PlameGate: Now taking all bets.

[esskreemr]

Ah, once again there's that customary liberal assumption that no conservative can think for himself, but can only be parroting a script put out by the left's favorite betes noir. Because, you know, none of us could possibly arrive at a conclusion via independent thought. That's the sole province of "progressives", don't you know.

You have yet to supply us with anything to indicate otherwise. How about a quote, prior to the Plame Leak, that indicates that Plame was a CIA agent?

You know, if you yourself showed the same deference to those who have "access to more and better information" that you apparently expect me to display, I might be more inclined to heed such reminders. Alas, you seem somehow certain that your opinions on divers subjects are superior to those of people with vastly better information than you have available to you ( ie "Bush is a liar, we were tricked into Iraq" etc ). Why then ought I do as you say instead of as you do?

Confused is right. That has to be the worst case of obfuscation I have ever read.

My opinions are not superior. They are based on the relevant info available to me. I can't say I'm meticulous at my information gathering, but I do make an effort.

And perhaps if the case that the law had indeed been violated were as decisively proven as you seem to believe, the question wouldn't keep coming back up?

Please. There are probably going to be many more chapters to this. There are many more factors to this. I'm not the one indicting the Bush Admin. I'm also not the one trying to excuse their ridiculous conduct in these matters.

The word I would have chosen would be "irrelevant". What has timing to do with the truth or falseness of a claim? It's either true, or it's not.

As stated in the indictment, it is obvious that those doing the investigation, the special investigator who has access to relevant documents has determined that Plame was classified and her classification was NOT common knowledge. These aren't my words, this is not my opinion, this is not a cut and paste of the left's stance, these are the words of the special investigator.

Does the statute talk about "classified"? Or does it turn on "covert"? Plame was not and had not been for some time "covert".

Though I'm sure you've seen them before, here are the relevant definitions:

Plame is disqualified as a covert agent, by definition. The statute hence did not protect her, despite her "classified status"; note the word "and" in the statutory definition. There can have been no infraction of a law if the person involved is not of the class protected.

Read the actual statute; neither access to documents nor to classified information is relevant unless the person identified is a member of the class protected, eg "covert agents".

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

Oh, sorry, you confused me. Are you talking about another case? The statute listed in the indictment: Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 states:

b. In connection with his role as a senior government official with responsibilities for national security matters, LIBBY held security clearances entitling him to access to classified information. As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," stating in part that "I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government," and that "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

Libby was indicted for 1 count of Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. Section 1503) 2 counts of False Statements (18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2) and 2 counts of Perjury (18 U.S.C. Section 1623).

Are you saying that these counts should be thrown out because someone said AFTER Plame's name was published in Novak's column that it was common knowledge? The claims that it was common knowledge are dubious at best. If you have different information, feel free to provide it.

Fitzpatrick has said there is more to come. Will Libby be brought up on further charges? Hell if I know. Will Rove be indicted? Hell if I know.

As for the statute you listed, again, I would like to emphatically state that it is not my decision, it is not your decision, it is not the decision of the spindiots, it is ultimately the CIA's decision as to which agent is classified and/or covert.

For all we know, though very doubtful, Plame could still be on assignment. I don't have access to those documents.

[Philistine]

{snip}Does the statute talk about "classified"? Or does it turn on "covert"? Plame was not and had not been for some time "covert".

Though I'm sure you've seen them before, here are the relevant definitions:

Plame is disqualified as a covert agent, by definition. The statute hence did not protect her, despite her "classified status"; note the word "and" in the statutory definition. There can have been no infraction of a law if the person involved is not of the class protected.

Read the actual statute; neither access to documents nor to classified information is relevant unless the person identified is a member of the class protected, eg "covert agents".

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

I think you're looking at the wrong section. The assumption is, she falls within 4(A)--which mereley requires that her identity with the CIA be classified and that in the past 5 years (prior to the date of any disclosure) she served outside the US.

It is not 4(B)--where you highlighted the "and" where she would be required to be currently stationed or acting outside the US.

Also--as Eskreemer pointed out, there is another statute involved--the Espionage Act--which doesn't require that Plame was "covert." Being a "covert" agent merely means that not only was her position classified, but that she worked out of the country 5 years ago.

