Redstate

been decided.

The Protective Order was filed on 6/2/06 in response to Libby's 1/31/06 Motion to Compel Discovery.

Addional filings on the issue of Plames's status and the CIA referral are the found in the Government's 2/16/06 Consolidated Response to Libby's Discovery Motions and Libby's 2/21/06 Response Memorandum.

At the request of the court on 4/28/06 Fitzgerald filed notice of Exparte Production which included the CIA referral letter and accompanying documents.

 

Why the certainty that it will never see the light of day?

Mind, under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but Libby's defense team has raised valid questions about her status in their filings.

Specifically (and with a big caveat that I'm relying on my memory here) they want to see the CIA's referral that triggered the whole Fitzgerald investigation.  The original investigation was likely as to whether IIPA had been violated.  That question, in turn, hinges on details of her employment status.  Presumably, Libby's team are hoping to find defects in the referral; defects that might be helpful to the defense.

Surely it must be within the realm of possibility that the courts will grant discovery on this?

we know she was classified or the CIA wouldn't have submitted the initial complaint to the DOJ that started it all

I don't think we know that. The whole affair reeks of a bureaucrats' cabal set up to undermine an Administration policy the bureaucrats didn't like. That the same nest of bureaucrats would get a complaint filed with the DOJ follows easily from the rest of what they were doing. The lawyers who handle the interface with DOJ wouldn't question a complaint that came out of the operations side; they would just file it as asked.

... but I'm nevertheless quite positive that Fitzgerald will ask for and receive a stay on this suit.

My reasoning is that since the Wilsons' civil suit largely duplicates the criminal suit against Libby, allowing the civil suit to proceed now would interfere with the criminal trial.

Just in on fox.  Wilson was speaking before the National Press Club hawking his legal trust fund and asking for donations.  What a putz!

All depends on what publications and other media Ms. Plane's name appeared in as a Officer of the CIA.

Let's say there are publications out there that pre-dates the supposed leak, open media is the correct term, that showed Ms. Plane as a Officer of the CIA. Then the case is pretty much open and shut.

Questions for discovery from the accused could be things like:

Did she have a work name?

How as she covered during her time at the Athens Embassy, how was she credentialed to the Greek government?

Was she on a Red or a Blue passport in her time in Europe as a student and in Greece?

How was she paid during that time?  As a direct employee of the CIA or via a contractor?

All going to show if really was as claimed a covert agent. Not all the fine folks who work for the CIA are covert, some just do a regular job for the agency like any other government employee. As an example, the comedian Wanda Sykes was a NSA clerk type working on things like office furniture for that agency I seem to recall. That did not make her an "agent" by any means.

Although Crank probably is right and Fitzgerald can get a stay on principle party deposition testimony due to the pending criminal trial of Libby, there shouldn't be any impediment on written discovery that doesn't immediately impact the criminal matter (if this is wrong, Crank, please correct it). Your suggestion about post-investigation correspondence between Wilson and the DNC should be open game, and a rich target.

Further, as I think this through, depositions could be taken from people not directly involved in the criminal proceedings, Sen. John Kerry and Larry Johnson among them. Again, if this could be stayed I would like to know it.

You sound like someone from the Loony Left with your talk about a cabal and a conspiracy by unnamed, faceless "bureaucrats".

I take it you've never worked in an organization larger than ten people. That's too bad; office politics is an interesting diversion in an otherwise routine existence.

If you've really never experienced this, then I doubt there is any reason to treat anything you have to say on the subject seriously. You have to have worked in at least one place where the executive office is trying to form say, a dealer network, and the sales department doesn't want that to succeed. It's amazing how the folks down in the cubes can frustrate the most determined CEO.

If that sounds loony to you, then what you need is about ten more years on you. We'd wait, but the thread will probably be dead by then.

Wilson was speaking before the National Press Club hawking his legal trust fund and asking for donations.

Hey, if I were a Democrat, the National Press Club is the first place I'd go to seek donations too.

... about this civil suit is that it will (hopefully) settle once and for all what exactly Valerie Plames' role was with the CIA, how classified was she (we know she was classified or the CIA wouldn't have submitted the initial complaint to the DOJ that started it all), and were or were not any national security assets compromised.

