I just sent the following letter to the Oregonian.

In his op-ed column, "The Joe and Valerie Show," Jonah Goldberg makes the same false assertion that many conservative writers and pundits are making. He wrote, "it wasn't the White House who outed her but Richard Armitage over at the State Department."

However, as Fitzgerald noted at the October 28, 2005 , press conference at which he announced Libby's indictment, Libby had leaked Plame's identity to then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller before Armitage leaked to Novak. He said, "Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003. But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson 's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told. In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

The text of this press conference can be found online at: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2005_10_28_fitzgerald_press_conferen ce.pdf

No one was charged with leaking her name, because leaking her name wasnt a crime.

Oh yes it was. We just don't have the necessary investigations going, or completed for that all to come out.

When one gets clearance for handling this kind of information, that comes with plenty of restrictions on how it gets used, distributed. Violations of those are listed in the Federal code.

He was told to do it. That's what all those obstruction convictions are all about. In his case, doing so may well be criminal in that it is against the law to follow an order that requires you to break the law. There are defenses for this, of course, but the core idea is that everybody is accountable to the law equally. That goes for leaders all the way down to ordinary people.

Somewhere in that chain of broken trust, laws were broken, people were seriously harmed and at least one unknown CIA agent likely died over this mess.

There are stars that represent deaths that cannot be named. One appeared shortly after this whole mess hit the fan. It's highly likely to be related.

The CIA people, who do these kinds of things, depend on that trust for their very lives. That trust was broken for political reasons and that's criminal.

Leaking her name probably was a crime. Unfortunately, it would be nearly impossible to prove in a court of law. That's why Fitzgerald isn't pursuing it.

Andrew

To prove it was a crime, you would have to prove she was properly classified as an undercover agent, which would be impossible, because she wasnt.

OK - it wasn't a crime. What was it then? Perfectly acceptable? Totally fine? Understandable? A good idea? The right thing to do? Politically motivated? A defensive tactic? A puzzle? Good? Bad? What?

Yeah!

Nwokie writes:
To prove it was a crime, you would have to prove she was properly classified as an undercover agent, which would be impossible, because she wasnt.

Why did the CIA ask the Justice Department to investigate the leak if no crime was committed? Wouldn't this have been a 5 minute phone call?

CIA: We want you to investigate the leak of CIA Officer Valerie Plame.

Justice: Was she undercover?

CIA: No.

Justice: Then what law was broken?

CIA: (Pause) Whoops - we missed another one. Sorry. (Click.)

Andrew

The leak didn’t violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Ms. Plame was neither covert at the time of the leak nor had a covert foreign assignment within five years.

You're right Andrew no crime was committed. Fitzgerald investigated a non crime. Ridiculous.

DD writes:
The leak didn’t violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Ms. Plame was neither covert at the time of the leak nor had a covert foreign assignment within five years.

You're right Andrew no crime was committed. Fitzgerald investigated a non crime. Ridiculous.

Let me understand this. You honestly believe that the CIA asked the FBI to investigate something EVERYONE KNEW was not a crime from the get-go? A Republican Administration would let this happen?

Remember, Fitzgerald wasn't on the case at first. John Ashcroft was handling it until he recused himself due to his own involvement in it (tangentially). For months before Fitzgerald came on board - why did NO ONE simply say, "She wasn't undercover, no violation of the law?" Since Fitzgerald wasn't involved yet, who else could have made this happen? There was no independent prosecutor, after all. (Fitzgerald was appointed as a federal prosecutor by Bush in 2001.)

Why did Bush, when asked about the Plame leak in press conferences, not simply say, "She wasn't undercover therefore no crime was committed?" Instead, he said that whoever committed a crime would be "gone" from his administration. Why would he go along with this basic premise if it was so obviously not a crime?

DD, no offense, but anyone who believes that is an idiot.

Andrew

DD writes:
The leak didn’t violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Fact is, because Libby lied, we don't know if that is a true statement or not. If Libby knew she was covert and leaked her identity he would have been guilty of the act.

Libby's indictment said Plame's status was classified, so it is impossible for you to know this.