The indictment itself (and Fitzgerald, in Press conferences on it) did not comment one way or another on whether Plame was "covert." This could mean: (a) she didn't fit the definition of "covert"; (b) she was covert, but as her status wasn't relevant to the actual charges against Libby, it wasn't put into the Indictment; or (c) something else I haven't thought of.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

You have yet to supply us with anything to indicate otherwise.

Why ought I have to do so? I should not need to satisfy you as to my ability to think independently, and neither should anyone else; it should be assumed, if one is an honest debater. Your continuing efforts to insinuate otherwise are ad hominem arguments and do nothing at all to prove or disprove actual points...

How about a quote, prior to the Plame Leak, that indicates that Plame was a CIA agent?

You mean, from someone who wasn't afraid to be prosecuted, even if illegitimately? Yes, I'm sure that will be easy to provide...

My opinions are not superior. They are based on the relevant info available to me. I can't say I'm meticulous at my information gathering, but I do make an effort.

If the opinions of those with more and better information contradict yours, yet you continue to hold to yours, what are you doing but maintining that yours is "superior"?

Read the paragraph again. In this matter you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse the Administration of doing: forming an opinion using carefully selected facts, ignoring those which provide cognitive dissonance, and then proceeding as if certainty has been established.

Please. There are probably going to be many more chapters to this. There are many more factors to this.

Again, if things were as clear cut as you and your fellow conspiracy theorists insist they are, that would not be the case IMO. It would all be over but the sentencing by now.

I'm not the one indicting the Bush Admin. I'm also not the one trying to excuse their ridiculous conduct in these matters.

A) Sure you are. You do it every time you post a sarcastic screed alleging them to be guilty of various crimes and offenses.

B) If you meant "indict" in the narrowly legal sense, note that no one has "indicted the Bush Administration". Indictments can only be handed down against individuals, not a vaguely defined congeries of them. One or two staffers does not an Administration make.

As stated in the indictment, it is obvious that those doing the investigation, the special investigator who has access to relevant documents has determined that Plame was classified and her classification was NOT common knowledge.

Doesn't matter. He has to prove a violation of an actual statute.

From the horse's mouth:


"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." -Special Counsel Fitzgerald, press conference, October 28 of this year

These aren't my words, this is not my opinion, this is not a cut and paste of the left's stance, these are the words of the special investigator.

Really? How about an actual quote from him saying what you're alleging, rather than a wistful paraphrase?

Oh, sorry, you confused me. Are you talking about another case? The statute listed in the indictment: Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 states:

We were not talking about the Libby charges, we were talking about the ur-charge behind them: a violation of title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, Section 421, USC. I have already said that the actual charges against Libby are probably supportable...

Are you saying that these counts should be thrown out because someone said AFTER Plame's name was published in Novak's column that it was common knowledge?

No. I am saying that there isn't anyone "higher up" who is going to be charged with the offense of outing a covert agent, because there was no "covert". That is all.

As for the statute you listed, again, I would like to emphatically state that it is not my decision, it is not your decision, it is not the decision of the spindiots, it is ultimately the CIA's decision as to which agent is classified and/or covert.

Classified, perhaps. Covert, sorry, statute rules there, not the CIA's decisions.

For all we know, though very doubtful, Plame could still be on assignment. I don't have access to those documents.

Ah. Are you saying that Wilson is a liar? Since he says in his book that neither he nor his wife had been stationed outside the US since 1997, well over the maximum 5 years stipulated by the statute, that is the only conclusion one can draw, is it not?

[Inquartata]

I think you're looking at the wrong section. The assumption is, she falls within 4(A)--which mereley requires that her identity with the CIA be classified and that in the past 5 years (prior to the date of any disclosure) she served outside the US.

It is not 4(B)--where you highlighted the "and" where she would be required to be currently stationed or acting outside the US.

I highlighted both, simply to forestall the inevitable effort to allege that she was covered by another paragraph.

Also--as Eskreemer pointed out, there is another statute involved--the Espionage Act--which doesn't require that Plame was "covert."

Ess had actually switched from talking about the outing of Plame to the charges against Libby, which are general cover-up charges. However, let's look at the Espionage Act:

Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 794:

"(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy."

