Ever since the leaking of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity by Robert Novak in 2003, there has been a tremendous spin game underway, with defenders and critics of the administration warring over nearly every detail of the case. While Patrick Fitzgerald's prosecution team has been extremely tight-lipped in general, more and more information has emerged about the case as the grand jury investigation has continued.
Just this week, in the aftermath of the release of a formerly-secret legal opinion by a judge regarding the Miller testimony, there have been two very important news stories - one that declared Fitzgerald stated Plame was covert as per the IIPA, and one that attempts to take the wind out of that argument. Where is the spin, and where is the fact?
Join me over the flip for the two articles, and their arguments.
Newsweek is currently running a
piece in their February 13, 2006 edition that discusses the issue of Plame's covert status, claiming that:
Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
The exact wording of the judge's opinion, as has been diaried before, is as follows:
As to the leaks' harmfulness, although the record omits specifics about Plame's work, it appears to confirm, as alleged in the public record and reported in the press, that she worked for the CIA in some unusual capacity relating to counterproliferation. Addressing deficiencies of proof regarding the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the special counsel refers to Plame as "a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years" -- representations I trust the special counsel would not make without support.
However, an article in today's National Review, argues that the Judge's interpretation of Fitzgerald's statements may have been in error, and that Fitzgerald may not have so directly declared her status as covert as per the IIPA, including the relevant affidavit's footnote:
Given that "the record omits specifics about Plame's work," Tatel based his analysis on a footnote in an August 27, 2004, affidavit submitted to the court by Fitzgerald. That document, too, was released last week. In the footnote, Fitzgerald wrote:
If Libby knowingly disclosed information about Plame's status with the CIA, Libby would appear to have violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 793 [the Espionage Act] if the information is considered "information respecting the national defense." In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act], it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.
From this perspective, it appears there is still no definitive statement from Fitzgerald on Plame' covert status as described under the IIPA.
Some have argued that the investigation itself is the closest one can expect to come to hard proof of her CIA covert status, since such proof would be an unlawful violation of the laws surrounding the distribution of classified information. Others have pieced together interviews and statements to provide a body of evidence supporting the view that she was covert. Doubters of her covert status have made specious arguments ranging from how she drove to the CIA to misinterpretations of the statements of various players in the scandal, including Joseph Wilson. Some doubters have raised issues with the lack of available evidence or believe there's no definitive evidence either way, since such evidence would, by definition, be another violation of the law.
Does the public have a reasonable expectation of access to this information? Is it a reasonable perspective to doubt her status? Can Fitzgerald provide definitive information regarding a CIA operative's covert status, when doing so would be breaking the law?
