Powerline: Still In Denial About Valerie Wilson’s Status
Powerline: Still In Denial About Valerie Wilson’s Status
In an earlier post we criticized Powerline’s John Hinderacker for arguing that Fitzgerald “appears to have concluded that Plame was not, in fact, a covert agent.†We noted that the indictment concludes “her employment status was classified,†which suggests she was a covert agent.
Hinderacker maturely responds to the “ignoramus†website who dared criticize his analysis. His point is that the definition of a “covert agent†under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires the employee’s identity to be classified and travel outside of the United States within the last five years.
Hinderacker doesn’t provide any information that suggests Ms. Wilson didn’t travel overseas in the five years prior to her outing. There’s probably a good reason. On October 8, 2003 the Washington Post reported her neighbors, prior to her outing, “knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.â€
Hinderacker also complains he has received “many abusive emails†about this topic from “people who have absolutely no idea what they’re talking about.†We know he couldn’t be describing ThinkProgress readers, who we’ve found to be very well informed. But if you do correspond with Hinderacker (powerlinefeedback@gmail.com), please be polite.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This guy is just too much. Sounds like a real jerk.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:40 pmTo clear the air it should be noted that the terms “Classified” and “Covert” are not mutually exclusive. However, in the normal usage of the terms something may be “Classified” but not be covert. But, as generally happens, any covert operation is classified. Valarie Plame did hold a “Classified” position in the world according to Patrick Fitzgearld. Mr. Fitzgearld does not seem to be overly concerned whether she was “covert” or not. Probably because he intends to prosecute under the espionage act. Hinderacker is just arguing semantics to cover his ass rather than admit his side is in a world of doggie dodo without a doggie bag.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:50 pmThe point here as I see it is that the indictment lended considerable support to the notion that she was covert. Hinderacker takes the indictment and says that it suggests Fitzgerald didn’t think she was covert. That’s why I titled the initial post “Up is Down.” But it seems to be par for the course for Powerline.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:55 pmFunny how these people kept saying “her neighbors all knew she was CIA”. Then we find out from Fitzgerald and the FBI that her neighbors had no idea.
Now we also find out that her neighbors knew she travelled outside the country, which proves them wrong again.
My guess is that Assrocket and his pathetic ilk won’t be bringing up the neighbors anymore.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:59 pmI sent my email.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:06 pmJeez these guys are truly stuck on stupid. Here is their logic: the indictment doesn’t use the word covert therefore no wrongdoing occurred. It’s just more kool-aid for the faithful sheep. Can’t have the masses getting restless now can we?
October 30th, 2005 at 6:07 pmI sent a copy of my post (#2) in the most polite way possible (no sarcasm) to Mr Hinderaker and asked for his take on my argument. My usual odds ($20 to a glass of warm pee) say he will not respond.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pm1. Libby forgot.
2. No indictment on the primary charge is a good thing.
These are the sentiments of people who would kill you if they thought they could get away with it.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:09 pmI hate to post again, but I thought I would feel better after the Libby indictment. I don’t. I’m madder. Anyone else?
October 30th, 2005 at 6:12 pmThe Grand Hypocrisy of it all – think what Powerline would be saying if a (D) President had outed a CIA Agent.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:19 pmHe’s not called AssRocket for nothing.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:21 pmHinderaker knows damn well that drawing that conclusion regarding Plame’s covert status from the absence of an indictment under IIPA would get him laughed out of a high school debate. He’s playing to the vested hopes of his readership, who appear to be a rather uncritical bunch.
I only hope he’s not this sloppy in his 9-5 law practice.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:30 pmAnd by his “readership,” I mean to include both of his constituent classes — Freeperus Jingoisticus and Bobo Erectus.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:34 pmThe far right just keeps getting themselves deeper and deeper into their own mess. The irony is that if they did take Reid’s advice and apoligize their poll numbers would probably go up. Good thing, they’ll never do that.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:36 pmAssRocket has gone into an uncontrolled spin!
