I am sure just by posting this I will get slimed by my friends on the left as ‘buying the GOP Talking Points’ or ‘smearing Joseph Wilson,’ but this certainly seems like an important and relevant admission by Joseph Wilson on CNN yesterday:
BLITZER: But the other argument that’s been made against you is that you’ve sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you’ve tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I’ll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that’s why they referred it to the Justice Department.
Which, again, supports the Victoria Toensing spin that was in yesterday’s USA Today:
Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act. Like Sanford, she doubts Valerie Wilson, as she now refers to herself, qualified as a “covert agent” under that law. She and Sanford also doubt Fitzgerald has enough evidence to prosecute anyone under the Espionage Act. That law makes it a crime to divulge “information relating to the national defense” that “the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury” of the nation.
But, Toensing said, “reading between the lines, I’d say he’s got a ‘Martha Stewart case’ ” involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.
So, now the obvious question. Was Victoria Plame under deep cover? Her husband appears to say no. Where do we go from here?
Porco Rosso
Was Wilson trying to say that Valerie Plame lost her clandestine status the day that Novak outed her?
Tim F
Her husband is restricted by law from confirming her NOC status in direct language. If he did then the wingnutosphere would go insane with claims that Wilson is a traitor too.
Jon
What Porco said
Mike
look at the quote;
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
In other words; WILSON:My wife was a clandestine agent until Bob Novak opened fis big fucking mouth!
Birkel
Yeah, that’s the ticket. We’ll assume that the plain language of one of the principles in this matter cannot be taken at face value because it flies in the face of our criticisms of another of the principles who, obtw, we don’t believe either.
It’s all a double-top secret Rovian effort to distort the truth by using mind control rays to force Joe Wilson, a known truth-teller, to say things that cannot be true unless we are wrong. Since we are never wrong (and even when we are we cannot admit it) it must be mind control rays. Q.E.D.
/LMAO at the above posters
Mike
Furthermore, if she was not a NOC, then there would be no criminal investigation…..END OF STORY!
Steve
I’ll be pretty surprised if this turns out to mean anything other than “she was a clandestine agent up until the day Bob Novak outed her,” something I don’t think he’d legally be allowed to say in those words. Either way, the prosecutor is going to keep on doing his job, so I don’t care if this becomes the latest argument for the GOP to hang its hat on in the media.
Mr Furious
Wilson has to say that. He cannot confirm her status in either direction. He can only say, she was not [read: no longer, if she was] a clandestine officer once the column revealed her identity.
Even if she no longer was a clandestine officer, it didn’t matter if she was at the time, there was a five year back-dating period.
Either way it comes down to the CIA, and whether they were justified in referring the case. I’d have to imagine they had their ducks in a row.
neil
It does appear that he’s parsing his words carefully.
Reminds me of this one: “I haven’t used drugs in the last 24 years.” “Have you used drugs since you were 18?” “No comment.”
Of course, if anybody can dig up an example of Wilson saying “My wife was clandestine” then we’ll have the answer.
neil
BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: That’s not anything that I can talk about.
Birkel, isn’t that language plain enough for you?
mac Buckets
The ostriches will never admit the fact (well, they won’t admit many facts about this silliness, but this is one) that Val Plame was not a covert op when Rove wrote Cooper — it undermines their main propaganda point, that Rove undermined and endangered (he might as well have shot her!) a top-secret-superspy-Jane-Bond who was only trying to keep this country safe from evil while under deep cover. Even the words from Wilson’s own mouth must be distorted beyond recognition in order to keep the Democrats’ purely partisan, rhetorical nonsense viable.
Mike
Poor Birkel, petty partisanship makes him unable to UNDERSTAND “plain language” and context.
Maybe you should re-read Blitzer’s (critical) question prior to Wilson’s response. Perhaps then you will understand the “plain language” meaning of the word blew in Wilson’s reply.
bg
Could it be interpreted that she wasn’t undercover at the time, but as her job was still unknown she could go back undercover at a moment’s notice until Novak’s column?
Jon H
If I’m not mistaken, he said basically the same thing before during the first cycle in 2003.
However, the previous time it was expressed slightly differently so it was clear that he meant what Mike says, above.
Either that, or I’m having deja vu.
Cliff
Maybe there is some specific legal meaning/status to the phrase “clandestine officer” as opposed to other descriptions of Valerie’s position.
Certainly, the word “blew” in Wilson’s sentence would appear to indicate that what was said, shouldn’t have been. And although Fitzgerald may be pursuing perjury/obstruction indictments now, when this case started surely there was some other crime that was believed to have been committed (perhaps espionage act instead of IIPA).
His answer here could be seen as ambiguous, perhaps it is intentionally so.
