Senor Rubirosa,
The Washington Times reported that the FBI was going door to door in Plame and Wilson's neighborhood in Oct 2005 (just before Fitz made his presentation to the press), asking neighbors if they were aware of who she was and what she did. They also reported that many in the neighborhood had stated to reporters in summer 05 that who she was and what she did wasn't a state secret...at the basic level.
Even though she tried backing out of it as soon as she said it, Andrea Mitchell admitted that Plame's ID was not a state secret: Question from Alan Murray on CNBC's Capital Report: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? " Mitchell Answer: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."
Victoria Toensing was the chief legal counsel that helped guide and formulate the bill that is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 that the Plame issue rests on. Her opinion of what the legal wrangling was, as of Oct 2005, is as follows:
DC,
The 1982 bill wasn't something written on the back of a cocktail napkin. I question how well the Bush admin knew the basics of the bill when they decided how to respond to the initial phases of the Plame issue...when Bush decided to sound like the good sheriff promising to root out 'evildoers' from his admin if "involved".
Also, when the press grabs ahold of something it tends to gain "ANSWER ME NOW" importance, but not necessarily "ANSWER ME SMARTLY" rights. Kind of like the gas situation. Gas got near 3 bucks a gallon a couple of months ago and one side was wanting to cut checks to consumers and the other side was wanting to suspend the gas tax. The press got their "now" answers but not necessarily "smart" ones.
Scott McClellan gave the "now" answer he was told to give, no doubt, when the Plame issue first broke. But to vow to get rid of people for "involvement" leaves the door wiiiiide open to interpretation as to what "involvement" means and constitutes...which ain't "smart". And in light of the admin's passionate foes, would there ever be a satisfactory interpretation unless it led to the entire admin resigning en masse?
I don't think the Peter Fitzgerald I watched last fall has too many notions about "saving the Bush admin" running around inside his head. If you recall, he was basically given the power of an Independent Counsel in his job title of Special Prosecutor. His prosecutorial track record does not have any indications he is a man want to leaving obvious evidence lying on the table.
And DC, I said in a thread last summer that the first ever political article, when in middle school, dealt with Clinton and it was written by Gerald Ford. He was advocating the Senate censure Clinton for what he did, but drop all other ideas. That made the most sense to me then, and now, regardless of what he technically might or might not have been guilty of...considering the strictly personal nature of the issue.
The Washington Times reported that the FBI was going door to door in Plame and Wilson's neighborhood in Oct 2005 (just before Fitz made his presentation to the press), asking neighbors if they were aware of who she was and what she did. They also reported that many in the neighborhood had stated to reporters in summer 05 that who she was and what she did wasn't a state secret...at the basic level.
Even though she tried backing out of it as soon as she said it, Andrea Mitchell admitted that Plame's ID was not a state secret: Question from Alan Murray on CNBC's Capital Report: Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA? " Mitchell Answer: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."
Victoria Toensing was the chief legal counsel that helped guide and formulate the bill that is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 that the Plame issue rests on. Her opinion of what the legal wrangling was, as of Oct 2005, is as follows:
Congress intended to criminalize only (Toensing's emphasis)disclosures that "clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States…."
Similarly, a conspiracy "to discredit Wilson for his statements critical of the White House’s use of intelligence," another reported possible Fitzgerald approach, does not violate any law. If it did, every administration since George Washington would be guilty of a crime.
Similarly, a conspiracy "to discredit Wilson for his statements critical of the White House’s use of intelligence," another reported possible Fitzgerald approach, does not violate any law. If it did, every administration since George Washington would be guilty of a crime.
DC,
The 1982 bill wasn't something written on the back of a cocktail napkin. I question how well the Bush admin knew the basics of the bill when they decided how to respond to the initial phases of the Plame issue...when Bush decided to sound like the good sheriff promising to root out 'evildoers' from his admin if "involved".
Also, when the press grabs ahold of something it tends to gain "ANSWER ME NOW" importance, but not necessarily "ANSWER ME SMARTLY" rights. Kind of like the gas situation. Gas got near 3 bucks a gallon a couple of months ago and one side was wanting to cut checks to consumers and the other side was wanting to suspend the gas tax. The press got their "now" answers but not necessarily "smart" ones.
Scott McClellan gave the "now" answer he was told to give, no doubt, when the Plame issue first broke. But to vow to get rid of people for "involvement" leaves the door wiiiiide open to interpretation as to what "involvement" means and constitutes...which ain't "smart". And in light of the admin's passionate foes, would there ever be a satisfactory interpretation unless it led to the entire admin resigning en masse?
I don't think the Peter Fitzgerald I watched last fall has too many notions about "saving the Bush admin" running around inside his head. If you recall, he was basically given the power of an Independent Counsel in his job title of Special Prosecutor. His prosecutorial track record does not have any indications he is a man want to leaving obvious evidence lying on the table.
And DC, I said in a thread last summer that the first ever political article, when in middle school, dealt with Clinton and it was written by Gerald Ford. He was advocating the Senate censure Clinton for what he did, but drop all other ideas. That made the most sense to me then, and now, regardless of what he technically might or might not have been guilty of...considering the strictly personal nature of the issue.