October 30th, 2005 at 6:41 pmThey were discussing that on MTP this morning. I disagree, Paul Pastrano. A good portion of people don’t understand the CIA leak case. An apology would just bring more light to it. The Bush gov’t is caught if chinese finger cuffs. The harder they pull, the tighter it gets. And yet the cuffs aren’t comin’ off.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:41 pmAll the while, there are too many fires burning out of hand for one apology.
to try to convert these guys to the truth and realities is as improbable as converting a moslem to christianity . Myths are hard to destroy . They need them to justify their miserable lives .They have VESTED INTERESTS in their myths.they are too numerous to expose , let’s start with hume , brooks , safire , o’reily and the whole faux bunch and of course rush and others . may they swallow the diareha in their mouths.
October 30th, 2005 at 5:48 pmToday’s Mantra comes from former President George H.W. Bush:
“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our [CIA] sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” (April 26, 1999)
October 30th, 2005 at 5:54 pm#4, poor Judd says, “The point here as I see it is that the indictment lended considerable support to the notion that she was covert.”
But no one was charged with anything related to Plame’s status, “covert”, “classified” or whatever. The anti-democracy left’s conspiracy fantasies are dead. :()
October 30th, 2005 at 5:54 pm#5
Wally, Wally, Wally!
Please go get your ears, in addition to several other parts of your body, fixed. The Fat Lady isn’t even in ths same State, much less singing to your hopeless tune. When will you ever learn that “the indictment” to which you have reference is not the only “the Indictment” that is possible. When “The Indictment,” meaning “The Indictment” to end all “Indictments” comes down your collective ass will be sucking swamp water and the Fat Lady will be right there singing her lament on your collective shoulders. Bye Bye loser!
You are one determined troll but still a proven and found liar. I still want my apology!
October 30th, 2005 at 6:19 pmThe harder they pull, the tighter it gets.
:) :) :) Oh how I hope you are right!
October 30th, 2005 at 6:40 pmWhat is wrong with that guy? He is the one who apparently doesn’t know what he is talking about. But if he reads only RNC talking points, it is no wonder that he is so ignorant — not only of facts, but ignorant in general.
October 30th, 2005 at 6:59 pmJudd, you pull your punches trying to be without blame in this. Let go, man. Treat an ant like an ant and squash him when you have the facts as big boots.
Assrocket DOES reply to emails. You’d be surprised. I got a response to mine–a tenth-grade insult. Made me wonder if he isn’t just a little *sensitive* and subject to being rattled.
Keep the pressure on this guy. If he’s replying, make him reply more. He’ll crack. He’s the top lying bitch at the Lying Conservatives’ Bitches Society, and at heart he’s a bedwetter.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:09 pmWhen the facts are against you argue the law….etc, etc. The facts are clearly against them so they will have to argue that the language in the law is on their side.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:34 pmI want to know what happened to Bush taking over the WH to “clean it up” from Clinton. Seems like the smell is just getting worse as more time goes by with these people.
So lets do a quick recap of Republican values-
(1) It’s great fiscal policy to take a $400BB surplus and turn it into a $400BB deficit.
(2) An AWOL, inside trading neer-do-well is a more honorable leader than say, a Kerry. It’s OK to assassinate his character too.
(3) A pResident who lies about the causus belli is OK, as long as he’s a Republican. It’s terrible when he’s a Democrat (see Kosovo)
(4) A Supreme Court candidate must have an up or down vote, unless we don’t like the candidate.
(5) It’s OK to ignore 52 warnings, icluding a CIA PDB that tells you an attack is imminent and have 3000 Americans die. But only if it happens to be a pResident from the Republican Party.
(6) No judicial activists…except if the judges actively pursue our agenda. Then you can distort any law.
(7) Outing a CIA agent is absolutely OK, if it exposes the Republican pResident’s lies for a causus belli.
(8) Republicans respect live, like Terri Schiavo or blastocysts….but capital punishment/murdering 100,000 plus innocent, sentient humans is perfectly acceptable.
(9) Impeachment for lying about consensual sex is the crime of the century. Lying about a causus belli where 2,000 American soldiers died makes you a traitor if you point this out.
I admit to being a moral relativist. But I’m no hypocritical relative moralist [IOKIYAR] of the Republican variety.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:49 pmCorrection on item (7)-
(7) Outing a CIA agent is absolutely OK, if it helps to stop the exposure of the Republican pResident’s lies for a causus belli.