Looks like intent to assist an enemy of the US, or knowledge that it will be so used, is an element of the crime, and that the information needs to be delivered to a representative of a foreign power. I doubt that Novak or Woodward qualify in that regard. Plame is still alive, so that takes the other provision off the table as well.

I've said several times now: it's always the coverup itself that gets people like Libby and perhaps Rove and others, rather than the crime they're supposedly covering up...

Being a "covert" agent merely means that not only was her position classified, but that she worked out of the country 5 years ago.

Right. She last did so in 1997, according to Wilson's book.

Now, it's possible that she worked abroad since, and that when in his book Wilson said she had not he lied about it for some reason. If so we are left to wonder why on earth we should trust his veracity about other matters, such as his report from Niger...

Or else, we are left to accept that the business of national security and foreign policy frequently requires dissembling and "lying", in which case one must wonder at the outrage toward the Bush Administration for supposedly "lying" about Iraq.

[Philistine]

{snip} However, let's look at the Espionage Act:

Title 18, Chapter 37, Section 794:
{snip}
Looks like intent to assist an enemy of the US, or knowledge that it will be so used, is an element of the crime, and that the information needs to be delivered to a representative of a foreign power. I doubt that Novak or Woodward qualify in that regard. Plame is still alive, so that takes the other provision off the table as well.

Actually, look at Sections (d) & (e):

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

* * *
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

This only requires "reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation" and a willful transmission to anyone. Which would surely include Novak and Woodward.

The intent and harm element is much less--which is why the penalty is limited to 10 years, maximum.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

Ah! Look again!

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;

The CIA does not fall under the rubric of "national defense". If it did, it would organized under the Department of Defense. ( Now, had Plame worked for DIA or one of the service intelligence branches there might be a case. )

[Philistine]

The CIA does not fall under the rubric of "national defense". If it did, it would organized under the Department of Defense. ( Now, had Plame worked for DIA or one of the service intelligence branches there might be a case. )

According to the Indictment--one of the bases for investigation was a violation of this statute (18 U.S.C. 793 (characterized in the Indictment as "improper disclosure of national defense information").

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the identity of a CIA agent working on nuclear nonproliferation would consitute "information relating to the national defense." YMMV.

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

According to the Indictment--one of the bases for investigation was a violation of this statute (18 U.S.C. 793 (characterized in the Indictment as "improper disclosure of national defense information").

I don't think it's a stretch to say that the identity of a CIA agent working on nuclear nonproliferation would consitute "information relating to the national defense." YMMV.

--Philistine

A prosecutor with a grand jury has broad latitude to charge. A good defense ( not national ) lawyer would make short work of that, I think.

[Philistine]

A prosecutor with a grand jury has broad latitude to charge. A good defense ( not national ) lawyer would make short work of that, I think.

On the issue of whether the leak involved information relating to the national defense--I doubt it.

As the D.C. Appellate Court said, in forcing Judith Miller (and Matt Cooper to testify), after reviewing for 8 (redacted) pages the classified evidence: "Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash [the Grand Jury Subpoenas]." {My emphasis}

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

And yet I don't see the phrase "national defense" in there anywhere.

National security is a much less narrowly definable concept. Simple illegal immigration and the foreign counterfeiting of US currency might be seen as affecting the latter, for example. But are they properly threats to national defense?

[Philistine]

And yet I don't see the phrase "national defense" in there anywhere.

National security is a much less narrowly definable concept. Simple illegal immigration and the foreign counterfeiting of US currency might be seen as affecting the latter, for example. But are they properly threats to national defense?

In the current climate--illegal immigration could be, depending on the circumstances, while counterfeiting wouldn't likely be.

But surely, other countries getting nuclear (or chemical or biological) weapons would pretty clearly be a threat to national defense. And the classified identity of agents working in this area would seem to be information relating to national defense.

It's hard for me to make the distinction you seem to be suggesting between national "defense" and national "security" when the issue is other countries gaining nuclear weapons.

I don't have quite so much faith in defense lawyers....

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

But surely, other countries getting nuclear (or chemical or biological) weapons would pretty clearly be a threat to national defense.