Jon H
” that Val Plame was not a covert op when Rove wrote Cooper ”
Doesn’t matter, the law even applies to retired agents.
Cliff
Does “clandestine officer” have some specific (legal) meaning that distinguishes it from other possible phrases Wilson could have used here to describe his wife’s status?
Jon H
Cliff,
As far as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act goes, the definition of covert agent is:
(relevant clauses bold)
(4) The term
Cliff
Whoops, sorry, thought my post had disappeared.
ppgaz
Congratualtions. We are now up to asking questions that a competant prosecutor would have asked in the first five minutes of his acquaintance with the case.
Catfish N. Cod
There are three types of employees at CIA:
1) Openly avowed CIA employees
2) CIA employees under “official cover”, that is, officially working at another government agency such as the State Department
3) CIA employees under “non-official cover”, that is, officially working somewhere other than within the US government.
Each of these may be divided further into a) those working within the United States and b) those working abroad.
The term “clandestine officer”, under plain meaning, could mean anyone in classes 2 and 3. I am not sure if there is a legal description of that term.
The IIPA applies ONLY to agents who have, in the last five years, been in class 3b.
The Espionage Act can apply to anyone in class 2 or 3, if the identity is classified and the release endangers national security.
John Cole
Most plausible explanation I have seen yet, and it would explain why although Plame apparently isn’t covered by the relevant statutes (having been not undercover for five years), the CIA would still be concerned enough to issue a referral.
Cliff
Thanks, Catfish.
Phil Smith
Mr Furious, no offense, but haven’t you been reading the SSCI report? CIA got WMD wrong. Badly. Why, then, would anyone (especially one who, if I read you right, is pretty pissed about the fact that the WMD case was botched) then go on to assert that the very same agency is to be automatically trusted?
Steve
The idea that “she wasn’t undercover, but she could go back” is certainly plausible, but it also makes the Q&A a complete non sequitur. Why would he bring that point up in response to the question that was asked?
Catfish N. Cod
Now, what has Plame’s status been?
Prior to June, 1997, Plame was overseas (according to Wilson’s own book). Prior to June, 1997, Plame was NOC. Therefore, it may be deduced that prior to June, 1997, Plame fell into class 3b.
At some time, Plame was working for Brewer-Jennings Associates, an American company that was a CIA front. Since Plame was not a State Department official at that time, it may be deduced that during this period, dates unknown, Plame fell into class 3a.
At the time of the release of Plame’s name by Novak on 14 July 2003, it is alleged that Plame was under State Department cover. Therefore, at that time, Plame fell into class 2a.
Since Plame was an acknowledged CIA employee after the release of her maiden name, Plame now falls into class 1a.
Are we all straight now?
Jon H
“Plame apparently isn’t covered by the relevant statutes (having been not undercover for five years)”
What makes you say that?
She clearly was undercover if she listed her employer as the front company when she made a political contribution as recently as 1999.
The only thing really unknown is whether she took any undercover CIA trips out of the country between July of 1998 and July of 2003.
Toensing has tried to BS the press by saying the IIPA only applies to long assignments, but this is not the case as can be seen in the passage I quoted above. There are no minimums in the law. And they wouldn’t make any sense, either.
John Cole
A.) Wilson’s book.
B.) Unless Iam mis-reading things, the statute with which everyone on the left wants to prosecute Rove states she must be overseas for an extended stay..
Catfish has provided the relevant statute in another thread- perhaps if I delete his multiple posts he will post it again.
AlanDownunder
It’s ok that Brewster-Jennings got blown as a CIA front organization. Only took the CIA a decade or so to develop it and it only employed X people over those years – people who only had X*Y contacts. No big deal.
Anyway Feith reckons the WMD thing was overdone. Silly Brits in Downing Street worrying about legal niceties. No clarity, no balls. Yellowcake was an irrelevance whichever way you cut it.
Catfish N. Cod
Happy to!
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act
(4) The term
Jon H
“Unless Iam mis-reading things, the statute with which everyone on the left wants to prosecute Rove states she must be overseas for an extended stay..”
John, I quoted the relevant passage in a comment above, 9:43 AM. It’s in bold, so it should stand out.
There is *nothing* about an extended stay.
She could have strolled across the border at Tijuana for a lunch meeting with a contact, and it’d fit the law.
Really, it would make no sense to have a loophole for short trips.
An agent on a short trip is most likely taking the trip to meet with another agent or a source. Those people may be under surveillance. If you identify an agent who made a short visit, you still cause a whole mess of trouble.
It’s kind of like saying a president doesn’t need the secret service around if he’s only going to be outside the country for a few days.