October 30th, 2005 at 7:51 pmWant to hear to good joke? What are the top ten ways to know if a Politician is lying? (1)If his lips are moving! (2)If he is testifying before a Federal Grand Jury about Joe Wilson’s wife. (3)If they say the War if Iraq is going great. (4)If they say the economy is doing good. (5)If say Exxon/mobil needs a tax break. (6)If they say Fox News is Fair and Balanced. (7)If he/she works for the present adminisration. (8)If his name is Scott McClellan and his is the White House Press Secretary. (9)If he belongs of the Republican Party. (10)If his name is Scooter.
October 30th, 2005 at 8:28 pmThe 2003 Bush State of the Union: President Lies About Iraq Nuclear Capability
In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about Iraq’s nuclear capability: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”2
But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons.3
Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA, and the CIA told the White House.3
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson’s Findings And Lie? It’s About Iraq
Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq.
A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, “there is no consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general—except where a nuclear attack against the United States is contemplated…”4
Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on “a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates…made allegations depicting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views.”5
Wilson Strikes Back—Exposes Bush’s Lie In Lead-Up To War
Six months after the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address, as Bush’s WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and exposed the Bush Administration’s false nuclear claims in a New York Times op-ed.6
The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” can be read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070
The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was so angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he monitored all of Wilson’s television appearances and urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides say.”7
White House Retaliates—Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent
The week after Wilson’s op-ed in the New York Times, “two senior administration officials” were cited by conservative columnist Robert Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.8
The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war to the public, “morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims.”9 WHIG was run out of Vice President Cheney’s office, and included Cheney’s Chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush administration officials.
Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson’s 20-year career as a CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the past.10
Today’s Indictment—White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The Lie
Today’s indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same issues, among possible others.
October 30th, 2005 at 8:31 pmFormer President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”11
Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative—it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.”12
The American people must know this important truth: Today’s indictment is about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
Hey, #5, wwallace let me apologize for the names my progressive compadres called you here, like assrocket, asswipe, and such. Us conservatives have to stick together here. But really, you have to quit sounding like such a stupid ass, you know? Throwing up all that smoke and mirrors in relation to Plume’s status: of course she was covert, and Fritzgerald alluded to that in his briefing and mentioned over and over again that he wasn’t at liberty to say where this ongoing investigation might lead. Jeeeze! You make all us rightwing guys seem like total baffoons.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the anti-democracy group you referred to belong to a Republic, not a democracy. I mean, our country is a Republic and not a democracy, right? The likes of G. Gordon Liddy and Scooter not withstanding.
By the way, those little faces you make with the keyboard like :) and ;>, you really need to quit that. If the guys down at the bar could get their redneck hands on you, they’d bitch-slap you into next week.
October 30th, 2005 at 8:47 pmThanks Guys,
You trolls have just proved my point!
You have had two hours to prove me wrong.
October 30th, 2005 at 8:56 pm#32
My apologies!
I forget to hit my refresh button and didn’t realize all y’all (plural of y’all) had got between Wally and Me. You make the connection–I’m going to the fotball game!
October 30th, 2005 at 9:05 pmI heard a new right wing talking point yesterday..
A guy told me that Clinton had Bin Laden and he just let him go..
I asked him repeatedly where and when did Clinton have Bin Laden…the chickenhawk ran away with his tail between his legs.
Brainwashing only works if it has a response system.
October 30th, 2005 at 9:31 pmDidn’t anyone see 60 minutes? They had a piece about Valerie Plame. Not only was she covert, but her “noc” status made her the MOST secretive kind of spy working on the most sensitive things and in the most danger because she didn’t have official cover by the embassies of her govt.
October 30th, 2005 at 9:45 pmWhat a difference two indictments and a hurricane make in the Top 10 GOP Sound Bites.
Catapulting to #1 in the charts after the Scooter Libby indictment is Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison’s smash hit, “No Underlying Crime (Perjury Technicality).” “Ongoing Investigation”, the previous chart-topper from Scott McClellan and George W. Bush, dropped to #2. Moving to #5 is “Criminalization of Politics”, as performed by Tom Delay, Ken Mehlman, Bill Kriston and Robert Novak.
Here’s the complete list of:
The Top 10 GOP Post-Indictment Sound Bites…
October 31st, 2005 at 1:39 amA CIA officer’s name was blown, there was an apparent leak of information to friendly reporters in the national media, national security was at stake, a news reporter was eventually jailed, an administration mover and shaker called: “Scooter†has been indicted for possible obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements, and the federal judge assigned to the case was appointed by the same executive branch and had previously served in the White House Media Affairs Office.
