Posted on 02/22/2005 10:14:45 AM PST by areafiftyone
The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.
Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."
Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"
The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.
Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.
Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.
In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.
"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."
Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."
Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."
So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?
Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."
Another Pearfect Rovian Storm for which there will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the DUmmies.
Did you hear Bill Krystol last night on Special report
I just about busted my gut laughing at how he was mocking the left and blaming everything on Rove
I heard that........I was laughing right along with you.
I absolutely LOVE Victoria (and Joe, too!).
Why has it taken so long for someone to bring this point up?! Crikies! -- we were broaching this a year ago.
It never ceases to amaze me how deftly this Administration justs sits back and watches these loonies hoist themselves on their own petard. There is a masterful chess player in there somewhere I'm thinking? ;)
why does it take so long for this info to surface?
Check out the link at post 18...
The RATS just keep losing and getting more frustated.
It's an interesting question, and it involves the claims that Kelley 'sexed up' his report. As far as I can remember, the 16 words in the SOU, were never disproved, only clarified. All proved out with the 9/11 Report. So, what comes to mind, is, the intent of the Rockefeller memo. To politicize classified information for the purpose of taking down a sitting President. Inside job.
haha! Yet ANOTHER blow to the lefties!
A game is being paid and I for one cannot figure out why.
The Plame Game: Was This a Crime? FR Post 1-12-05
I was just wondering about that.....thanks.
Why is this investigation taking so long if there's reason to believe there wasn't even a crime committed? Hasn't Fitzgerald been at this for over a year?
LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!
;-)
What did the MSM know, and when did they know it?
"Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.
"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.
"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."
Oh my..get the popcorn!
Between this and the CBS people refusing to quit, we may just have a long, fun summer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.