Regardless of where one is on the partisan spectrum (and let's be honest, this entire case is viewed through partisan tinted glasses on both sides), I have found it entirely comical to listen to hordes of pundits, bloggers, and happy hour conversations from people speaking with absolutely no authority whatsoever about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA.

Some say she was a glorified desk jockey. Others say she was working directly on nuclear proliferation intelligence.

One side is completely wrong. But I don't know which. And to this day, for reasons that I don't completely understand, we still don't know what exactly her role at the CIA was.

So presumably the discovery process of this case will put that question to bed.

...Middle East Institute's "Research Fellows" website, and listed his wife under her maiden name.

No longer there, and I didn't take a screenshot lo those two years ago.

Note that MEI has Wyche Fowler, Former Amb. to Saudi as chairman.  Draw your own conclusions as to whether Wilson was or still is on the Saudi payroll.

--furious

  But Wilson is the person responsible for the information placed in Who's Who.  HE gave up his wife's name and occupation there and in another interview I believe.

as Plamegate was fading from the news cycles.

What else could they do?  The whole theme of the Democratic '06 approach has been the corruption of the Republican Party, examplified by the (non-)leak of Valerie Plame's name.

When the left didn't get their Fitzmas (as in Rove or Cheney frog-marched in front of the cameras), they had to do something.  Since the Wilson's represent their best hope of "proving" that the White House is corrupt (by breaking the law) their only hope is to get this into a civil court where the burden of proof is less.

This is the state of the left (and by extension, the Democratic Party) today.  Down here in Texas, in TX-22, the Dem's are fighting to keep Tom Delay on the ballot.  Six years ago, had he announced his retirement between the primary and general election they would have fought to get him off the ballot.  All because some partisan DA in Travis County decided to indict him on pretty much bogus counts.  And now, said DA wants the Attorney General of Texas to quash a Houston Chronical request under the Texas Open Records Act (similar to the national FOIA) for his records on funding related to his investigation of Delay.

If I were defendant lawyer I'd start by subpoenaing the Wilson's phone records.  See if any were to the DNC.

I would guess that regardless of what the parties do, Fitzgerald WILL ask for a discovery stay and the Court WILL grant it.  There might be document discovery but no way will there be depositions until Libby's trial is over.

Under the heading, "Plaintiffs' Injuries:

"Both Mr. and Mrs. Wilson have been impaired in pursuing professional opportunities as a result of Defendants' actions."  See p. 16.

Yeah, I'm sure they're struggling right now.

fishing expedition is still going on.  No crime was committed.

She had done some covert work but it was more than five years prior to this incident.  At the time she was an analyst dealing with Nuke Prolif.

Here name and job HAD been released to the public, prior to this, by Plame and Wilson themselves.  

It drives me crazy that our administration has no mouth piece that's out there screaming the truth, not just about this affair, to everyone who will and won't listen.  I know some of it is the DBM

but surely we can put together a group of squeeky wheels and keep the liberal oil machine away from them till everyone knows the truth.

Incompetence & Insubordination by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Asked to investigate a particular matter, an employee of the CIA who thought the request ridiculous recommends sending her husband (no conflict of interest there, right?), who has no discernable qualifications for the mission, to investigate.

And then her superiors, who have to know the relationship between their employee and the person she recommends sending (and who probably are well aware of her opinion of the matter, and thereby quite possibly have a clue as to his opinion), elect to send him on the mission.

Oh, and in the process, they neglect to get him to sign the normal confidentiality agreement - thereby freeing him up to leak like a sieve, write  an op ed, etc. trashing the Administration.

This "investigation" was run like the trials in Wonderland - first the verdict, then the trial.

In the grand scheme of things:

Plame should've been reassigned to other duties for insubordinate & unprofessional conduct.  First, her job is to follow the facts where they lead, not look for a way to cook the books to get her preferred result.  Second, anyone with a sense of ethical conduct would not recommend a relative for an assignment which is related to & which will reflect on her own work.

Plame's superiors should've been fired or reassigned to duties more their speed - "garbage can monitor" fits the bill - for:  (a) sending Joe Wilson on the mission when he was not qualified & had an obvious conflict of interest; and (b) neglecting to have him sign the requisite agreements requiring him to maintain confidentiality.

