The Valerie Plame Affair Cliff Notes

[Ziggurat]

Given her actual status as she testified and as I am sure Novak could have found out, was his publishing her name justified? Or wise? Or traitorous? Or what?

It probably wasn't justified or wise, but it was not traitorous.

 

[Tricky]

It probably wasn't justified or wise, but it was not traitorous.

I dunno. You could argue it "gave aid and succor to the enemy", however minor, by blowing the cover (covert or otherwise) of one of our agents working against them. If Jane Fonda had done it, I'm guessing the Right would be on her like flies on Anna Nicole.

 

[Ziggurat]

Even Novak admits that Hayden was quoted correctly.

But we don't have Hayden's statement itself. I STILL can't tell if Hayden meant "covert" in the context of the IIPA or not. As far as I can tell, nobody in a position to know flat-out states "Plame was covert according to the definition of the IIPA", and conversely nobody in a position to know flat-out states "Plame was not covert according to the definition of the IIPA". That's what I'm looking for, and I can't find it anywhere. And I'm wondering why not. It doesn't require believing that Hayden is carrying water for the democrats in order to be a little skeptical of his statement (which we don't have directly, OR under oath), because there's other explanations as well. For example, it could be that CIA incompetence in handling her identity rendered her non-covert according to the IIPA, and Hayden is covering for the CIA and not for the democrats. I'm not saying that is the case, merely that there's all sorts of possible reasons why we might not be getting a straight answer without requiring any conspiracies. But again, I'm looking for a definitive answer to the question of whether she was covert according to the definition of the IIPA, and it just doesn't seem to be publicly available.

 

[Ziggurat]

I dunno. You could argue it "gave aid and succor to the enemy", however minor, by blowing the cover (covert or otherwise) of one of our agents working against them. If Jane Fonda had done it, I'm guessing the Right would be on her like flies on Anna Nicole.

The bar for traitorous action (rather than just unwise, damaging, counter-productive, destructive, stupid, un-American, etc) should be set fairly high. Anyone adopting an "opposition" position with respect to government is well advised not to try to push that bar down.

 

[fuelair]

Well, truth be told it seems the _real_ Valerie Plame affair was an effort to try to oust Karl Rove versus find the truth about the Novak leak. Rove is always the target. The frackas going on now about Gonzales, congress wants to subpoena Rove. Rove is always the target.

The Novak leak in a nutshell was the result of incompetence by stupid old white men.

Just to accurize: "result of incompetence by stupid old Republican white men."

 

[Tricky]

But we don't have Hayden's statement itself. I STILL can't tell if Hayden meant "covert" in the context of the IIPA or not.
...
But again, I'm looking for a definitive answer to the question of whether she was covert according to the definition of the IIPA, and it just doesn't seem to be publicly available.

I know you are, but it seems to me that this is nitpicking to the nth degree. If the director of the CIA says she was covert, what more authority do you need? I'm quite sure that whoever leaked her identity didn't carefully check the IIPA code to see if she was, to the last letter of the law, covert.

It's like having a murder verdict overturned because they misspelled the defendent's name. Yes, I know that lawyers make their living pointing out just such errors, but it doesn't mean the defendant wasn't guilty. Nobody, not Novak, not anybody, is denying she was undercover. Whether she satisfies the strict wording of "covert" is a gutless bit of sophistry irrelevant to the main question.

And to be clear, I'm calling Novak gutless, not you. Your temple has had enough of a workout for today.

 

[Tricky]

The bar for traitorous action (rather than just unwise, damaging, counter-productive, destructive, stupid, un-American, etc) should be set fairly high. Anyone adopting an "opposition" position with respect to government is well advised not to try to push that bar down.

Actually, I agree with you. The guys should simply be fired. I was only pointing out that sometimes people "move the bar" depending on who is the person being called treasonous. But like Nixon and like Clinton, the problem is not so much the action, but the cover-up. If Bush had said "Rove you f***up," and turned him loose, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[SezMe]

It probably wasn't justified or wise, but it was not traitorous.

As I already stated (in this thread? too lazy to look it up) Bush himself, during the campaign, said that proliferation of nuclear weapons was one of the major threats we face. Yet Plame worked on exactly that problem in some of the hottest spots in the world. Novak did not just out Plame, he ruined Brewster-Jennings and everyone who was remotely associated with that organization. Who knows how much damage that did but it cannot have been anything less than calamatous. I'll leave it to the legal beagles to worry about whether that meets the definition of traitorous, but I know what my opinion is.

But again, I'm looking for a definitive answer to the question of whether she was covert according to the definition of the IIPA, and it just doesn't seem to be publicly available.

Is the IIPA the only place where covert is defined. That's a genuine question - I'd like to know the answer.

The bar for traitorous action (rather than just unwise, damaging, counter-productive, destructive, stupid, un-American, etc) should be set fairly high. Anyone adopting an "opposition" position with respect to government is well advised not to try to push that bar down.

Actually, I also agree. You make a good point.

 

[Unabogie]

Is the IIPA the only place where covert is defined. That's a genuine question - I'd like to know the answer.

IIPA was only legislated in the early 1980's so would anyone make the case that outing a spy in the 1970's was ok, even if it wasn't illegal under IIPA?