Is there just too much by happenstance for this to be just a coincidental thing?
What a saga, sometimes humorous, sometimes crazy and gripping, but in fact, really serious, with each new segment so far finishing with a cliff hanger leaving the country eager for more information. It’s a tangled wed of lies, cover-up, judgment of others, and corruption at the highest level of government (an unnecessary war with Iraq). It involves the po-po (the FBI), an assistant to the president of the United States, the chief of staff to the vice president, an assistant to the vice president for national security affairs, and a ruff neck (keeps it real and knows the streets) judge who once admitted as a junior in high school he discovered his father’s guns and straight razor and started sneaking them out of the house tucked into his pants (one of the fights escalated from punching to a boyhood friend being stabbed nine times with an ice pick). There’s also the highly unusual (August 2005) fight where this same federal judge wrestled a man to the ground during a traffic incident on the Chevy Chase Circle (Washington, D.C.).
Maybe it’s just a part of the George W. Bush legacy? Maybe it’s just an element of indeterminacy in human actions which often works in favor of true disclosure? Nonetheless, both political parties would prefer for their own reasons not to pursue the truth, and the media will be content to go along with the typical hyperbole (cover-up), and the greater peril will be to the public’s confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice.
The American judiciary was placed into the frame work of our system so that no one branch of government could become too powerful and exercise its powers unduly either over the other branches or the American people. For many the separation of power has basically disappeared.
I. Lewis “Scooter†Libby, vice president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, although indicted by a federal grand jury on five charges related to the CIA leak probe (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false statements), appears to be confident that at the end of this process he “will be completely and totally exonerated.†Karl Rove, president Bush’s top political adviser, who testified four times before the grand jury and wasn’t indicted (but not yet out of legal jeopardy), said through his attorney Robert Luskin, “We are confident that when the special counsel finishes his work, he will conclude that Mr. Rove has done nothing wrong.â€
But, how can they be so confident? Both Libby and Rove as senior government officials with responsibilities for national security matters (entitling them to access to classified information) were obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code, Section 793, and executive Order 12958 (as modified by executive order 13292) not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise required to exercise proper care to safe guard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.
At issue is Joseph Wilson, who was married to Valerie Plame Wilson. Mrs. Wilson was employed by the CIA and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the vice president concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi effort to acquire uranium yellow cake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.
On or about January 28, 2003, president Bush delivered his State of the Union Address which included “sixteen words†to justify war with Iraq asserting that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. But as part of the American system of check-and-balances on May 6, 2003, the “New York Times†published a column by Nicholas Kristof of which disputed the accuracy of the “sixteen words†president Bush used in the State of the Union Address. The column reported that the ambassador sent to investigate the allegations had reported back to the CIA and State Department in early 2002 that the allegations were unequivocally wrong and based on forged documents (It’s just impossible to operate a clear conspiracy where all the pieces fit together).
On or about June 23 and the morning of July 8, 2003, Libby met with “New York Times†reporter Judith Miller and discussed Wilson’s trip and his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson during the second meeting, Libby asked that the information Libby provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer†rather than to a “senior administration official.†An under secretary of state had orally advised Libby on or about June 11 or 12, 2003, while in the White House that, in sum and substance, former ambassador and career state department official Joseph Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA. Additionally, the vice president himself had also advised Libby that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA in the counter-proliferation division.
Shortly thereafter, on July 10 or July 11, 2003, Libby spoke with Rowe, who advised Libby of a conversation Rowe had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. Libby was advised by Rowe that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.
On September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to commence a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the Spring of 2003. A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so know that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information (conducted an investigation into possible violations of federal criminal laws, including Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 – Disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel; and, Title 18, United States Code, Sections: 793 Improper Disclosure of National Defense Information, 1001 False Statements, 1503 Obstruction of Justice, and 1623 Perjury).
As part of the criminal investigation, Libby was interviewed by special agents of the FBI on or about October 14 and November 26, 2003, each time in the presence of his counsel. But, during the interviews, Libby is accused of lying about material facts related to the disclosure of Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA. Libby is said to have knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, namely proceedings before the grand jury, by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, Libby acquired and subsequently disclosed to the media information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA. He is also said to have knowingly and willfully made a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation in a manner within the jurisdiction of the federal bureau of investigation. If convicted, the crimes charged in the indictment carry the following maximum penalties: Obstruction of Justice – 10 years in prison; Making False Statements and Perjury – each 5 years; and each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000.
