Wilson-Plame: The Big Lie Is Debunked
The right-wing punditocracy has blathered on ad nauseam that Valerie Plame could not have been outed because she was not a covert CIA employee, and therefore the Wilson-Plame leak scandal is nothing more than a mere drip.
Never mind that dancing on the head of this particular pin did nothing to obscure the ferocity with which Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and their handmaidens pushed back after Mr. Valerie Plame – aka former career diplomat Joseph Wilson – published an op-ed piece in The New York Times debunking a key lie in the Bush administration’s rationale for talking the U.S. to war in Iraq.
Anyhow, while I was watching a “Seinfeld†rerun or something the other night, NBC News reported that a newly declassified summary detailing Plame’s work history at the spy agency shows that she was indeed “covert” when her name was leaked to syndicated Bush sycophant Robert Novak in July 2003, setting in motion a series of events that climaxed with the conviction of Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter†Libby.
The summary states that:
Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States. . . .
While assigned to CPD [Counterprofileration Division], Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.
74 Responses to “Wilson-Plame: The Big Lie Is Debunked”
I doubt if the civil trial will be allowed by the SCOTUS. Cheney and the bunch could afford a settlement, but their arrogance and hubris won’t allow the civil case to proceed to its end.
So is this the Rathergate of the right? Will right wing pundits be discredited and resign in disgrace for perpetuating this lie? I am awaiting their retraction accompanied by profuse apologies.
It surely damaged the reputations of Wilson, Plame and Fitzgerald, as everyone from Krauthammer to Kristol blathered on about how no real crime had been committed and Libby was being railroaded with a perjory rap while the most he was guilty of was mixing up his dates. Furthermore, the right justified the refusal of WH and Justice officials to testify in the US attorney scandal because, it could be a perjury trap- like the CIA leak case was! We have gotten to a point in this country where there is a huge credibility gap as spin has turned into misinformation campaigns.
If it really was a crime, then why is the only criminal prosecution focused on a procedural crime (perjury by Libby) instead of the actual crime (the leak by Richard Armitage, a rival to Cheney’s office within the administration)?
I also wonder why the nepotism by Plame in handpicking her husband for a mission to Nigeria rarely comes up.
Plenty of black hats to go around here.
KR How dare you question the integrity of Kraut and Kristol. Their hatered of anything Klinton and worship of W…
“We have gotten to a point in this country where there is a huge credibility gap as spin has turned into misinformation campaigns.”
How disgustingly true. And don’t underestimate how effective disinformation campaigns can be. Get in early and repeat the disinformation loud enough and long enough, and it takes the truth nearly forever to finally sink into the public consciousness.
Years after the alleged Prague meeting between an al Qaeda biggie and Saddam proxy had been debunked, people still believed it had happened. Right wingers went on insisting in blog posts and comments that it happened. Right-wing media types made thinly veiled references to it, as though it was valid.
Years after the whole business about al Qaeda-Saddam ties had been debunked and discredited, millions of Americans still told pollsters they thought the two had been in cahoots. Hell, years after the whole thing about Saddam having WMD’s, especially nuclear weapons, polls showed many Americans were convinced he had them before the U.S. invaded.
Seems as though an ounce of lie is worth 10 pounds of belated fact.
Did it ever occur to you that Libby was obstructing the investigation of the original crime?
And since when is perjury not an actual crime?
Jason–if you read through Fitz’s filing you’ll see he nowhere alleges Plame’s outing WAS a crime. The CIA filing itself notably fails to include the timeline that would be relevant to establishing an IIPA violation. And the filing itself shows that Fitz knew no crime had been committed before Libby’s testimony.
It’s the rough equivalent of investigating someone for illegal possession of a gun, and then claiming that because the gun could have been used in a killing, that waffling in one’s testimony about when they knew the gun existed is therefore tantamount to obstructing a murder investigation. Even though the prosecutor knew that illegal possession could not be charged, and no murder could actually shown to have been linked to the gun.
Libby’s defense team should have little problem getting that excluded from sentencing consideration. It’s sheer bluster.
Well, apparently when you are a Democratic President.
Well, even if that’s true, his obstruction failed and the truth is now out. So if the leak itself was a crime, why has Armitage not been prosecuted?