What, as a blanket principle? Is India having weapons a threat to our natioanl defense? How about Israel? Is Britain going to attack us?

And the classified identity of agents working in this area would seem to be information relating to national defense.

Again, security, yes; defense, no. How Plame's work as an analyst is going to prevent invasion or attack I cannot quite see---and if I could, I cannot see how it helps that she does it in secret. Maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough.

[pigeonmeister]

1)Is India having weapons a threat to our natioanl defense?

2)How about Israel?

3)Is Britain going to attack us?

1. Only in the sense that it meant Pakistan got them as well. Pakistan being a hotbed of Islamic extreemism and Musharaf not exactly commanding an iron grip on the country, I would suggest an Islamic coup in Pakistan would not be in America's interest now. I think US put sanctions on Pakistan and India.

2. No, but Israel getting the bomb has not benefited Israel or America much.

3. We can't launch our nuc's without American launching systems and American satellites!

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Nowithstanding whether outing Plame was legal (I have no idea whether anyone will get a legal punishment), it seems to me that it was a bad idea anyway.

Even if her status was reasonably widely known by in-the-know Washingtonians, does that mean that all non-Americans that currently know it - and tried to find out stuff like that - knew it before?

I can understand that some people would like to get back at Wilson. However, the method chosen seems positively idiotic. The administration could have chosen to get at Wilson directly - posting him to Pyongyang, burying him under mountains of dead-end boring work, etc. By doing so, one would have not irritated CIA, preserved Plame as an asset, and had less of a risk of the get-back turning into a media thing that is not good for the administration. At least, it is a distraction, at worst, it will cause administration figures to lose their positions.

I can not believe that CIA likes their people to be outed for everyone to see, even if it is legal. It seems reasonable that several CIA people are presently angry at the outing, and would not help those who did it more than necessary. An outing is irreversible - one can not unring a bell. Even if some foreign spies thought that they were reasonably sure that Plame was an operative, now they can deduct more information from the stuff that is unraveling. Some of that is probably news to them.

What is the point of revenge, when it so predictably bites back at you? Why not go for getting the guy himself? If his career would have been killed directly, Plame would have hurt from that - if making Plame suffer is one of the objectives.

Seems badly thought out to me.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[esskreemr]

Why ought I have to do so? I should not need to satisfy you as to my ability to think independently, and neither should anyone else; it should be assumed, if one is an honest debater. Your continuing efforts to insinuate otherwise are ad hominem arguments and do nothing at all to prove or disprove actual points...

What exactly are you railing about? What does your ability to think independently have to do with the request to provide information concerning how well-known Plame's employment with CIA was? How is that an attack on you? I have looked and have still found no credible information that Plame's background was common knowledge. The 'Oh yeah, we ALL knew that' spin started surfacing AFTER the outing. Why is it an attack on you by requesting that you validate a commonly espoused, yet unsubtantiated, claim that Plame's status was well-known?

You mean, from someone who wasn't afraid to be prosecuted, even if illegitimately? Yes, I'm sure that will be easy to provide...

Well, that's certainly an easy out. 'Everybody knew it but everybody's afraid to disclose the information because they might be prosecuted, perhaps even illegitimately.' That seems like just another way of saying 'You'll just have to believe me because I can't validate the information or its source.'

That brings up a second question. The original source. It had to have been leaked at some point. I believe the US Statutes quoted in this thread do not hold an agent accountable if he/she reveals her identity.

If the opinions of those with more and better information contradict yours, yet you continue to hold to yours, what are you doing but maintining that yours is "superior"?

Who are these people with more and better information? As I have stated the people with more and better information: the CIA, the Bush Admin (remember the Prez promising to fire anyone involved with the leak?), and a Special Investigator, have determined that there IS a problem that must be and is being looked into.

Who are those who are 'better informed' than the above parties who are directly involved in the situation?

Read the paragraph again. In this matter you seem to be doing exactly what you accuse the Administration of doing: forming an opinion using carefully selected facts, ignoring those which provide cognitive dissonance, and then proceeding as if certainty has been established.

Which 'facts' are causing 'cognitive dissonance'? I have looked into several of the facts that you have mentioned, without ANY supporting evidence whatsoever, and have found, to the of my knowledge based on the information readily available to me, that they are are dubious and lacking credibility.

