she really does feel wronged, and perhaps justifiably so.

 

[red states rule]

Thanks. I am so tired of the Plame saga that I just want it to end, although I find myself getting pulled back in on this thread. Don't blame Fitzgerald. He was working within the rules of the system, prosecuting to the fullest extent.

I say let Plame alone. She didn't actually ask for this notoriety, and while she has played it up the last several months, perhaps she really does feel wronged, and perhaps justifiably so.

Don't tell us - tell the Dems

If she does not want notoriety - why does she want to publish a book?

 

[ReillyT]

Here are the words of Plame. It is clear that she has stated and the Director of the CIA believes she was a covert agent under the law. They have the CIA backed into a corner where they either release classified information to prove that Plame was a covert agent or they say: "ah ha, there isn't any proof that she ever went overseas and Plame and the Director of the CIA are liars."

It certainly looks like she was covert to me. In fact, it is beginning to appear so clear that she was covert that I am wondering why this has even been a question.

That's right... Robert "Fucking" Novak

RSR, how can you honestly say that she wasn't covert in light of the cites and excerpts that Edward is posting?

 

[red states rule]

It certainly looks like she was covert to me. In fact, it is beginning to appear so clear that she was covert that I am wondering why this has even been a question.

That's right... Robert "Fucking" Novak

RSR, how can you honestly say that she wasn't covert in light of the cites and excerpts that Edward is posting?

A minor little thing - like the law

 

[ReillyT]

Don't tell us - tell the Dems

If she does not want notoriety - why does she want to publish a book?

Originally, she may not have wanted the spotlight. Now perhaps, a) she has found she likes it; or b) she still feels wrong wants to explain her position in her book; or c) she is happy to make some money; or d) any combination of the above.

I have no problems with a, b, or c. My guess is that if I were in her position (looking at her in the best light), a,b, and c would all appeal to me as well.

 

[ReillyT]

A minor little thing - like the law

What specific part of the definition of "covert agent" do you feel does not apply to Valeria Plame?

 

[red states rule]

Originally, she may not have wanted the spotlight. Now perhaps, a) she has found she likes it; or b) she still feels wrong wants to explain her position in her book; or c) she is happy to make some money; or d) any combination of the above.

I have no problems with a, b, or c. My guess is that if I were in her position (looking at her in the best light), a,b, and c would all appeal to me as well.

She is cashing in - and alot of libs will hand their money over to her

A fool and his money are soon parted

 

[Edward]

Thanks. I hadn't previously read the statute. It certainly does appear that she fits the definition of "covert agent." I guess the only other question is whether (a) her identity was classified (almost surely); and (b) was the government "taking affirmative steps to to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." I am inclined to believe that this is the case.

It is certain that they were taking affirmative action to conceal her covert relationship since she was working in a division of the CIA dealing with counter-proliferation and which was a part of the Directorate of Operations. Why is this important? Because the Directorate was responsible for the clandestine operations of the CIA and is currently known as the Natinal Clandestine Service. No one knows the name of a single agent working in that area including the Associate Deputy Director over the division. As for for her identity being classified. I do not believe that her identity was classified though and this isn't required under the provisions of the law instead her intelligence relationship or in other words her covert status is protected even if her identity as a CIA employee is known.

 

[red states rule]

It is certain that they were taking affirmative action to conceal her covert relationship since she was working in a division of the CIA dealing with counter-proliferation and which was a part of the Directorate of Operations. Why is this important? Because the Directorate was responsible for the clandestine operations of the CIA and is currently known as the Natinal Clandestine Service. No one knows the name of a single agent working in that area including the Associate Deputy Director over the division. As for for her identity being classified. I do not believe that her identity was classified though and this isn't required under the provisions of the law instead her intelligence relationship or in other words her covert status is protected even if her identity as a CIA employee is known.

Eddie will never let the law get in the way of his "facts"

 

[Edward]

What specific part of the definition of "covert agent" do you feel does not apply to Valeria Plame?

The only provision he can assert does not apply is that she didn't serve outside of the United States in the five years previous to her covert status being revealed. The only problem with that is that her sworn testimony contradicts this. He is trying to avoid the central issue which is that she was covert under the law and since he knows full well that the CIA cannot and will not release classified information to the public about her foreign activities he can always find easy victims who will buy his story.

 

[ReillyT]

It is certain that they were taking affirmative action to conceal her covert relationship since she was working in a division of the CIA dealing with counter-proliferation and which was a part of the Directorate of Operations. Why is this important? Because the Directorate was responsible for the clandestine operations of the CIA and is currently known as the Natinal Clandestine Service. No one knows the name of a single agent working in that area including the Associate Deputy Director over the division. As for for her identity being classified. I do not believe that her identity was classified though and this isn't required under the provisions of the law instead her intelligence relationship or in other words her covert status is protected even if her identity as a CIA employee is known.

