Crossposted at Part-Time Pundit by John Bambenek

During the press conference this afternoon, US Prosecutor Fitzgerald emphasized that no one knew that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA and that her cover has been blown. He said that she needed that cover and the blowing of that cover has harmed national security. After reading the indictment and listening to the press conference. Libby was charged with perjury, obstruction, and lying to investigators.

If Libby leaked the name of a covered operative why is he not charged as such? The prosecutor during the press conference, Fitzgerald said he was “the first person in the chain of phone calls” that released her name to the public. Why is he not charged for leaking the name? Fitzgerald is saying that’s essentially what he did. The first question asked why Fitzgerald didn’t charge Libby for leaking; the response was that he didn’t know the motives so he can’t charge for leaking. That position is absurd.

A second question not asked is about Valerie Plame’s cover, the assumption seems to be given that she had it, needed it, and she kept it secret. Let’s discuss non-official cover for a moment and its purpose. The entire point of any cover is so that person covered can deal with foreign agents without them knowing they are dealing with an agent of the United States. That’s the point of espionage; it’s to deceive into getting information that would not normally be given. If foreign people would give up the information to an FBI agent, there is no point to having a covered agent.

Valerie Plame had cover so she could talk to people in other countries without knowing her affiliation with the United States, it’s that simple. If there was information that would otherwise compromise the fact that she was affiliated with the US government, her cover would be compromised.

Valerie Plame’s cover was blown the second she married Joseph Wilson (which is probably why she moved to Langley). How can I say this? Two things. The marriage ceremony was public and it creates a public record. In fact, Joseph Wilson made no attempt to hide the name or identity of his wife. Second, no one can seriously think that the known wife of a US ambassador would not have an affiliation with the United States government.

Some argue that her name was disclosed in a Who’s Who record, in talks given by Wilson, or other events. These are irrelevant distinctions because her name, in and of itself does not link her to the government. What links her to the government publicly is her marriage to a US ambassador, even without mentioning she was CIA.

If I was engaging in espionage in Russia on behalf of the United States, I would not take seriously the trustworthiness of the wife of a Russian ambassador. No one would. Perhaps the reason Plame’s leaking was not charged is because her cover was already blown the day she got married.

Said jcb @ 12:44 pm | Permalink   

1. Fitzgerald explained that he did not charge Libby with the underlying crime because in order to do so, under the statute, you have to be able to prove that he did so knowingly (among other things). Fitzgerald could not prove that because, he charges, Libby lied, “threw sand in the umpire’s face” as he analogized.

   Regarding Plame’s “cover,” it’s irrelevant what we think. If her employment was officially “classified” it was officially classified. That would be a point of fact (if true). I don’t think you want Libby, or you, or I making that judgment on our own.

   None of this is to say that Libby is guilty of anything. We’ll have to wait and see. But if the allegations are true, if Libby walked into a grand jury room, swore an oath before God and country to tell the truth, and then didn’t, he’s got a problem.

   Comment by Planet Moron — 10/28/2005 @ 1:45 pm

---

2. I heard Fitz’s explanation and I found it unconvincing, especially when he explained how Libby was the first in the phone chain and that he talked of “vindicating the interests” to explain away not charging him with the actual crime but the cover-up. I heard it, I’m just not buying.

   Comment by John Bambenek — 10/28/2005 @ 1:48 pm

---

3. Two possible reasons the outing issue never came up today:

   First, like most white collar crime, it’s hard to prove. Prosecutors usually go after an easier prosecution that will result in similar punishment.

   Libby’s looking at 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. That’s a stiffer sentence than he would have gotten for breaking the CIA identities law.

   Second, in item 21 of the indictment, you’ll see mentioned an unnamed “Senior White House official,” referred to in the indictment as “Official A.” This person is the one who leaked where it counted. He’s the one who mentioned to Libby that he’d talked to Bob Novak and that Novak would be running a column soon about Plame’s identity.

   This is the leak that actually counts. None of the people Libby told ever published the information. That makes it hard to prove she was outed when only one or two people without security clearances were told. But the Novak column was read by — hundreds. OK, dozens. Anyway, it was syndicated all around the country.

   Official A is most likely Karl Rove. We know that Rove’s lawyers have been working on a plea bargin in the case since Tuesday. Very likely, Rove will agree to plead to a lesser charge to get out of the number of counts Libby got hit with.

   As far as her marriage to Wilson…that wouldn’t identify her as a CIA agent. The CIA maintained a cover for her as an “energy consultant or analyst.” That allowed her to get into areas and make contacts with people who knew about nuclear fuel and production (she worked for the CIA’s nonproliferation office).

   CIA agents are commonly given covers as diplomats. But being married to a diplomat wouldn’t be any less of a cover blower than being a high ranking officer at the US Embassy somewhere. In fact, a business woman married to an ambassador might be a better cover in some cases.

   Comment by Denny Hix — 10/28/2005 @ 1:56 pm

---

4. You apparently don’t have much knowledge of how intelligence works. Being married to an ambassador would be viewed as being way to close to government connections, no one would trust it, except possibly in the case of fishing out a double-cross which isn’t what she was in the business of.

   Comment by John Bambenek — 10/28/2005 @ 1:59 pm

---

5. Wilson: There Have Been Threats

   In his first interview since the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Joe Wilson tells Ed Bradley that ther

   Trackback by Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — 10/29/2005 @ 4:34 am

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website