The CIA's conduct in this affair was obvious insubordination.  They sent an obvious partisan on a sham investigation; they knew what his conclusions would be; and they made sure he'd be able to tell everyone all about it afterwards.  The CIA wanted Joe Wilson to trash the Administration & made sure he'd be able to do it.

Unfortunately for them, Joe Wilson is such a partisan that he can't help lying - over & over & over.

That information undoubtedly remains classified, and with good reason.  It will never see the light of day.

discovery but you are probably right about a stay. Well, maybe it can be used as fodder for '08 as the principles behind the Wilson are exposed.

But I do hope the defense attorneys force a stay request from Fitzgerald.

In the Early 1990s, was your official address:

"VALERIE PLAME

AMERICAN EMBASSY ATHENS ST, APO NEW YORK NY 09255." ? (source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story,1,2504
459.story ) and is that something typical for a genuine covert CIA operative?

Most decisions are made in the absence of perfect information. It is the human predicament. The guy who waits for perfect information will never act.

I'm sorry. But when I hear people calling jurors morons - particularly when said jurors have not even been selected - it calls for a bit of snark.

Calling jurors morons, saying a jury is predisposed to hating the administration, essentialy implying our criminal and civil justice system is inherently rigged is not a serious statement.

So allow me a little snark when a comment is made like that.

Crank makes a reasonable point about discovery, and I don't necessarily disagree. But again, he's merely speculating on how the discovery process might proceed.

But we'll see.

It frustrates the heck out of me that so many partisans on both sides of the aisle just make their minds up about these things, through their partisan blinders, and don't want to get through all the spin coming from both sides and get at the truth.

What was Valerie Plames role at the CIA? It's a simple question that is at yet unanswered. Hundreds of pundits and bloggers have speculated on it. None of them know.

I don't know. You don't know. Virtually no one knows.

Legal Support Trust

http://www.wilsonsupport.org/

Which you can generously donate to...in the name of justice!

...at disrupting the Bad Guys as they are at undermining the Bush Administration, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would have been re-deployed to Okinawa two years ago amd Binny would be our guest at Gitmo.

Transparent clowns like Wilson and time-serving chair-warmers like his wife would be reduced to guest slots at HuffPost.

And if the Bush Admin. were serious about the leaks undermining the war effort, Jonathan Pollard and Aldrich Ames would have cellmates by now.

--furious

Then there was their breakfast meeting with Nicholas Kristoff of the Times at the DSCC get-together at which Wilson paraded his wares as a potential weapon in the Democrats' arsenal.

This breakfast meeting was described in the loooong Vanity Fair article.  As I recall, the article stated Wilson and wife were attending a Dem symposium at which he was a featured panelist.  Referring to the breakfast, Vanity Fair said, "Kristoff...at a breakfast with Wilson and his wife...".  

To my knowledge, it was never clarified whether "his wife" referred to Wilson's or Kristoff's wife.  I've assumed it to be Mrs. Wilson, meaning she sat by while her husband peddled the misleading assertion that he was sent to Niger "at the behest of Vice President Cheney" (as Kristoff "revealed").  If indeed she sat there and didn't disclose to Kristoff her role in dispatching her husband, that would seem to go a long way toward discrediting her claims.

are mere allegations -- in fact, they are less than allegations, because he's not even attempting to prove them in the Libby case.  They're little more than public pontificating by an out-of-control, unaccountable prosecutor.

So no, we can't "at least accept that much as fact."

And I personally view Novak as hostile to the Administration so I give him added credence because he has been cutoff from access for a while and is still bitter about it so I can't see him fibbing to cover for them.

Again, something I'm not entirely clear on how you could know unless you work for the Administration or know Novak personally.

Otherwise, I assume you've heard Novak say that in interviews or columns, and while plenty of reporters always say those sorts of things, there's no real way of knowing the extent to which that claim is true or not.

That said, to call Novak "hostile" to the Administration - relative to, say, the majority of the so-called Democratic MSM - would seem to be overstating things a wee bit.

Bob Novak did not support the invasion and occupation of Iraq. And Bob Novak has been critical of the Administration's profligate spending. But I don't imagine he's particularly unique in that regard nor does it qualify him as particularly hostile.

