Your Primer on the Plame Affair
 

With Washington on pins and needles, and indictments likely today or tomorrow, I thought I'd do a public service announcement :)

Below is a really good primer on the Plame matter, lifted directly from the U.S. government's memorandum to the D.C. Court of Appeals in the Miller case. Remember, this is the government's memorandum. I thought I was fairly up-to-speed on this, but I learned a few things.

Edited to make clear the memorandum starts here:


The Special Counsel’s investigation concerns alleged leaks of purportedly classified information by one or more government officials to reporters in apparent retaliation for a former government official’s exercise of his First Amendment right to publicly criticize the government.

*****
During the spring and summer of 2003, a controversy arose concerning a statement made by President George W. Bush during the State of the Union address delivered on January 28, 2003. A-16, A-19. In that address, President Bush stated: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Id. The accuracy of this statement, later colloquially referred to as the “16 words,” was called into question by a series of articles, including an Op-ed piece by Joseph C. Wilson IV, which was published in the New York Times on July 6, 2004. See A_ 233; A-237; A-26.

In the Op-ed piece, Wilson, a retired career State Department official, asserted that he had taken a trip to Niger at the request of the CIA in February 2002 to investigate allegations that yellowcake uranium had been sought or obtained by Iraq from Niger. A-23233. According to Wilson, the CIA made this request after receiving inquiries from the Vice President about the allegation that uranium had been sought from Niger. Id. Wilson asserted that he reported to the CIA his conclusion that he doubted Iraq had actually obtained uranium from Niger, for a number of reasons. A-233-34. Wilson further opined that, based on his experiences, “some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” A-26; A-233.

On July 14, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak published a column in the Chicago Sun-Times in which he asserted that “two senior administration officials” told him that Wilson’s wife, whom he described as a CIA “operative on weapons of mass destruction,” suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate a report regarding attempted uranium purchases from Niger. A-26-27; A-237.

Novak asserted that it was “doubtful” that Tenet ever saw Wilson’s report, and “certain” that the President did not see it before the State of the Union address, and that the CIA did not regard the report as definitive. A-237.

After Novak’s column was published, it was reported that other reporters had been told by government officials that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA monitoring weapons of mass destruction, and that she was involved in her husband’s being sent to Africa. See A-26, A-147; SECA II Ex. D, E, G, I. Among the articles that related this report was an article contributed to by Matthew Cooper and published by Time.com on July 17, 2003. A-11. The article stated that: “some government officials have noted to Time in interviews that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction . . . [and] have suggested that she was involved in her husband’s being dispatched to Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore . . . .” Id. In addition, on September 28, 2003, the Washington Post reported that, in the July 2003 time frame, “two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.” A-27.

In the fall of 2003, the government began an investigation into whether violations of federal law had occurred in connection with the unauthorized disclosure by government employees of information concerning the identity of a purported CIA employee. A-27. In late December 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from participation in the investigation, and delegated his full authority in connection with the investigation to Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey as Acting Attorney General. A-240. Deputy Attorney General Comey, in turn, appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, as Special Counsel, and delegated full authority concerning the investigation to him. A-27; A-240-41. The grand jury investigation began in January 2004.

Too bad that its not mentioned that Wilson is a flaming Kerry supporter and will do anything possible to harm Bush after he beat Kerry in the election. He is not neutral in any sense in this situation.

Will be interesting to see how this comes out in the wash...

Joe A

Rodeo, will you please quit trying to distract us from the Clinton and Galloway discussions, which are much more germaine to the current state of the union? Thank you.

Thom,

Good one! Course CC wants to talk about Clarence Thomas, who has not been in the mix in over 10 years!

JoeA

Wilson's political views don't bother me a bit, its his right to be a "flaming' supporter of whomever he wants. I'll consider that when listening to what he says.

THIS bothers me:

“two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife.”

Interesting. Interesting that someone can believe that Wilson's political leaning is relevant in this issue, but not the fact that his wife's identity was revealed by "administration" officials shotly after his report about yellow cake uranium.

Wilson points out a Bush lie to the American people told to justify the Iraq war, then Cheney and Rove blow Plame's cover.....