A George W. Bush appointee will determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed, if any. Judge Reggie B. Walton, with a minimal academic performance in high school, poor grades in college, and very poor showing on the law boards, enrolled into the CLEO program and somehow managed to earn an academic scholarship to American University College of Law. He graduated in 1974 and took a job as a public defender in Philly (Philadelphia). In 1976, he left that job for a position at the D.C.’s United States Attorney’s office. Here, he met Bob Bennett (brother of William Bennett Drug Czar appointed by George H.W. Bush) and in an attempt to establish credibility on minority issues the republicans appointed Walton to the number two drug czar position. For the next two years that followed, Walton traveled the country spreading the republican anti drug message to black communities.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed Walton to the D.C. Superior Court. But for unexplained reasons in 1989, Judge Walton moved to the White House Office of Media Affairs. Only to be appointed again in 1991 by George H.W. Bush to the D.C. Superior Court. President Bush appointed him to the federal bench (District of Columbia) on October 29, 2001.
Please note Judge Walton’s tenure in the White House Communications Office (considered an element of the continuing campaign). The office often calls local radio stations, television stations, and newspapers daily to see if they’d be interested in an interview with an administrative figure. It also has a supporting element (research units) available not only for the communications head but to the chief of staff and other white house senior staffers.
Since his appointment to the bench, Judge Walton has been assigned the majority of the most troubling legal matters involving the Bush administration. An appointed judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, but Judge Walton willingness to often speak (for the administration it seems) on highly charged partisan issues further shakes public confidence in the judiciary. For example, following the death of Terri Schiavo, Judge Walton was dispatched to speak with NPR’s Ed Gordon about what he considered liberal “activism†in the U.S. Courts.
In 1998, the republican appointee enumerated some of the standard racist conceptions often voiced by the right wing, telling Judy Cresanta and Kari Larney of the Nevada Policy Research Institute “bad parenting, bad neighborhoods and guns†fuels the problem with youthful offenders. However, in the book “Black Judges on Justice†Judge Walton had a black moment (said something really gangsta) and did admit as one of his major frustrations while working with the Bush administration, his inability to convince administration officials of the fact that fighting crime is ineffective without attacking social causes of crime.
Judge Walton is the federal judge who threw out a lawsuit filed by a whistle-blower who alleged security lapses in the FBI’s translator program, ruling that Sibel Edmond’s claims might expose government secrets that could damage national security. He said that he couldn’t explain further because his explanation itself would expose sensitive secrets and disrupt diplomatic relations. Edmond’s lawyer, Mark S. Zaid, called the decision “Another example of the executive branch’s abuse of secrecy to prevent accountability.†Ms. Edmond, a former contract linguist, alleged in her lawsuit that she was fired in March 2002 after she complained to FBI managers about shoddy wiretap translations. She contended that she told the FBI an interpreter with a relative at a foreign embassy might have compromised national security. Although the government’s lawyers met with Judge Walton at least twice privately, Edmond had claimed the republican appointee dismissed her lawsuit without hearing evidence from her attorneys.
In September 2005, Judge Walton dismissed two claims, but left open the possibility Steven Hatfill, a scientist once named by the Department of Justice as a possible suspect in the anthrax-letter attacks of 2001, could hold officials accountable (count seeking a declaration that former Attorney General John Ashcroft and others unconstitutionally deprived him of employment opportunities). A fourth claim seeking monetary damage from the federal government for alleged privacy act violations, also remains alive, but two counts to hold defendants individually responsible were dismissed. The judge had delayed the case saying that he wanted the Department of Justice investigation of the issue to proceed without interference from Hatfill’s civil suit. Many observers of the investigation dismissed the judge’s pronouncements about the case – the government had been periodically advertising impending breakthroughs since just about the time the spore-ridden letters were mailed out, some critics pointed out. Mr. Hatfill, a bio-terrorism expert, contends his reputation was ruined when law enforcement officials called him a “person of interest.†Hatfill once worked as a researcher at the Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md. At one time the FBI had Hatfill under 24-hour surveillance.