But again, all these arguments too and fro are precisely what I'm talking about. It would be interesting to hear once and for all just what Plame's role was with the CIA.

Definitively. Remove the speculation.

That way, we don't have listen to pundits and bloggers the country over speculating about stuff they really know very little about.

There are so many myths and so much blatant obfuscation on both sides of the partisan divide, it's ridiculous.

but my prediction is this suit will never get that far.  It's a nuisance suit, geared for the political year (when out of the headlines, get back in in any way possible).  That's why I think there may be some kind of DNC tie-in (oops, I may have just pulled a KosKid leap there).

Seriously, this was designed to get the story back into the headlines in advance of the elections.  But, leave it to the left to get the timing wrong.  By September, this will be again forgotten (August is a dull month on the Hill for the media, so this will hang for a bit).

There will be more, I predict, as the left tries desperatly to find a message.  But, if it does go forward, I do like the idea of Kerry or Johnson having to testify - after all, were not they going to give Wilson a place in the Kerry Kingdom had he won?

there is a way to expedite discovery in this case. I have no clue, so I ask, Crank: can the timetable be pushed up to force Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame to give depositions before October? And if so, could these be kept from being sealed?

This is one stunt that could backfire if the process allows it.

To fight UBL you have to find TRUTHFUL information.  To fight President Bush they can shovel out any old 'facts' and the mainstream press will lap it up.

So some questions

1. Who's paying the legal fees for the Wilsons? and is this information available to the public? Also I suppose, who is the law firm representing the Wilsons?
   
2. Other than Libby, these are all current Government employees acting in a political but official capacity, I would assume their legal expenses to answer this action are paid for by the government.
   
3. If the Wilson claims are thrown out due to lack merit, can we the US Tax payers sue the Wilsons for our legal expenses?
   

1.  Not clear, but they have a website up to take donations.  As for their law firm, Proskauer Rose is a big firm - they also represent the NBA and NHL (both of whose commissioners are former partners of the firm).  I'm surprised they filed something like this.

2.  They will probably hire private counsel, but I believe yes, ordinarily the US Attorney's Office would represent federal employees sued for these kinds of claims for actions taken in their official capacities.

3.  No.  There are limited ways to get sanctions and if Cheney et al were represented by the DOJ, the taxpayer might see some of that.  But don't hold your breath.

Although I figure this lawsuit to be primarily an election year stunt, apparently in the belief that "Cheney's crimes" are a campaign issue, the discovery process could be fun.

Certainly one issue is whether Wilson and Plame took reasonable care themselves to keep Plame's identity secret. I think that might be difficult to show given the way the two of them were hobnobbing with reporters while the DSCC folks introduced them to the various press personages necessary to set up the 'trifecta' in which Wilson's stage debut occurred simultaneously in The New York Times, the Washington Post, and on Meet the Press.

We know, for example, that the Post's Walter Pincus was at the Wilson's home just prior to the unveiling of Joe Wilson as a major figure in the Democratic offensive of 2004. Then there was their breakfast meeting with Nicholas Kristoff of the Times at the DSCC get-together at which Wilson paraded his wares as a potential weapon in the Democrats' arsenal.

We still don't know how the third leg of the 'trifecta' was set up, but it can't be easy to get an unknown figure on Meet the Press. What sort of bona fides did the Wilsons have to come up with before Russert et Cie would entertain being Part III of the Democrats' propaganda offensive?

I think it was Andrea Mitchell who said that virtually everyone in the press corps knew who these people were. That does not surprise me; it's obvious that some serious press flaks from the Democratic Party were assisting the Wilsons in getting in front of the cameras. How many times did the Wilsons reveal Plame's role at the CIA to reporters before the trifecta was cemented in place? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't think the media will want any part of a subpoena-powered discovery process that would uncover just how closely major media figures and Democratic Party campaign officials cooperated in shaping "the news."

But it would do America good to find out.

 this address is fairly typical.  It would apply to deep official cover, nominal cover, or even officers declared to liaison services.  But the article linked goes on to dispel the notion that she was a legitimate NOC later on.  And also, being unde r cover at one time in your career does not mean you stay that way, and an officer usually sheds cover later on as retirement approaches or more visible desk type assignments are filled.  As far as their claim that her career was "destroyed," this is lame as there are plenty of assignments that do not require cover (as she was probably filling anyway).