Fact 1: Just because you state it doesn't make it true.
Fact 2: Just because you restate it again and again doesn't make it true.
Fact 3: Regardless of your prominence on this board, refusing to supply supporting information by calling the request an 'ad hominem' relegates whole parts of your argument dubious at best.
Fact 4: The U.S. Government has deemed the disclosure of Plame's status as a CIA agent a serious enough matter to investigate and call a Grand Jury.
Fact 5: Officials of the U.S. Government have stated that the leak of Plame's name is a serious matter.
Fact 6: Officials of the U.S. Government have indicted Libby on crimes associated with testimony given.
Fact 7: Officials of the U.S. Government have called a second Grand Jury which means there are more matters, other than Scooter's indictment, to be looked into.
Fact 8: Multiple Officials of the U.S. Government have stated Plame's status was classified.

Again, if things were as clear cut as you and your fellow conspiracy theorists insist they are, that would not be the case IMO. It would all be over but the sentencing by now.

So Fitzgerald is a conspiracy theorist now? He is, after all, the one continuing the investigation and had a second Grand Jury appointed...

A) Sure you are. You do it every time you post a sarcastic screed alleging them to be guilty of various crimes and offenses.

Except my 'indictment' just doesn't happen to carry the weight of law, does it? Things would be a lot more clear cut, we could have finished this business before the last election.

B) If you meant "indict" in the narrowly legal sense, note that no one has "indicted the Bush Administration". Indictments can only be handed down against individuals, not a vaguely defined congeries of them. One or two staffers does not an Administration make.

Ummm... sure, ok. If that distinction lets you sleep better at night. No argument here.

Doesn't matter. He has to prove a violation of an actual statute.

Does he? Dig up some info about an Jonathan Randal. He leaked non-classified information non-related to National security OR National defense. Ashcroft et al. tried (successfully) to bring him up on 20 counts of Wire fraud and 'stolen property' charges.

From the horse's mouth:

"Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion." -Special Counsel Fitzgerald, press conference, October 28 of this year

He is speaking about the Libby indictment. Libby was no charged with outing a covert agent. Why would Fitzgerald say anything else? Note the "Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert." He merely confirms her classified status. If the matter is SO clear cut, as you would like us to believe, why didn't he just state that Plame's status was not covert? It seems that would clear up a good deal of speculation and outright spins by BOTH sides. The fact is the investigation is continuing. Will more indictments be leveled at Libby? Maybe, maybe not. These charges are exclusive, they don't mean he can't be charged with something else. It IS an indication that somebody with more and better information than me doesn't consider the matter resolved by indicting Libby.


The horse has more to say. Fitzgerald Oct 28, 2005:

"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. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. 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."

Really? How about an actual quote from him saying what you're alleging, rather than a wistful paraphrase?

What exactly am I alleging? I'm sure there is quite a bit. I just want to hear it in your words.

We were not talking about the Libby charges, we were talking about the ur-charge behind them: a violation of title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, Section 421, USC. I have already said that the actual charges against Libby are probably supportable...

Ok.

No. I am saying that there isn't anyone "higher up" who is going to be charged with the offense of outing a covert agent, because there was no "covert". That is all.

Classified, perhaps. Covert, sorry, statute rules there, not the CIA's decisions.

OK, since your obsessed with the 'Covert Agent Identity Protection Act' and seem to think that's the only law or statute that they can charge anyone with in connection with the Plame leak.

Why hasn't Fitzgerald directly stated that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent at the time of the leak? Could there be information that your 'better informed' people don't have access to? :shock!!!!:

Ah. Are you saying that Wilson is a liar? Since he says in his book that neither he nor his wife had been stationed outside the US since 1997, well over the maximum 5 years stipulated by the statute, that is the only conclusion one can draw, is it not?

Ah...No. You're obviously dating the time of the 'leak' with Novak's disclosure in 2003. Novak is not the source of the leak. He is the source of the public disclosure. He will not be charged, because unless he broke into a government office and stole documents, there is no law with which to charge him. We, thankfully, don't have an 'Official Secrets' act.

The leak could have took place up into 2002 and still be considered under your precious statute.