And to the larger point, the IIPA has several prongs which make it hard to prosecute. It doesn't ask merely "covert or not covert", but also requires intent and knowledge of the covert status. So Rove, Armitage, Fleischer, et al can make the case that they didn't catch the "covert part" or didn't intend to out her and how can you prove otherwise? Moreover, a defense lawyer can "graymail" the prosecutor by claiming that top secret material is need for his defense and that he can't get a fair trial without it. Judges will then dismiss the charges on the grounds of national security. Many cases are thrown out on that basis. That's why Fitzgerald went after Libby on the sure fire perjury and obstruction, since a) Libby was already toast by the time Fitzgerald came on board, and b) maybe Libby will testify against Cheney and Rove on that issue of intent once he's looking at jail time?

But not-withstanding this legal question, the CIA decides who's covert by decree. So when Hayden says she's covert, and that she was until she was outed by Rove and Armitage, then does it matter whether there's a law in place that can successfully nail them for it?

Talk about parsing!

 

[Azure]

I don't doubt that Bush was clue-free during the whole leaking business. However, now that he knows what happened, he can be blamed for not firing those who ordered or allowed the leak. Something about a buck stopping somewhere.

I never said he was clue free.

He was very thorough.

Which would be why the people who outed Plame are in jail...

 

[Tricky]

I never said he was clue free.

No, you just sarcastically suggested that people are most intent on blaming Bush. The clue-free bit was my way of agreeing. However, I don't doubt that the leader of the free world doesn't know what every single member of Cabinet and all their sub-secretaries and minions are doing. I'll bet he doesn't even know what his daughters are doing.

Which would be why the people who outed Plame are in jail...

Robert Novak is in jail? Hell, even Scooter Libby isn't in jail. Sentencing is set for June. Assuming he isn't pardoned by then.

But you can't blame Fitzgerald for the fact that convictions were so few and unpunished. He was assigned to do a job and he did it well. Now it's out of his hands. Do you think he should have done some things that he didn't do in order to secure more convictions? Elucidate.

 

[Azure]

Robert Novak is in jail? Hell, even Scooter Libby isn't in jail. Sentencing is set for June. Assuming he isn't pardoned by then.

But you can't blame Fitzgerald for the fact that convictions were so few and unpunished. He was assigned to do a job and he did it well. Now it's out of his hands. Do you think he should have done some things that he didn't do in order to secure more convictions? Elucidate.

I was being sarcastic. I find it a bit frustrating that we 'know' who outed her, we know who wrote the column, and we KNOW who gave Novak the information.

None of those people were even brought to court.

Frustrating.

 

[Darth Rotor]

While you are at it Azure, who gave Novak this info?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500912.html

Regarding Libby and Gonzales, unofficial word from the White House is not reassuring. One credible source says the president will never -- not even on the way out of office in January 2009 -- pardon Libby. Another equally good source says the president will never ask Gonzales to resign. That exactly reverses the prevailing Republican opinion in Congress. Bush is alone.

Hey, Brown, what do you say to this? Is Libby gonna walk?

DR

 

[SezMe]

I'll take a different cut at that quote, DR. One news trend is increasingly bugging me, namely, "sources". So much of what I read cites "unnamed sources" or "credible sources" or "high-ranking sources" blah, blah, blah. Hell, such a source could be the camera man at the bar the night before. This is bad journalism, IMO, and I wish it would cease, or at least be minimized. I also wish I was a billionaire - they're both as likely to come to pass.

/rant

 

[Azure]

Novak should tell us Darth, just like he told us that Armitage leaked Plame's name.

 

[SezMe]

Info from here:

Monica Goodling, the Department of Justice official who said Monday that she'll invoke the Fifth Amendment rather than talk to lawmakers, is a 1995 graduate from Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit."

She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."

I'm not sure what to make of this, but here it is.

 

[RandFan]

Something about a buck stopping somewhere.

IIRC Bill Clinton and Janet Reno firmly put that tradion to rest, though I have to say I wish it were not so. I can't remember the specifics on Clinton, I think his quote was "the buck never got here" but Reno absolutely refused to accept any responsibility for Waco.

 

[SezMe]

The tradition was put to rest well before Clinton and Reno. IIRC, 79 people who served as political appointees in the Reagan Administration were charged with crimes yet Reagan never was held responsible.

That said, I agree that Reno refused to accept responsibility for the Waco fiasco.

 

[eeyore1954]

I would suspect the tradition of the buck stopping somewhere else has been around since the dawn of civilization

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'll take a different cut at that quote, DR. One news trend is increasingly bugging me, namely, "sources". So much of what I read cites "unnamed sources" or "credible sources" or "high-ranking sources" blah, blah, blah. Hell, such a source could be the camera man at the bar the night before. This is bad journalism, IMO, and I wish it would cease, or at least be minimized. I also wish I was a billionaire - they're both as likely to come to pass.

/rant

I don't disagree with you, nor with Azure. My sarcastic softball tossed to Brown is a counter to his assertion a few weeks back that because a bunch of right wing pundits were spooling up the spin machine on pardoning Libby, it was going to happen, and justice would be raped, looted, and pillaged.

I found that a pointless speculation. Novak's observation is also speculative. I don't disagree with your complaint on sources. My only caveat to that is that Novak had sources like Armitage, and others in the administration's upper echelons, so it is not beyond credible that he knows a few insiders who provide him with tactical leaks.

I also think that Libby will get a pardon, if he gets one, only after the 2008 election is over and GW Bush has a couple of months to do whatever it is Presidents do between election results and leaving the White House.

DR