  The best way to have remained private would have been to not recommend your husband for this assignment, to therefore stay out of domestic politics.  It wouldn't be to unfair to ask how an unemployed ex diplomat got the job, granting that you can't get anyone of that cast of thousands snoring away at Langley.

Was told by the CIA that she was not covert back when he first dug this stuff up. They asked him to not write about Plame because "it would be embarassing to the agency." No doubt. A woman sending her completely unqualified husband on taxpayer-funded junkets where he didn't have to sign a NDA or submit any kind of report when he got back. Now what could be embarassing about that? If she worked for a real business she would've been given her walking papers for that kind of behavior.

I'm not sure he'll actually get to see them though... since they don't directly relate to the crime he is being charged with. If it came down to it, and the CIA had to actually hand out that information I suspect they never would and the whole thing would have to be dropped.

know that at all.

What we do know is that she represented the CIA on interagency working groups and a lot of people knew she was CIA. What we do know is that when Bob Novak called CIA to verify she worked there, under her "undercover name" Valerie Plame, the CIA spokescreature 1) confirmed her employment and 2) did not tell Novak that mentioning her name was harmful. So we can infer from that that the Agency was not particularly concerned about her identity. And, as Novak said, Fitzgerald knows who his source was and that person has not been indicted which also tends to indicate there was nothing particularly Secret Squirrel about her status or employment.

Agree, wish the administration would push back hard on this clearly partisan couple.

I'm no Bob Novak fan (and people who read him know he usually bashes republicans and dems with equal zest), but he seems to play by media rules that other reporters don't seem to honor these days. He's taken a lot of garbage for three years over these couple of yahoos.

I also see in the past several days, Plame/Wilson announced her new book deal, too -- yep, they sure value their privacy.

For the past several years, The Plame/Wilson defenders have tossed around terms like "classified" and "top secret" as if they're interchangeable. They're not. As one post above said, the simple fact that she worked at the CIA wasn't classified -- how many thousands of folks push papers at Langley every day? I used to have a 'Top Secret' DOE clearance at a weapons production plant, but it didn't make me 007 any more than Plame and her blowdried husband as she was trying to get him that Niger junket.

Just more Democratic dirty tricks, can't win elections so this is all they can do. As Mark Levin at NRO said, the Wilsons continue their 15 minutes of shame.

I still don't understand why the administration isn't pushing the 500 or so WMDs we've found (and the Saddam-Al Qaeda intel translated so far) -- the left immediately said it was old, circa 1991 stuff... but according to them, Saddam had destroyed everything in the 90s and was clean! Despite the age of the material (and it's still dangerous), it's proof positive that (1) he had WMDs and (2) he was hiding them, just like George W. Bush said.

What surprises me about that deal is that we never got to hear what the Democrats' campaign strategy was going to be. The New York Times had somehow spirited their guy into a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee meeting, and the guy never revealed what the Democrats were planning.

This is the New York Times after all, where military secrets are published on a regular basis. You'd think campaign strategy secrets would be juicy stuff for them. But for some reason they kept the Democrats' secrets to themselves.

As for Kristoff, I'd like to ask him whether he knew, when he wrote his story, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. If he was told that over breakfast, as part of some credibility-building by the Wilsons, it would suggest that they were not as careful with Plame's identity as they would have us believe. I think we can assume that a reporter who would be invited to attend a DSSC meeting and who would keep their secrets would also keep the Wilsons' secrets. It's only military secrets that are revealed by the Times. Democratic Party secrets are a sacred trust.

Admit or Deny - The name Valerie Plame appeared in Mr. Wilson's Who's Who of America entry.

Admit or Deny - Many of plaintiffs' friends and neighbors knew Ms. Plame was in the CIA.

Admit or Deny - Plaintiffs appeared together in Vanity Fair magazine prior to actions alleged in complaint.

Admit or Deny - Plaintiff Joe Wilson is a political hack who Forrest Gumped his way into wealth and fame.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/071306.html

The whole affair reeks of a bureaucrats' cabal set up to undermine an Administration policy the bureaucrats didn't like.

You sound like someone from the Loony Left with your talk about a cabal and a conspiracy by unnamed, faceless "bureaucrats".

