Valerie Plame Part 2?

Question

This is interesting.. part of a news story.

former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the 1982 law in question.
Said 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 explained, "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 meet those criteria, Toensing argued: "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.

Toensing said that's unlikely.

Continued soon..one sec.

Story cont.

In fact, the myth that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, when New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof revealed that she abandoned her covert role a full nine years before the Novak column.

"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," reported Kristof. "So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

comments?

Thanks Akkita.. quite a bit different from the poor Career Wrecked Valerie Plame we've heard about from the Democrats.

..so it should stand to reason then that The current administration knew this ..knew it wasnt against the law.. so why would Libby Perjur himself to cover up a non existing case? ..answer there is no perjury either

Answer 1

so... this was all improper prosecution/investigation?

I would suspect that this is a gray area of the law... some may consider it illegal, others may not... all depends on how you interpret the law...

especially when the person you quote says "a serious legal question"... so that means it may not be... or it maybe (she seems to be leaning toward "not")... it's still a question, probably to be decided by a judge...

she never answers definitively... with words like "unlikely"...

there aren't a lot of cases like this... so it may be breaking new legal ground...

EDIT: uh... what do you mean there is no perjury? if you lie under oath, it doesn't matter what you were talking about (wheather it's your pet fluffy or the color of mars)... it's perjury... and it's becoming more evident that it was perjury...

because he said he didn't know what he clearly did know... as several people now have said...

so you're question still stands... why did he perjure himself?

Answer 2

So what you are saying is .......... None of it matters

Or more to the point ...........It don't matter to me because I can read and understand that she wasn't covert since the CIA outed her to the Russians.

As the media alleged (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow.
Then -- The press informed that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana.

Answer 3

so what you are saying, is that this is a conspiracy to get Libby to lie to investigators so they could arrest him. and he lied even though he knew he was doing nothing wrong, just to play games with a hoax investigation??
and even while she wasn't covert, bush and cheney just didn't say.."Oh..no ID was leaked, she wasn't covert...no harm no foul"
uh huh??

i think you need to quit believing everything you read.