Actually, upon a closer reading of the statute, I once again don't know whether she was a covert agent or not.

The statute states:

A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

So, if it was not classified that Plame worked for the CIA, does she fall within the statute? I don't know. The natural reading of the statute seems to me to say that if her identity as an employee of the CIA is not classified, she would not be covert. However, although natural, this reading yields silly results, as it would also mean that a military intelligence agent would not be covert unless it were classified that they were even a member of the respective armed service, which I doubt is how it generally works.

Of fuck. I am a lawyer and I can't figure out what this damn thing means.

Fuck it. In light of everything else (Plame's testimony, confirmation of Dir. of CIA), I am going to assume that merely the role of the agent need be classified, and I believe she was covert.

Not that I believe any of this matters anymore. I am tired and my head is hurting.

 

[Edward]

Eddie will never let the law get in the way of his "facts"

So what proof do you want? Do you want the time, date and places of her foreign missions? Do you want the CIA to publish to the entire world what she did for our country? Of course you believe that the, "the CIA should hand over five years worth of its activities to a jury" and not worry about how the information could be leaked.

It is because of the sensitive nature of the information that we must rely on the testimony and statements of Valarie Plame and the Director of the CIA that she is in fact what she appears to be. That she was recruited as a covert agent and has remained as such since her employment in the 1980's. You and Ms. Toensing are the ones who are letting "your facts" get in the way of the law. I am also positive that the Director of the CIA can read the law for himself, and has CIA attorney's review the statute before asserting that one of his covert agents was a protected under the statute. I don't need Ms. Toensing or you to interpret the law. You can continue to quote the law all you want but your real argument is THAT YOU KNOW MORE THEN THE DIRECTOR OF THE CIA AS TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND ACTIVITIES OF VALARIE PLAME AND SO LONG AS HE DOESN'T REVEAL THOSE ACTIVITIES TO YOU NO ONE CAN BE PROSECUTED UNDER THE LAW. The burden of proof shouldn't be as high in this type of case.

 

[theHawk]

Ambassador Wilson was MORE than qualified to be sent on the trip and this was the 2nd mission the CIA had sent him on, another one in 1999.


You can't refute anything that I've said.

The INR report I just posted already did REFUTE exactly what you just said, nimrod. My guess is you didn't even bother reading it. Its right there in plain English. Scroll up and read it. Both the CIA and INR put NO stock at all into Wilson's ability to find out anything.

Here is the only evidence the Congressional investigation found, Plame' email.
Read it 'n weap:

The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUyMzgyZmVjZDUzYWRjYTU2YmM1MWEwZDYzNTI3OGQ=


Opps, the above email by Plame is HARD EVIDENCE that she indeed did send her husband.

I guess you'd just prefer to close your eyes and pretend this and the INR report I already posted just don't exist.

 

[ReillyT]

The INR report I just posted already did REFUTE exactly what you just said, nimrod. My guess is you didn't even bother reading it. Its right there in plain English. Scroll up and read it. Both the CIA and INR put NO stock at all into Wilson's ability to find out anything.

Here is the only evidence the Congressional investigation found, Plame' email.
Read it 'n weap:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUyMzgyZmVjZDUzYWRjYTU2YmM1MWEwZDYzNTI3OGQ=


Opps, the above email by Plame is HARD EVIDENCE that she indeed did send her husband.

I guess you'd just prefer to close your eyes and pretend this and the INR report I already posted just don't exist.

That email doesn't say that she sent him. It is not as if she made a unilateral decision and just let everyone else know after the fact. The email suggests that he was approached by someone else about helping, and she acted as a liasion between the CIA (or whatever intelligence group wanted his help) and her husband.

By the way, what the hell difference does it make that she had a role in her husband going to Niger? She is an intelligence officer. He has contacts in Niger. The intelligence community has questions about Niger. It kind of all fits together nicely.

 

[CockySOB]

ReillyT,

"Covert" under the law means that the CIA must be taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship between Plame and the CIA. Bill Harlow should have simply said, "No, we don't have a Valerie Plame or a Valerie Wilson working here at the CIA." Instead, he confirmed to Novak that Plame did indeed work at the CIA although his and Novak's recollections of the confirmation differ slightly.

Moreover, the "overseas service" was never proven under the law. Someone cannot simply say "yes, I was overseas serving" and have the statement carry the weight of law. Fortunately, the court could have subpoenaed Plame's payroll records to find out exactly when she had been overseas and for how long - there is an automatic pay adjustment for overseas service.