The CIA filed a complaint with the DOJ because an officer that was considered classified was exposed. The CIA does this every time. That doesn't mean she was covert. But her identity was classified. Hence the CIA action.

We know this. This isn't the issue that's in dispute. And we don't need to invent "cabals" and evil bureaucrats to understand this.

However, the question that remains - that no one at RedState and presumably very few people period knows - is what Plame's role was with the CIA at the time her identity was exposed by Novak.

Was she merely at a desk as some have suggested - most likely without any actual knowledge? Or was she actively involved in operations in the field as some have suggested - most likely without any actual knowledge?

We don't know.

And anyone who suggests they know is either lying, speculating, or delusional. Or part of a "cabal". There's that possibility as well.

To Quote Patrick Fitzgerald, on October 28, 2005:

    Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

Can we at least accept that much as fact?

Her status as a CIA officer was classified, period.

Yes, people knew she existed, she was listed in Who's Who, so what? I'm guessing her listing didn't say "CIA Officer".

We can debate operative v. desk jockey, but there is no doubt that publicly releasing the info released classified information.

It does not mean that a crime was committed in disclosing her name, since that would depend on whether it was deliberate.

I'll plunge back into this.

You don't get to select your jurors; voir dire only allows you to disqualify some, some number preemptively in some jurisdictions others only for good cause.

Rest assured that the plaintiffs attorney will be working out the profiles that will give him jurors that have little objective knowledge of government and the roles of officials etc.  He will be looking for "dumb as a stump" and the defense will only be able to ferret out and disqualify some of them, since dumb as a stump isn't per se disqualifying.

Then there's the venue; the jury pool in large cities and in capital cities particularly is notoriously predisposed against the government, any government.

Over a long career of representing government in administrative fora and before citizen boards and of participating in the defense of a government before the courts, I learned to do everything I could, including spend lots of money on settlements, to avoid putting any question that involved an individual against the government before ANY trier of fact, board, or jury.  You CAN win, but you'd better be 110% right, and the showing of the slightest tinge of a bad act, or the credible suspicion of a bad act by the government or a governmental actor, and the case goes to the plaintiff.

I know about three quarters of the people around the country who are charged with representing state governments in similar situations, and virtually every one of them sees it the same way I do.

And no, I don't have much faith in the trial courts, I've won too many I should have lost and lost too many I sould have won, but thank God and the Framers for appellate review - and large legal budgets help too.

on different juries because my experience would 100% support Achance.

you do see the part where Harlow admits telling Novak that she was an employee, right? And you do see where they both agree that Harlow asked Novak not to use her name though they disagree on the strength of the claim? One would have to admit the person in the latter case with a reason to lie is Harlow as his future employment prospects are limited if Novak is right.

And we know from a congressional investigation that, contrary to Harlow, Plame did put her hubby forward for the mission.

You are smart enough to see that, right?

Just because Walter Pincus says it, does not make it so.

Just saying.

...holdovers, like the ones at State, who think they can make policy because they think they're smarter than Bush.

The Wilson put-up job Niger junket was just this sort of adhoc policy making.  It was a set-up to discredit the Administration from the moment it popped into Valerie Plame's pretty little head.

When they find out they CAN'T make policy, they get huffy and take petty revenge by leaking not so petty information about vital, classified counter-terrorist operations to the press.

These folks all attend the same Georgetown cocktail parties as former Dem administration types who've moved into consulting/lobbying/foundation gigs, and who are more than happy to introduce them to Washington press corp acquaintances.

All so networked and incestuous.

--furious

What we do know is that when Bob Novak called CIA to verify she worked there, under her "undercover name" Valerie Plame, the CIA spokescreature 1) confirmed her employment and 2) did not tell Novak that mentioning her name was harmful.

Come one, Streiff. You're smarter than this.

The following is a direct quote from Bob Novak:

"He [CIA Spokesman, Harlow] asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad."

And from Harlow himself:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR200507260
2069_pf.html

Just because Bob Novak says it, does not make it so.

Crank addressed the non-issue of discovery previously.

You're snark, largely ill-informed in this particular case, is rapidly marking you as extremely unserious.

How you wish to proceed is up to you but I'm willing to go along with whatever decision you want to make.