So, if we are in a war against the terrorists, our risks are smaller, so why bother with secrets? Because there is no Soviet empire, it is now correct to view anyone who is not deep cover as open for publicity? Now it is okay to compromise any member of investigation, intelligence or law enforcement for political gain?

No, and the answer has always been, no.

Once again DD's is FAUXNews informed

Trixter, you need to get new material.

Fitzegerald invistagated and determined that there hadnt been a crime.

Just because a prosecutor invistigates, doesnt mean there is a crime.

A grand Jury is used to determine two things, 1 was a crime commited and did a person probably commit it.

It would have been an extremely short investigation if the CIA had asked the FBI to investigate and the FBI simply said, "But she wasn't undercover - what crime is suspected?" It wouldn't have taken months to figure that out - more like minutes. So it's BS to say there was no basis to the investigation in the first place ("because she wasn't undercover.")

As I said, Fitzgerald didn't prosecute anyone for the actual leak because it would have been an extremely hard case to win. He's a careful, by-the-book prosecutor, who wasn't about to try a case he wasn't sure he could win. But he did make a convincing enough case in the Libby trial that the jurors were asking, "Why wasn't anyone higher up prosecuted?"

Andrew

What crime was Bill Clinton guilty of breaking that led to the investigation of his affair with Monica Lewinsky?

Infidelity isn't a crime...if it were this country would need a whole lot more prisons.

Lying to a judge, during a sexual harrasment trial.

That underlines the difference between the way things were and the way things are now. Clinton's lying about ML came about during a sexual harassment case that was essentially dropped, but more was made to the story by an aggressive investigator.

It appears by all accounts there is more to the Libby story, as he was found guilty of obstructing justice and perjury (same as Clinton) but for some reason the elaboration of his story is not being done.

We are dealing with a convicted liar. Unlike Clinton's lie, this guy is getting in the way of justice that may actually matter:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/15/15115/4378

Here is a great article in tomorrow's Washington Post about Valerie Plame.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/15/AR2007031502448. html

44DD's said>>>
Trixter, you need to get new material.

When you do.... I will.....

The sexual harrasment case wasnt dropped Clinton paid 100,000 dollars to settle it.

And he was fined and disbarred.

The case was dismissed by the courts and appealed by Paula Jones. Clinton ultimately paid not $100k, but $850k, then saw his popularity rise to new levels during his 2nd term in office.

Apparently money can buy love.

The same Paula Jones who boxed Tanya Harding (and lost)?

The same Paula Jones who posed nude in Penthouse?

The same Paula Jones whom Ann Coulter loves to hate?

The same Paula Jones that has a penis where her nose should be?

What a loser. And a tool.

Bill Clinton can be accused of a lot of things, but having good taste in women ain't one of 'em.

I hate it when stuff I drink comes out my nose!

Break the chain, Billy!

better your nose than Paula Jones's...FEMA would have to be called in.

Oooooh, good one! Did you mean mine or Paula's?

If you meant mine, well, my 'booger vault' may not be perfectly cute, but at least it's not shaped like a penis, and I can touch it with my tongue. So there.

Read rule 7, about advocating the hiring of a relative.
http://www.osc.gov/ppp.htm

OSC has jurisdiction over prohibited personnel practices committed against most employees or applicants for employment in Executive Branch agencies and the Government Printing Office.

That wouldn't seem to include Joe Wilson, who was not hired as an employee of the Executive Branch. Joe Wilson was more like a consultant for a one-time job. In any case, it's still not clear that Plame actually "advocated" sending him to Niger. She was asked to write a memo about his qualifications for her boss.

Andrew

Okie, I believe Rule #1 covers my nose.

Valerie Plame put your bullshit claims to rest for good today, Nwokie, in her testimony to Congress, when asked whether she had sent her husband to Niger:

"I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved -- I didn't have the authority," Plame said in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

She was under oath and subject to perjury charges if she lied. I'd say that puts it to bed and you can stop spreading your BS speculation right-wing talking point.

Andrew

He'll just say she lied under oath. We know what happened and we know why. Let's quit fooling ourselves by offering any benefit of the doubt and legal semantics. WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Sorry - I'm actually in a good mood.