Mr Furious
Setting aside the WMD part, there’s a major difference between assembling a complaint/referrel for prosecution on this case based on onfo readily available and verifiable in their own files, and gathering intelligence from around the world from various sources, analyzing and interpreting it, and coming to a speculative conclusion.
They know Plame’s status, her assignments past and pending and their impact and accomplishments both past and potential use in the future. They should easily been able to determine the merits of the referral. It is not in any way a question of competence.
Now, if you said, you can’t trust the motives of the CIA, I’d be inclined to agree with you. I would never put anything past the CIA. they have plenty of motive to burn this administration. Even more motive than Rove & the White House had on Wilson, IMO.
Either way, it would be surprising if it turns out the CIA overreached and didn’t have whatever documentation required to meet the statute. Of course, we still don’t even know what crime the prosecutor is pursuing, so…
John Cole
I am wrong then, and am conflating spin and the truth. God, this all is maddening. I think I do apretty good job keeping on top of things, but I am to the point where I can barely keep my head above all the bullshit.
Birkel
Can we now discuss the NYT outing of CIA front companies, mentioned above?
Those companies were ongoing operations who didn’t just go to desk jobs in Langley.
And can we get some liberal indignation on that front?
Halffasthero
I need to know what Darrell thinks of all this…
Catfish N. Cod
Sharon M. Scranage is the only person known to have been convicted under the IIPA.
Background: http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/ahwoispills.html
There is nothing in law that dictates that IIPA violations require a “long” period of time overseas. There may be a provision in the legal opinions of U.S. v. Scarange that asserts such a requirement. There may also be an “understanding” in the Justice Department that there is such a requirement.
Neither of these would be as hard and fast as law. The former could be overturned by a judge, perhaps in a higher court. The latter could be overturned simply by a decision of the Justice Department, although if any other agencies were involved in creating such a precedent they might get upset.
Jon H
“And can we get some liberal indignation on that front?”
The Times wasn’t the first to publish that stuff.
Anderson
John, the “extended stay” nonsense was in USA Today & quoted by Wonkette. Maybe that’s where you picked it up.
And if you want to be ahead of 95% of the people discussing the applicable law, google up “kleiman” and “espionage act.” Or go to today’s link where he discusses more conservative sorts who reluctantly concede that Rove, on the popular (but maybe wrong) account of his behavior, probably violated the Espionage Act.
mac Buckets
Only if she’d been working for the CIA outside the US in the last five years, and from Wilson’s book, that seems unlikely. It looks like she had given all the “foreign spy” stuff up when she settled down to have kids.
Defense Guy
Birkel
No. No. No.
Birkel
Defense Guy,
Fair enough but I didn’t think it would hurt to ask.
Stormy70
Birkel – those companies were being used to transport terrorists, so that leak was acceptable in most of this crowd’s eyes. I mean what if some terrorists had to wear a bra and were humiliated by women? The world would obviously tilt off it’s axis at such crazy behavior by Americans and terrorist sympathizers would get pissed off at us. Can’t have terrorists mad at us, don’t you know?
Compuglobalhypermeganet
I don’t get it. How would that help the Democrats in the next election? It wouldn’t?
Then, the answer is no.
Jon H
“Only if she’d been working for the CIA outside the US in the last five years, and from Wilson’s book, that seems unlikely. It looks like she had given all the “foreign spy” stuff up when she settled down to have kids.”
She had twins in 2000, so I’ll grant that she stopped travelling in 1999.
That leaves about six months in 1998 in which she could have taken a short trip that would fall under the IIPA statute.
Things that might have prompted a trip in 1998: Operation Desert Fox and/or the weapons inspections, the bombing of the Sudan factory, or perhaps just a trip or two to tie up loose ends before giving up overseas travel. Obviously, this is not an exhaustive list, it’s just the possibilities that come to mind.
Jon H
Stormy writes: “Birkel – those companies were being used to transport terrorists, so that leak was acceptable in most of this crowd’s eyes.”
They were transporting unconvicted individuals so that they could be tortured by terror-supporting states like Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Some of them were probably terrorists. I’m sure some were not.
But I suppose if Stormy supports Syria, then isn’t that pro-terrorist?
Birkel
Compuglobalhypermeganet,
Ah, well put. Well put indeed, kind sir.
(P.S. I may not type your whole name again. It’s just so, so, so… long.)
Stormy70,
Thanks for clarifying matters for me. For a second there I almost thought this whole kerfuffle was *just* a hit job by partisan Dems. But now I realize it was a partisan hit job by Dems whose patriotism I should question. That’s a load off!
Stormy70
I support the bombing of Syria, does that count as pro-terrorist? I am pro terrorists being taken out. But if you feel they need to be petted and coddled, then we will have to agree to disagree.