I also see in the past several days, Plame/Wilson announced her new book deal, too -- yep, they sure value their privacy.

In their freezer

in any government that a Republican takes over from a Democrat.  GWB has put only the thinnest veneer of his appointees in the federal government; the bureaucracy is Democrat to the core and many of WJC's appointees just slithered back into merit system jobs.  Same thing happens with state governments because NO Republican could come up with the hundreds of qualified, competent, and willing to take the pay Republicans that it would take to fill all the appointed positions.

Then they lie there in the weeds and thwart, leak, and sabotage at every turn.  Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

before twelve morons with drivers' licenses to determine who has the best lawyer.  The last thing anyone will want to come out is the truth.  This will be a political show and an opportunity for the Left and the Press to put the Bush Administration on trial for everything they can get past a relevance objection, and that will be most anything.

Were I advising the defendants, I be very attuned to whatever the rules are on judge selection there and trying to get this thing killed before trial.  This ain't one I'd be looking to put before a jury likely predisposed to hate the administration.

can't answer the question about the CIA spokesman considering he's on the record on the subject, you should be really circumspect about commenting on the subject.

Discovery, my boy, discovery. Forget about the trial and, um, the twelve morons on the jury.

And, um, why do you think the jury would be "predisposed to hate the administration"? Both sides get to select their jurors. It's called voire dire. That's how it works.

Anyhow, focus on the discovery portion. That's where each side gets to ask the other for as much information as it can get. And one of the first questions that the defense should ask Valerie Plame is for a specific accounting of just what she was doing at the CIA.

Get specific. Stop all the rampant speculation.

Now about your rather curious take on the American judicial system ...

What we do know is that when Bob Novak called CIA to verify she worked there, under her "undercover name" Valerie Plame, the CIA spokescreature 1) confirmed her employment and 2) did not tell Novak that mentioning her name was harmful.

know that either. I believe we know that that is what Novak has said. But that is merely his version of events.

Have Novak's claims that the CIA spokesman (1) confirmed her employment and (2) did not tell NOvak that mentioning her name was harmful been confirmed by said spokesman or anyone at the CIA?

Or are they merely Novak's claims?

As for the rest of your statements, they may or may not all be true, but to my initial point, at best, you're simply inferring all this. You may be right. You may be wrong. But you're inferring based on bits of information - some reliable, some not - that you've heard.

The discovery portion of this civil case will finally shed a lot of light on just what Plame did or did not do at the CIA. And will put to rest just this type of speculating and inferring that has gripped the blogosphere for months.

There will be no more need to speculate and infer. No need to say "many people knew she was CIA" without actually knowing who those "many" people are, for instance.

So we can all sit back, see what the real story is, and then judge for ourselves. With some real information at our disposal - instead of continually conflicting press reports and rampant blogosphere speculation.

I think you fling perjury around rather carelessly. Being a Kurosawa fan I have no problem believing two people can honestly recall the same incident differently. Nothing I've seen in life thus far, especially being married, has challenged my faith in that principle.

So I reject your premise out of hand as simply argmentative for the sake of being argumentative.

The traditional response to questions like that Novak asked is that you neither confirm nor deny. For decades that's how the military and intelligence services answered questions on nuclear weapons, operations, personnel, etc.

The fact that Harlow answered the question and then called to try to walk back the admission leads me to believe Novak.

And I personally view Novak as hostile to the Administration so I give him added credence because he has been cutoff from access for a while and is still bitter about it so I can't see him fibbing to cover for them.

All we really know is that Pincus says Harlow has said that.

Well, sure. We never know if someone actually said something to a reporter and is then quoted unless that person later denies having said that or says they were misquoted.

Every day, there are thousands of news articles published wherein reporters claim that a person said something to them. Then, they "quote" them.

So you've hit on an almost existential question of whether we, as readers, can believe anything, any reporter says.

And I guess the only way we, as readers, can deduct whether a person did or did not say something is whether that person later says, "I did not say that." Or, "I was misquoted."

To my knowledge, Harlow has not said he was misquoted by Pincus. Perhaps I've missed that. Please forward a link if you have one. Would be interested to see that.

I've worked for two of the larger corporations in the United States, thanks very much - one of them being one of the larger financial services companies on Wall Street, the other one of the largest media companies in the world.