Judge Walton also ruled that a Missouri charity financed terrorism and is connected to a similarly named organization in Sudan, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Islamic American Relief Agency – USA, which is based in Columbia, Mo. The charity had sought to thaw its assets which the treasury department froze in 2004. Lawyers for the Missouri charity had denied any link to terrorism and had said the charity is entirely separate from the Sudanese organization. Judge Walton said his decision was based on both public records and classified documents. Shareef Akeel, a Michigan lawyer representing the charity said nothing in the public part of the record showed that the charity had sent money out of the country for illegal purposes.
In a case involving a request for documents on the Oklahoma City bombing which resulted in convictions of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Judge Walton held that FOIA plaintiff (Judicial Watch) was required to file an administrative appeal for the documents, even if they were suing over the agency’s refusal to grant expedited processing. Judge Walton said the Judicial Watch was attempting to “bootstrap†its disclosure requests onto its bid for expedited processing. Although it appears that the FBI subsequently failed to timely respond to Judicial watch’s substantive request for documents within 20 days, Judge Walton said he will only consider those facts and circumstances that existed at the time of the filing of the complaint, and not subsequent events.
A coalition of hunting supporters that included Safari Club International and numerous other sportsmen’s groups were dealt a blow by Judge Walton when in 2004 he dismissed their attempt to stop black bear hunting in New Jersey’s National Park Service Lands.
In January 2004, Judge Walton held the longstanding ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Washington, D.C., is constitutional. The suit, brought by the National Rifle Association, challenged the constitutionality of the handgun ban on Second Amendment grounds. In the ruling, Judge Walton dismisses the suit, noting that, “The Court must conclude that the Second Amendment doesn’t confer an individual right to posses firearms. Rather, the amendment’s objective is to ensure the vitality of state militias.”
Finally, a three-judge panel of a federal appeal court unanimously reversed Judge Walton, ruling that the public has the right to challenge an interior department official’s approval of the proposed Roundup Power Plant despite studies showing that it would pollute air in Yellowstone National Park and Wilderness areas. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit affirmed the public’s legal right to challenge a political appointee’s approval of the proposed power plant. Judge Walton had dismissed the case saying the conservation groups lacked standing because the ultimate permitting agency was the State of Montana. The National Parks Conservation Association, The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, The Wilderness Society, and a Denver resident alleged the Interior Department officials violated the Clean Air Act which prohibits degradation of air quality by man-made sources in pristine air sheds such as parks and wilderness areas.
October 31st, 2005 at 2:50 amHow about this : Whether she was deliberately outed or not we are still talking about the CIA, where less is more and Mr. Fitz is trying to minimize the damage, after he concluded not enough evidence SO FAR,to convict any one. Scooter Leekys
October 31st, 2005 at 5:12 amdefense strategy or part of it has to be if it’s classified then the press will never get the real story. Look at the way the conservatives have blasted the CIA. it’s a great cover isn’t it? Criticize some one who can’t say a word. As the church lady would say “How Convenient” Also ask them ” If it wasn’t covert at the time , when did it become not so? No one has explained that time line yet.
Fitz is not done. yet.
Keep the Pressure on the Forged Documents Issue!
Follow
NATO sources told United Press International Monday that Fitzgerald’s team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government.
According to the report, “Fitzgerald’s team has been given the full, and as yet unpublished report of the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the affair, which started when an Italian journalist obtained documents that appeared to show officials of the government of Niger helping to supply the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein with Yellowcake uranium.
October 31st, 2005 at 12:43 pmIf, as they claim, Bush administration officials leaked Valerie Plame’s CIA employment unknowing of the fact she was a covert CIA operative and not simply an employee, the question remains:
October 31st, 2005 at 1:56 pmWhen & where in the chain did it become unclassified? “Unofficial cover†by definition means that for purposes of cover she was ostensibly working in the private sector. Admin officials imply that they thought she was simply a CIA employee and not an undercover operative. Her name would not have appeared any unclassified list of CIA employees. The original source identifying Ms. Plame as CIA must have known of her status and could have only determined her status from classified documents or statements.
I think he may prefer it if you write directly to his work email, instead – so he can respond quicker: JHinderaker@faegre.com
October 31st, 2005 at 3:01 pmHere is a copy of my dialog with John Hinderaker. Was I rude? Yes. I was. I apologize. I just couldn’t help myself. What would you have written?