......and the important thing is Wilson's political leaning?

Pretty sad. I think I'll go back to reading Mul's posts. At least they're hilarious.

Double post.

Dontcha mean double thread???

Rodeo, why did you feel the need to post a 2nd thread the same as the other one you started?

Two separate issues here:

1) Wilson went out of his way to discredit the Niger uranium story.

2) Wilson's wife was outed as a CIA operative.

How is Wilson's political leaning relevant? He made sure he was sent to Africa so that he could author a report that advanced his agenda. Accepting his report as true is much like global warming. (Someone said it is true, with no proof, so it must be so--coincidentally its a great hammer to use on my political enemies.)

It appears that issue #2 is revenge for issue #1, so they are interrelated, but both are equally wrong. Let me restate the issues:

1) Wilson used his wife's position in the CIA to advance his political agenda.

2) Someone in the WH used undisclosed knowledge #1 to advance their political agenda.

Is it legal to use contacts in the CIA to advance you political agenda? I don't know all of the laws surrounding the CIA.

In other news: Sandy Berger burglarized the National Archives, leaving gaping holes in the 9-11 Commission Final Report.

It's not the same thread ... but if my posting the U.S. Memorandum offends you, skip over it. I thought it would be helpful for some to read an unbiased version of events, to put this story in perspective.

And sorry Mikester, facts are facts. The President of the United States took the unprecedented step of withdrawing those 16 words from his State of the Union Address. As far as I know, that has never before happened in the history of our country.

Wilson may be the worst human being on the face of the planet, but his Niger conclusion was correct. If he's only told the truth once in his life, that was the time.***

Finally, no legion, it is not illegal to use an appointment by the United States government to advance what you believe in. Presidents and Cabinet Secretaries and Supreme Court Justices do it every day. You just have to advance your cause within the boundaries of the law. To the extent that is what Wilson did, he told the truth and broke no law.




*** By the way, there is a major expose going on right now by some Italian newspaper trying to get to the bottom of who forged the document suggesting a Niger – uranium connection. I haven’t had time to follow it, but that could be a massive development. SOMEBODY forged it, we just don’t know who. Or why. Stay tuned.

Kinda interesting that the druge report just reported that Valerie Plame's company handler advised that it was not news to anyone who lived near her of her employer. He said that all of her neighbours knew that she was active duty CIA and that her husband was a diplomat. Kinda hard to be in "deep cover" when everyone living around you knows that you are a spook...

JoeA

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

Kinda interesting? Why would it be surprising that right-wing sources would make false statements against Wilson?

Ok, now this is the same thread :) Joe, Plame’s status as covert has already been discussed, in mind-numbing detail.

If she was not covert, then nobody broke the law.

I hope that you will agree that if she was covert, disclosing her identity for political purposes was not only illegal, but morally reprehensible.

I think you are confusing Dan Rather with "right wing sources."

So Wilson and Plame using her position to further his agenda is not abuse. It's equally as reprehensible in my book.

Let's say that I was running for office. Let's say that my wife worked at a local university. Let's say that the hot issue during my campaign is teacher pay. Wouldn't it be unethical if I compelled my wife, a recognized academic expert in teacher compensation, to publish an article that stated that local teachers were overpaid? (A position that I support.)

Totally agree. Have worked with people in covert status and their neighbours had no idea what they did for a living, but you can bet that they did not know that they were a spook.

As her neighbours knew where she worked then who is to say that one of them were not overseas operatives. Plame was not practicing "op sec" and her cover was blown long before this time. In this case, it appears that either she or her husband need looking at for blowing her cover long before any comments by the press.

JoeA

The only thing I find difficult is that you "compelled" you wife to take a position she does not support. Otherwise, I think everything you said is fine. I would expect your wife to publish her views if they agree with yours, and the two of you are jointly taking a position on public policy. That's democracy.

If you were a school system administrator and your boss was looking for someone to do a study of teacher compensation, I'd expect you to recommend your wife. If they hired her without any undue influence from you, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. That’s basically what happened with Plame and Wilson as I understand it.

Let me put it another way. Was there any chance that Wilson would have taken the trip if his wife wasn't CIA?