Thursday, November 03, 2005
Is she the Dirtbagrats' undercover angel or their moonbat fantasy?
uting a desk-driving paper pusher at the Central Intransigence Agency who hasn't been a "covert agent" in over half a decade, if at all, is no crime under any law. To quote the "two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act"
— any violation of which the office of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald
was appointed to investigate
- At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that [Soros-group contributor Valkyrie] Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified — or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.
This legal question could've been answered in just two seconds had Mr. Fitzgerald bothered to pull and read Ms. Plamegame's Employee Record Card (Standard Form 7-B, which shows security clearance) or other relevant employee performance file system records
kept by our government. Since that would've meant an instant end to any pertinent investigation, the special counsel ignored this and other
material facts. Whether he did so purposefully, perhaps so he could unduly expand his investigation
to ancillary "gotcha" matters, is up to Congress' appropriate oversight committees to also investigate.
Are Desperats so desperate to bury in mud every obstacle on their crooked dirtpath to power they'll resort to all manner of prosecutorial misconduct just to reach it,
thinking feeling they can still get away with such abuses? They may have been able to pull these things off ten years ago when their media accomplices were sufficiently plentiful. Now that this is no longer the case, they're left with nothing more than another fantasy.
Comments (registered users)