On 10/29/05, I wrote:
“Indeed, Fitzgerald appears to have concluded that Plame was not, in
fact, a covert agent, since there is no count in the indictment
alleging violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. So
if Libby had told the truth, it appears that he would have been fine.”
Have you even read the indictment?
From page 3:
“At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003,
Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was
classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with
the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”
Thank you for once again weakening your own position by being stupid!
Dave
On Oct 29, 2005, at 2:21 PM, Power Line wrote:
Dave, you are wrong. The paragraph you cited has nothing to do with
Plame’s alleged covert status under the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act. Please try to get your facts straight before writing
again.
John H.
On 10/29/05, I wrote:
John,
What a pleasant surprise to hear from you. I surely didn’t expect a reply.
Thank you for taking the time.
Just to make sure we are discussing the same issue let’s lay out some basic
facts (I know that discussing facts is an uncomfortable thing for
conservatives and that most conservatives prefer to redirect, spin, or
ignore them outright)…
Your response, “The paragraph you cited has nothing to do with Plame’s
alleged covert status under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Please try to get your facts straight before writing again.” is comically
weak.
Here are some straight facts:
Fact 1: A covert agent’s information is protected by the use of classified
status.
Fact 2: “… Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment
status was classified.”
Fact 3: From the Intelligence Identities Protection Act:
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Now why Fitzgerald and his team has not charged your buddy Scooter with any
further crimes under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is really
the part that gets me most interested. Is it that Fitzgerald and his team
are concerned about their ability to prove in court the part in Section 421
that addresses “intentionally discloses”? Obviously it can be a significant
challenge to prove beyond a doubt someone’s intentions. It is obviously much
easier to nail Scooter for perjury, lying, and false statements. Those are
seemingly stupid mistakes for Scooter, a wizened political veteran, to make.
Didn’t Scooter learn anything from Clinton. It wasn’t the sex with a young
intern that got Clinton impeached. It was the lie. Having sex with a young
intern is probably not the smartest thing to do when you are the president.
Sleazy? Yes. Morally objectionable? Definitely. A source of pride for the
majority of middle aged men? Sadly. Illegal like intentionally revealing the
name of a covert CIA agent in a likely attempt to discredit her husband who
was doing his job and revealing the administration’s case for war was
fabricated? Nope. I bet Scooter wished he just lied about banging the fat
chick. Stupid mistake lying to a Grand Jury. Or were they mistakes?
At 3:44pm on Oct 29th you posted a piece called, “I couldn’t help wondering”
about how the public refuting that this a a terrible blow to the
administration because the public probably don’t know what a chief of staff
does. You finished with a great quote, “Scooter who?” My thoughts exactly!
Don’t you think their next question is going to be, “What was Cheney telling
his staff to do?”
I think all the smoke the administration, you, and other conservatives are
putting up is an attempt to get the public to focus on Scooter and not look
at for whom Scooter was lying. I bet Cheney’s sleeping poorly these days.
Maybe it’s his bad heart to blame. Maybe he hears something beating beneath
the floorboards.
I know these must be difficult times for you. It has obviously been quite a
wild ride. Hitching your boat to the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of
right-wing conservative politics only to find out that the moral banner the
Bush-Cheney raised so proudly was really a skull and crossbones and the are
just a bunch of black-hearted, evil, lying thieves.
I will read your blog more regularly. I appreciate the work you are doing!
Dave
He replied On October 30th:
David, you have no idea what you’re talking about, and apparently
can’t even read the IIPA. Give it up. She wasn’t a covert agent,
period, and this whole story is much ado about nothing except,
perhaps, Scooter Libby’s tragic failure to tell the truth. Move on,
as the lefties say.
And whatever you do, direct all further emails to some other web site.
Did I touch a raw nerve with John? Maybe. I can only interpret his last response as an invitation to continue the dialog.
Dave
October 31st, 2005 at 10:13 pmOf course Plame was covert, why else would she tell every neighbor, bar tender and telemarketer that she travels overseas a lot and can’t discuss the nature of her work but would appreciate it if they would direct any messages from reporters to her husband Joe, who’s work is also mysterious…..Ya, that’s the ticket…That’s keepin’ it on the “down low”……
November 6th, 2005 at 5:54 pmCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 17th, 2005 at 6:17 pmVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 10:24 amWedding Bands
Wedding Bands
December 20th, 2005 at 5:47 pm50Cent
50Cent
December 20th, 2005 at 9:44 pm