Justice Department Ignores Democrats' Calls for Special Counsel

CNSNews.com ^ | 10/01/03 | Jeff Johnson

[zygoat]

Didn't Leahy(sp) expose undercover agents and/or informants in a similar case while "serving" on the intelligence committee? Resulting in death or injury to some of those involved? If this is such a big deal, why is he still in office?

[AntiGuv]

Valerie Plame was obviously an undercover operative - not a mere technical analyst. If that's not obvious from the opening of the Justice Department investigation (which would not exist if no potential crime had been perpetrated), then it's directly acknowledged in the following Sept 30 memo from White House counsel Alberto Gonzales:

We were informed last evening by the Department of Justice that it has opened an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee.

[alnick]

Actually, it has not been made clear yet whether or not Plame was undercover.

If no investigation is opened, there will be an appearance of a cover up.

As to the memo, note the word "possible." Gonzales' second memo refers to the "purported" undercover operative.

She may very well have been undercover, but no definitive confirmation of her status has yet been made.

[AntiGuv]

The existence of the investigation is rather definitive, since the CIA has to assert that she was undercover in order for the Justice Dept to even open a preliminary inquiry.

This parsing is really rather pointless, I must add..

[mewzilla]

Leaky Leahy didn't get his nickname for nuthin'...

[AntiGuv]

Oh, and the word "possible" obviously qualifies the phrase "unauthorized disclosures" - not the phrase "undercover CIA employee"...

[Redleg Duke]

Because he is a Democrat. The rules apply differently.

[Redleg Duke]

I suspect the only "undercover" work she did was servicing Slick.

[Redleg Duke]

Heck, you have already passed judgement.

Another happy Bush Basher I see.

[AntiGuv]

I haven't passed judgment on anything, except for the patently obvious fact that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative, not a technical analyst or whatever.

BTW, is Alberto Gonzales another happy Bush Basher?

[mewzilla]

But I believe the statute also indicates that the person leaking must know that the leak could result in physical harm to the person whose identity is being disclosed. If this chick wasn't undercover, how could her ID being disclosed do her any harm?

[AntiGuv]

If you really want my opinion, though - since you were so polite as to ask before leaping to conclusion - I think that whoever gave Novak the info didn't realize she was undercover. If that turns out the case, then no law was broken and everyone will just bebop along to less problematic diversions...

[alnick]

Here's what the Gonzales memo did: Restated the charges.

I repeat: Plame may or may not have been covert. Jumping to conclusions is not smart.

[AntiGuv]

No, that is incorrect.

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

1) The disclosure must have been made by someone with authorized access to classified information.

2) The disclosure must have been intentional.

3) The person accused must have known the agent identified was a covert operative.

4) The person accused must know the U.S. means to conceal the agent's intelligence relationship.

Those are the requirements for conviction.

[AntiGuv]

Fine, I won't argue the point. Think what you will.

[Khaibit]

Yes, Valerie Wilson was definitely under cover. It has been confirmed by half a dozen sources. Amongst others, a former CIA analyst who worked with her;

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it.

What is clear in this case is that there were other reporters who had the integrity and good judgment to recognize that this was a political hatchet job that this was not about real news. I like Bob Novak and I have been on his other show but in this case he got it wrong. And to hide behind the parsing of words that she was an analyst so therefore it's okay. No, it's not okay.

The principle's established: do not divulge the names of these people. In my own career trainee class I did not know Joe's wife last name; we went by our first initials.

I was in the same class with her. I was Larry J. In fact, when I first saw her last name I didn't recognize her until one of other my classmates who's out now called me up and said, hey. To realize this is a terrific woman, she's a woman of great integrity and other people that don't know her were trying to suggest that she is the one that initiated that. That is such nonsense. This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

[Diogenesis]

Why would Johnson talk in public?

[Khaibit]

I dunno. Apparently he is angry about it... and obviously the cat is now well and truly out of the bag.

[Diogenesis]

Maybe he is a "plant" - or has his FBI file held
[and threatened to be revealed] by the Democrats.