So I'm quite well versed in low level office politics and high level executive politics.

Seen 'em both. Thanks for asking. We should talk about job options at our respective corporations. Perhaps there are some mutually beneficial opportunities.

That said, I think the speculation about "cabals" - whether they be rants from the Left about a Cheney-led cabal in the White House or a rant from the Right about a cabal of bureaucrats in the CIA and DOJ - to be fun to speculate about but usually the providence of conspiracy theorists and people who are happy making stuff up with no evidence to support it.

Which is, I'm sorry to inform you and those on the left ranting about Cheney, precisely what you all are doing.

I've served on one jury. It was a mixed bag. Some smart people, some not so mart people. But I tend to be very reluctant to generalize an entire process and set of people based on an experience that I've had just one or two times.

You, however, seem to be incredibly unfortunate or unlucky to have received jury duty so many times and been selected to serve on so many juries (what are the odds?) that you can make an accurate generalization about juries en masse in this country.

I can't imagine you would agree 100% with Achance's blanket generalization that all jurors are morons without having the benefit of serving on, what, 10-20 juries.

Just because Walter Pincus says it, does not make it so.

The appropriate analogy I think you're trying to make is: just because Harlow says it, does not make it so.

Walter Pincus is merely reporting and quoting Harlow about his testimony to the grand jury about what he told Novak.

So, if one is inclined to not believe Harlow, then you would conclude that he perjured himself before the grand jury ala Scooter Libby.

OR, if Walter Pincus misquoted or mischaracterized Harlow then you would expect Harlow to say he was misquoted by Pincus. To my knowledge, that hasn't happened.

do we?

All we really know is that Pincus says Harlow has said that.

And you are very loose with your concept of perjury, aren't you.

So, by that logic, Harlow perjured himself to the grand jury.

Either Novak is lying in his columns or Harlow lied to the grand jury. I wonder if Harlow is being investigated for perjury?

And yes, you are correct, Harlow told Novak that using Plame's name would not be a good thing. Where there is a discrepancy is the extent to which Harlow conveyed that to Novak. Harlow obviously made it a point of calling Novak back the next day to underscore that using her name would not be a good thing. But obviously Novak moved ahead anyway. Again, a matter of different people - one with the CIA, one a reporter - having different interpretations of the negatives of using Plame's name.

I actually have a question that I'd be curious for your take on.

If Novak had called Harlow, the CIA spokesman, and asked if there was an employee at the CIA by the name of Valerie Plame, and Harlow said "No, there is no such employee," would that have been acceptable? For him to outright lie to Novak?

I honestly don't know what the answer is. Your thoughts?

Apparently suing the Bush administration is catching on.

From www.arabnews.com

Wife of Al-Jazeera Journalist Files Lawsuit Against Bush, Rumsfeld

Barbara Ferguson, Arab News

WASHINGTON, 14 July 2006 -- Dima Tahboub, the widow of Tareq Ayyoub, has announced she is suing the White House and the Pentagon for $30,000,000 over her husband's death. Ayyoub, a 35-year-old Palestinian who lived in Jordan, had traveled to Baghdad to report the war for Al-Jazeera five days before he was killed when US bombing shattered their bureau in Baghdad. His widow told reporters from her home in Jordan, that she was unable to comment on the lawsuit.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=85311&d=14&am
p;m=7&y=2006&pix=world.jpg&category=World

The Bush Administration has been loath to press the envelope on the kinds of legal privileges asserted by the Clintons to deflect personal scandals...

Flapdoodle!

The Wislons and their backers WANT this lawsuit thrown out due to an assertion of privilege by the Administration.  This is the only way they get to continue trading on their "victim" status.  

I agree with a commenter up the thread who says that defense attorneys should force a stay request from Fitzgerald.  Cheney, Libby, and Rove's lawyers ought to come out of the gate swinging with a raft of discovery requests, subpoenas to reporters (Kristoff, Pincus, et al.), deposition orders, and the like.  Force the Wilsons, and Fitzgerald, to drown in legal paperwork and get them to back down.  That's the only way to frustrate their desire to play the victim card all the way through November 2008.

How great would it be to read the comments at dKos after their hero prosecutor, Fitzgerald, puts the kaibosh on this publicity stunt?