I never said it wasn’t. I merely pointed out that it is a secondary crime in this case. And the (supposed) primary crime hasn’t been prosecuted. That’s weird.
“If it really was a crime, then why is the only criminal prosecution focused on a procedural crime (perjury by Libby) instead of the actual crime (the leak by Richard Armitage, a rival to Cheney’s office within the administration)?”
Because the actual crime happened behind closed doors with layers of insulation between the adminstration officials who ok’d it and those who did it. All that can be accurately tracked are the missteps by those who are covering it up. Its SOP for powerful folks doing shady things. Its why Al Capone was nailed with tax evasion instead of the thousands of other crimes he also commited. Smart powerful bad guys are hard to catch with their pants down so you take what you can get.
Fitzgerald couldn’t get to the truth because Libby obstucted justice to protect Cheney. And Plame swore before a Congressional committee that she did not have the authority to send Wilson to Niger. That lie has been debunked as well, but the r-wingers keep bringing it up. Just like they keep insisting al queda had ties with Saddam. Pure bunk – they are hoping to fool the majority who doesn’t keep up with every twist and turn in these stories, and fool their base who want to believe that these things are true. FNC is a joke and many of the R-wing pundits are shills for the administration. Dick Cheney or Rove says it, and it comes out of Bill’o's mouth that evening.
And of course, AR, it was just a matter of time before someone tried the “clinton did it too” argument. Clinton lost his law license, was hounded for months by the press, and was impeached. He paid for lying about a BJ.
That’s a little different than lying to cover-up the outing of a CIA agent because you wanted to attack a war critic, who had discovered that the evidence that we went to war on was forged. All we heard about was that Fitzgerald was a runaway prosecutor who was off on a witchunt- never mind that he’s a solid Republican with a straight arrow reputation.
1. The truth is out, it was not obstructed. Armitage was the source of the leak. The claim that the prosecution was made impossible by the coverup might have been true a couple of years ago, but it is not true now. So the continuing non-prosecution begs the question of whether there is actually anything prosecutable there.
2. It is highly unlikely that the leak was orchestrated by Cheney, since Armitage was his rival in the administration. I really don’t care to try to defend Cheney’s office from anything, but I’d like a clear picture of what’s going on and I just find it implausible that internal rivals in regards to control over policy would commit crimes to help each other out.
Tully – I believe that Fitz couldn’t prosecute the crime based on the evidence, this doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed. The Right went nuts over the Duke Rape case. What would have happened if Fitz went after the administration with the over reach of Ken Starr. I think Robert Novak would have self combusted.
To clarify, the Armitage angle is a red herring as several admin officials spread the leak.
There is evidence of a conspiracy to out her, though, or does it just seem reasonable to you that 4 members of the administration would mention this information to Washington journalists in a matter of weeks? Karl Rove received a copy of Bob Novak’s column BEFORE it was published- through a Republican intermediary.
Libby admitted to the Grand Jury that he and Cheney had discussed Plame’s status and work with the CIA. The logical reason for Libby’s obstruction and perjury is that he wanted to protect Cheney. What other explanation even makes any sense?
Jason,
Then why did Libby obstruct the investigation if there was no crime? Who was he protecting?
Davebo, that would still require a rather implausible conspiracy between rivals. Or are you arguing that Armitage and Cheney’s office happened upon the exact same strategy independently?
And even if they did, it still begs the question of why one leaker is being prosecuted (though not for the leak itself, only for something else) while another is being ignored by the prosecutor.
Nobody’s narrative on this issue makes any sense.
The reason only Libby was prosecuted was that only Libby lied to investigators and a grand jury.
And while I’d argue Armitage and Cheney are less than rivals, Cheney and Libbey and Rove are definately not rivals.
I guess if this is true, I guess someone ought to have told her husband to tow the prosecutor’s story line………
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html
Of course, the idea that the CIA, which requested the federal inquiry, wouldn’t know if one of their agents was covert or not has always been idiotic.
So, your argument is that there were many leakers (who came up with the leak idea independently of each other), that each leak was itself a crime, but that only the people who lied about the leak were to be prosecuted?
Doesn’t make sense.
