that seems so clear -- whatever could be the problem with the CIA, one might wonder --
=============
April 12, 2007
Unsolved Mysteries - Was Valerie Plame "Covert"?
When last we looked, the question of whether Valerie Plame was covert as defined by the relevant statute was clearly and emphatically *NOT* answered by Henry Waxman's show hearing, the whooping of lefty bloggers notwithstanding. Instead, I argued that her status was a subtle and untested legal question which had probably not been researched by the CIA Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, or anyone else. Based on the latest from Bob Novak, I appear to be right:
On March 21, Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."
The CIA Counsel does not have a firm opinion, as of March 2007, whether Ms. Plame had covert status under the IIPA? That is deeply significant - if they don't know now, there is no reason to think they knew in July 2003 when they filed a referral to the DoJ (Conyers letter) for an investigation into an "unauthorized disclosure of classified information", *not* disclosure of a covert officer.
Nor is there any reason to think Patrick Fitzgerald knew, unless he did his own research and coyly kept it from the judge and the defense.
let's review - At his show hearing Waxman announced that he had been told that Ms. Plame was "covert", but subsequent testimony made it clear that the CIA considers its officers to be either covert or overt; put another way, the CIA does not rely on the legal definition of covert in deeming its officers to be either classified or overt.
On the legal question what Waxman conspicuously did not say was anything like "The CIA Counsel has reviewed Ms. Plame's confidential file as well as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and concluded that she qualifies as "covert" under that statute."
The latest wrinkle is a long column from Bob Novak detailing some follow-up on this. Clarice Feldman has excerpts, but the gist is this - Gen. Hayden, head of the CIA, prowled the Gridiron dinner telling people including Bob Novak, Victoria Toensing, and Rep. Peter Hoekstra that he had *not* meant to say that Victoria Plame was covert - he claims he used the word "classified" in his meeting with Waxman.
So where did that word come from? Here is Novak:
Hayden told me Tuesday that the talking points were edited by a CIA lawyer after conferring with Waxman's staff. "I am completely comfortable with that," the general assured me. He added he now sees no difference between "covert" and "undercover" -- an astounding statement, considering that the criminal statute refers only to "covert" employees.
Mark Mansfield, Hayden's public affairs officer, next e-mailed me: "At CIA, you are either a covert or an overt employee. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee." That also ignores the legal requirements of the Intelligence Identities Act.
Well, then - any CIA lawyer would agree that Waxman's use of "covert" was acceptable, since Waxman never included the claim that it related to the IIPA. But let me repeat the punchline:
On March 21, Hoekstra again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."
So the CIA Counsel still haven't figured out what her status might be, which is what I said a month ago.
I can save time by presenting the rebuttal of the left right now - Novak is a liar, move on.
As to whether he is really inventing these emails and Hayden's Gridiron chats, well, time may tell. But Novak's story certainly overlaps nicely with what I have been saying all along.
And since I feel like a bit of a savant, let me reprise my interesting but non-conclusive suggestion: CIA pensions are adjusted upwards for service abroad. Now, the definition of "service abroad" employed by the CIA may or may not be consistent with whatever the legal eagles determine to be the standard embedded in the IIPA, but - did Ms. Plame get a pension adjustment in her last five years for service abroad? If not even the CIA thinks she qualified as having served abroad under their own guidelines, sustaining the argument that she qualifies under the IIPA will be harder (but not impossible).
Conversely, the CIA may bump every one up just to be generous - who knows? But it seems like an easy question which the CIA ought to be able to answer.
Meanwhile, we still don't know her status, or as we say, her "covertiness". But we have confirmed that neither the CIA nor Waxman know her status either. (The lefty bloggers *do* know her status, but that is a faith-based initiative.)
AI
