He said she was not a covert agent.
I amassed actual factual information to show him his obvious error. But as you well know, "facts" and "reality" have little sway on our nation's right wing pundits (and more than a few trolls here at 2PJ for that matter).
Well, Mr Miller's in good company. Wesley Pruden, writing in the moonie-owned Washington Times, said roughly the same thing (h/t to Mediamatters.org):
If anyone compromised "national security" by "outing" Valerie Plame as Mata Hari, it was not Scooter Libby. The special prosecutor knew all along that it was Richard L. Armitage, another government functionary, who had "outed" Valerie at the CIA, except that she was not really a covert agent, anyway, and even if she had been the law protecting covert agents did not actually apply to her.Let's review.
According to this document filed by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald:
I noticed this from the conclusion:The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny. First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.
Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer’s identity. He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded the investigation. [emphasis added]And that, my friends, is what he was convited for - lying and obstruction of justice. Perjury is illegal and Scooter was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of committing it.
That Valerie Plame was covert is a point written into a sentencing memorandum filed by a US Attorney in a federal court. If that "fact" is incorrect, then why isn't Fitzgerald being hauled into court for perjury?
Simple. Plame was covert and anyone saying otherwise is lying.
6 comments:
Not to mention that CIA Director Hayden -- you know, somebody you would expect to know -- told Waxman's committee that Plame was covert.
they lie and then accuse everyone else of lying.
but a lot of right wing types only get their news from fox or talk radio.
they know that and use it.
Dave, I don't dispute what you are saying, and I frankly haven't looked into the fine details of the case as well as I probably should have. But let me play devil's advocate for a second. The special prosecutor, as an element of some of the charges he was pursuing, would have to demonstrate that Ms. Plame was indeed in a covert status. So logically, he has made filings in which he attempts to demonstrate this particular element of the offense.
But that particular element was not needed to convict Scooter Libby, who was not directly charged with revealing the identity of a covert agent. So the "covert or not covert" argument with the defense never took place in court, and the jury was never tasked with making any sort of determination on that particular element. It simply wasn't needed to convict Mr. Libby of the offenses he was charged with.
So the "covert or not covert" question has never been addressed by any court and Mr. Libby's conviction has no bearing on whether or not she was covert. So, in a weird way, it could be held (by some) to be a bit of an open question still, right?
Rich;
You're right. The "covert or not covert" question was NEVER addressed in that court.
In my blog posting, I was addressing the argument being used by the Scooter-supporters ("The Scooterettes"?).
They're the ones saying that since she was never covert, then leaking her name couldn't be a criminal act. And then since there's "no underlying crime", Scooter should not have been charged with perjury related to a crime never committed.
I'm undermining that argument by showing that she was covert and that leaking that information was criminal.
The foundation of that particular argument is not even sand.
David
David DeAngelo might want to ask Richard Armitage about who is a liar and who is not.
What do you think, David?
Once again, Master Lie: Why would we ask a traitor about whether or not she was covert when the CIA has already said she was? I don't understand the question nor your point, if you thought you had one.
Post a Comment