FYI:
I’ve updated my post with a graf or two about some conservative bloggers who are no longer toeing the party line.
So, your version is now that even the CIA didn’t know she was covert, but Cheney’s office did (necessary to establish a key element of the crime)? Where do you think Cheney’s office would have been getting information about the status of CIA officers if not from the CIA?
No, that’s not my argument at all. I believe the OVP was responsible. I can’t prove it, but it’s the most likely answer given what information we have.
Armitage’s leak wasn’t a crime because he didn’t know she was covert.
Cheney and Libby on the other hand did know and admit to knowing it. And Libby admits to leaking it.
This isn’t brain science or rocket surgery.
Shaun, for once in your life could you please try to acknowledge that some disagreement is possible without it just being a “party line”? Geez.
Jason,
Take a breath, read what I actually say. These “So your version is” followed by something not even remotely suggested by me is getting tiring.
Define ludicrous.
Sorry,
Replace ludicrous with idiotic in my last.
And yes, it is idiotic to think the CIA didn’t know the status of Plame.
Well, Davebo, dd you or did not not suggest that the CIA itself was unaware that Plame was covert?
Ok, I get it now. The double negative in the sentence cause me to misunderstand your argument. Apologies.
I still think that now after the alleged obstruction has been pierced, it is odd that the leak itself has not been prosecuted if it is actually a crime.
And there’s no double negative in that sentence.
Unless they’ve changed the meaning of the phrase recently.
Nope..
This was the source of my misunderstanding. You can continue to harp on it if you want, I guess.
Not harping Jason, perhaps I wasn’t clear, but not due to the use of a double negative.
Look, I think you are overthinking this.
Was a crime committed? We don’t know. The statute is extremely complex. Not only would Fitz have to prove that the leak occurred, but also that the leaker knew that Plame would have meet the covert requirements of the act.
Bottom line is that a senior Administration official lied to both federal investigators and a Grand Jury. And he’s going to go to jail for it short of a pardon.
No one disputes that the administration leaked Plame’s identity to get back at Wilson for his editorial. Heck, even Rick Moran thinks that was a very very bad thing for them to have done.
Fitz obviously felt he couldn’t convict on the leak itself beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think Hilzoy has summed up my feelings on the subject.
Do read the rest at ObWi.
That’s enough for me, I guess.
Probably true. It’s just that something seems off-kilter on both sides of this particular scandal.
Can you imagine the precedent it would have sent if Libby wasn’t prosecuted for obstruction and perjury? Its already nearly impossible to get the truth out of this administration as we’ve seen in the USA scandal.
I don’t see how you can look at this in any other way but a conspiracy that was formed in Cheney’s office. They just bungled the implementation, but were able to maintain the cover-up, which Fitzgerald was unable to penetrate because of Libby.
That doesn’t excuse the actions of Libby, Cheney, Armitage, Rove, or the legions of right wing pundits and publications that continued to attack Plame, Wilson and Fitzgerald against all reason. Several commenters here, even now continue that bogus approach. I’m glad it has been debunked- but that doesn’t mean millions of conservatives don’t still believe it.
Well at least the righties have stopped droning, “She’s not a covert agent… she’s not a covert agent… she’s not a covert agent.” I, for one, appreciate the little things in life… it looks like we’re in for an interesting summer.
I’m late to this conversation, but here’s my 2c.
First of all, no one seems to know what the law making disclosure of covert “agents” a crime actually says, why it was enacted, etc. That is critical to understanding why the only prosecution that took place was Libby’s perjury.
The law has many parts, but the critical part stipulates that for a crime to occur:
So, a person must KNOW that the individual in question is a covert agent. It’s quite unlikely that anyone at the White House knew who at the CIA fell within the scope of this law and who was merely a CIA employee. Even more difficult is for the prosecution to PROVE that an individual knew the status of said agent.
Not only that, but a perpetrator must KNOW the US is taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the covert relationship with the United States. It’s pretty apparent that many in Washington knew Plame worked for the CIA – it’s quite another thing to know that that relationship was not only classified, but also that the Agency was taking active measures to hide her relationship with the CIA.