W.B. Reeves
Of course, if she had been taking overseas trips for the Agency you wouldn’t expect Wilson to reveal that fact in the book. The relevant question is whether Valerie Wilson had traveled outside the U.S. at all in the last five years.
Darrell
This is what, the 20th time this week (?) a leftie loon has brought up my name in a thread where I DIDN’T EVEN POST. I OWN you kooks. You worry about me ALL the time. One of your fellow kooks even wrote a poem about me on another thread. I’m in your head and you can’t get me out. You are truly a group of obsessed loons. Just thought I’d point that out
Anderson
My only question about Darrell is, is he Larry’s brother Darrell, or Larry’s other brother Darrell?
Either way, he seems much more articulate on the ‘Net.
It’s impressive how Darrell has advanced to Charles-Bird levels of Conservatives Who Obsess Liberal Commenters. Impressive, that is, in how pitiful said commenters are.
Defense Guy
It never hurts to ask, but you should know that under the current administration, the only approved scandals are those perpetrated by Republicans. When, and if, there is another Democrat president, then you may bring it up. You may be waiting a long time.
Birkel
Defense Guy,
If they nominate Hillary in 2008 it’ll be at least 2012 before a Dem is president. That’s a long time to keep the powder dry so maybe I’ll fire a few warning shots in the meanwhile.
Just for the sake of practice and all.
Defense Guy
No, under the current rules of engagement you are not allowed to question their patriotism. Have you no sense of shame sir, is there no decency in you?
Steve
I don’t know the first thing about this other NYT “leak” situation where Republicans are calling for liberal outrage, but the fact that the first time we’re hearing about it is in the midst of the current scandal strongly suggests that it’s a meritless distraction.
Defense Guy
It may also suggest that you only pay attention when the ire is pointed at the ‘opposing camp’ Steve. It was a front-page article in the NY Times a month or so ago, and it was essentially the spark that brought the rendition story to the forefront again. Priorities I guess.
Birkel
Defense Guy,
Not a lot of shame in my game. Not much at all.
But if you insist I will call them surrender monkeys or something else more acceptable to the delicate sensibilities of a liberal.
Rusty Shackleford
Do you folks think that Plame was the only person at the CIA front company? There are most likely other agents who worked with her that are probably still undercover. By outing Plame, you also run the risk of outing her undercover associates who may currently be working in clandestine operations.
The “simplify everything” approach that conservatives take in this arguments is making them miss the forest for the trees.
Defense Guy
Rusty, you make a good point. My only problem with all this is all those willing to crucify Rove before the investigation is completed. I have stated that Novak should have had his ass kicked for printing that story.
Birkel
Oh, enlightened Rusty. Now I see the error of my ways. I’ll begin the process of hunting down this forest of which you speak just after lunch. I’m especially interested in the forest of “but something bad could happen to somebody else even though no laws were broken (at least w/rt the outing of Plame-Wilson) and our complaints about Rove are really a political hit on one of the most successful political operatives of our time” or some such. If only I could see it through all of the “no crime committed” trees.
Halffasthero
Thank you, Darrell. I was missing your acidic commentary on this thread and felt it was needed. : )
Andrew J. Lazarus
Stormy, today we’re threatening Syria because, well, I guess because Bush’s poll numbers suck. Yesterday we were such good buddies with them, we deported a Canadian national to their secret police.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
Porco Rosso
Media Matters for America examines the Plame-Out question discussed here
Note: After this item was written, but before it was posted, the AP corrected its error. New versions of the article read:
In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove’s conduct was an “outrageous abuse of power … certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House.”
Wilson also said “my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.”
In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.
Though the AP ran a correction, other news outlets had already repeated its mistake. CNN’s Ed Henry told viewers that “Wilson himself suggested that she was not undercover.” The Drudge Report link to the AP story suggested the same thing, and numerous other news outlets picked up the AP article.
Sojourner
Or what about women and children who were raped in front of their husbands and fathers to try to make them talk?
Why do you keep ignoring that part, Stormy? Given that you continue to defend what has been done, I can only assume you don’t have a problem with rape either. You really are shameless.
Stormy70
You mean like under Saddam, your hero? Proof, please that this is what happened, and not from some crackpot terrorist, either. Why do you love the terrorists?
Sojourner
Hussein is not my hero, you asshole. The proof can be found in an article by Sy Hersh in the New Yorker magazine. You know, the guy who broke the story about Abu Ghraib that your guys tried to blame on the soldiers. Yeh, that part about support the soldiers while blaming them for the sins of the administration.
Why can’t you use your brain and think for yourself? Your mindless support for the Bush administration, its lies and its support for torture is shameful. If anyone challenges your beloved administration, the best you can do is call them names. Grow up and think for yourself.