What the whole Plame-kerfluffle is long on is talk, but it is very, VERY short of legal facts. If the government thought it had a case, it would have had to establish those legal facts in order to build its case, and as you pointed out, that's no small matter.

 

[ReillyT]

ReillyT,

"Covert" under the law means that the CIA must be taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship between Plame and the CIA. Bill Harlow should have simply said, "No, we don't have a Valerie Plame or a Valerie Wilson working here at the CIA." Instead, he confirmed to Novak that Plame did indeed work at the CIA although his and Novak's recollections of the confirmation differ slightly.

I don't know anything about the Novak/ Harlow conversation. Not one, single solitary thing. I have also decided I don't ever want to know. I think I need to spend more time reading about the Cleveland Indians. Still very informative, just in a different way.

Moreover, the "overseas service" was never proven under the law. Someone cannot simply say "yes, I was overseas serving" and have the statement carry the weight of law. Fortunately, the court could have subpoenaed Plame's payroll records to find out exactly when she had been overseas and for how long - there is an automatic pay adjustment for overseas service.

While true, the fact that it was never proven in a court does not mean it isn't so. All we really have to go on is her word, and the opinion expressed by the Dir. of the CIA, who I would guess knows the statute. So, without any other sources of information, we have to go on what is available, keeping in mind essentially that we are all just talking out of our asses.

What the whole Plame-kerfluffle is long on is talk, but it is very, VERY short of legal facts. If the government thought it had a case, it would have had to establish those legal facts in order to build its case, and as you pointed out, that's no small matter.

Oh so long on talk.

 

[Edward]

Originally, she may not have wanted the spotlight. Now perhaps, a) she has found she likes it; or b) she still feels wrong wants to explain her position in her book; or c) she is happy to make some money; or d) any combination of the above.

I have no problems with a, b, or c. My guess is that if I were in her position (looking at her in the best light), a,b, and c would all appeal to me as well.

Considering the fact that she lost her career as a result of what happend it can be expected that should try to find another source of income such as a book or movie deal. Of course, she could live off of her husband but I am of the mind that she isn't that kind of woman. I say let her make money since George Bush is going to be writing quite a few books after his presidency and will get to benefit from this situation financially.

 

[theHawk]

By the way, what the hell difference does it make that she had a role in her husband going to Niger? She is an intelligence officer. He has contacts in Niger. The intelligence community has questions about Niger. It kind of all fits together nicely.

It makes a difference because thats how the entire "leak" started. It was about tracing WHO sent him. It makes a difference because he LIED about it.


Neither the INR nor the CIA believed Wilson would be able to find anything out by talking to his old friends. Hence why he was never paid to do so. Plame sending her husband to Niger on a vaction hardly equates to an official investigation into the matter by the CIA. They have REAL agents to go do stuff like that, they would not use some old hasbeen former ambassador to Gabon. What do you NOT understand about that?

 

[ReillyT]

It makes a difference because thats how the entire "leak" started. It was about tracing WHO sent him. It makes a difference because he LIED about it.


Neither the INR nor the CIA believed Wilson would be able to find anything out by talking to his old friends. Hence why he was never paid to do so. Plame sending her husband to Niger on a vaction hardly equates to an official investigation into the matter by the CIA. They have REAL agents to go do stuff like that, they would not use some old hasbeen former ambassador to Gabon. What do you NOT understand about that?

What is with the capitalization of the words "lied" and "not?" Did you think that I can't read words in lower script?

I read the national review link that you posted and it seemed unexceptional. Once again, the Plame email doesn't suggest that she sent him at all. It suggests that someone else raised the issue, and she merely acted as a liaison to her husband. That doesn't seem exceptional to me.

Did the CIA believe Wilson would find something? Who cares? Somebody (other than Plame) obviously thought it was worth a shot.

Real agents??? Do you think they are dropping some James Bond figure out of an airplane to parachute into Niger to ask questions about yellow-cake uranium? No. If you want to know something about Niger, you go to someone who has contacts in Niger (like, for instance, Joseph Wilson). That James Bond shit is for the movies. We don't have Ethan Hunt types dropping into every part of the world where we have intelligence questions.

Finally, nobody vacations in Niger. It is one of the poorest places on the earth, despicably barren, and doesn't have a single good Italian restaurant.

DID you UNDERSTAND that OKAY?

 

[theHawk]

By the way, a fairly important date to remember:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

From your own source:

And, coincidentally…

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03

Five months prior to October 2, 2003 would be May 2, 2003. What happened on that date?

May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.

(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)

Joining the Kerry campaign and becoming an advisor, all before the election, none of this could of been politically motivated could it?