And finally, this lawsuit will go nowhere. First of all, the idea that Plame was “outed” as punishment does not make much sense. There are much better ways to punish and assassinate someone’s character than leaking that their wife was a CIA agent. If anything, such a leak only made Wilson’s claims more credible.
Secondly…well nevermind. Enough said.
Tully – I believe that Fitz couldn’t prosecute the crime based on the evidence, this doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed.
One can’t prove a negative, as Jason has already pointed out. Yet Fitz is using the non-charged non-evidenced “crime” as grounds for sentence enhancement, after vociferously (and succesfully) fighting off Libby’s attempts at his trial to show that there was no underlying crime.
The “unclassified summary” included in Fitz’s filing is not a CIA release. It’s from Fitz’s office. As such it’s not evidence of anything but a prosecutorial assertion, offered by the prosecutor without ANY substantiating evidence. Indeed, the prosecutor fought tooth and nail to prevent such evidence from being allowed in the only resulting trial, never charged anyone with the alleged crime, and has never offered evidence that the elements of said crime exist in any court for adjudication. Period.
Fitz is essentially asking that Libby be sentenced as though he were a co-conspirator or accessory in a completely different crime than that for which he was convicted, without ever showing that said different crime ever occured. Uh uh. If the judge buys that, he’s a lousy judge.
Well, on this I agree.
The DOJ and administration will take whatever steps are necessary to settle the lawsuit and hopefully finally get this pathetic story out of the press.
But seriously, much better ways? That’s like saying OJ got off because everyone realized a gun would have been quicker and neater.
See above, Kritter. Plame’s status is alleged by the prosecutor (Fitz) without supporting evidence of any kind. It’s simply asserted. An unsupported assertion doesn’t prove anything.
I dispute that. How, exactly, does it “get back” at Wilson? Plame could have quietly taken an analyst job with equal or even greater pay, quietly “retired” from active agent status and gone about her merry way.
And when you say it was indisputable, you’re saying the leak was indisputably intentional. Armitage is a pretty good guy, if somewhat of a talker, but the idea that he was somehow ordered to leak the name is ludicrous.
Again, I don’t think anyone ordered Armitage to pass along the leak.
But I’m pretty sure someone ordered Libby and Rove to pass on the information.
And Tully, the CIA offered their supporting evidence independent of Fitz.
It’s here.
It was filed by Fitz, but prepared by the CIA.
This is a very simple legal matter. There really isn’t much judgment involved in satisfying the definition, or at least coming up with a strong prima facie argument.
I’m sure there are instances where there may be close call (just like that 1L exam that problematizes the legal definition of “vehicle), but those are rare cases. So it’s possible that Fitz is asserting w/o solid basis, but that would be very, very, very unlikely.
Well said, but the point your comment makes seems to the opposite of the one you were trying to make.
If you consider ‘logic’ and ‘actions’ employed by the current Administrations over the last six years it requires no stretch of the imagination, whatsoever, to assume they thought the were getting the Wilsons… But GOOD!
“See above, Kritter. Plame’s status is alleged by the prosecutor (Fitz) without supporting evidence of any kind. It’s simply asserted. An unsupported assertion doesn’t prove anything.”
Tully- Except, that her covert status was confirmed by CIA Director General Hayden during recent congressional hearings (when Plame testified in March) Unless you think HE has an ulterior motive as well.
Tully,
Plame’s status
is NOT alleged… it is a FACT. I linked to the MSNBC story above. It’s also available at CBS, Salon,
“An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame’s employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was “covert†when her name became public in July 2003.”
“I dispute that. How, exactly, does it “get back†at Wilson? Plame could have quietly taken an analyst job with equal or even greater pay, quietly “retired†from active agent status and gone about her merry way.”
Entropy- She testified on the Hill that the leak destroyed her life’s work. Maybe she didn’t want a desk job as an analyst. Its not for us to judge that she could have easily taken a different job. She was dedicated to the operation she was involved in.
Wolfowitz could easily have taken a job as a think tank ideologue (that’s all he’s suited for anyway) but I didn’t see him “quietly retiring” and going about his merry way. He was dragged out kicking and screaming after being canned for good cause.
Wow, the diehards are out in full force today_ guess you guys were fully indoctrinated with the “alternate universe version of events” again!