Ending This Plame Nonsense !

For some reason the Left seems to have forgotten that this story was long ago shot down and seems to think that the recent grand jury investigations have something to do with treason, allow me to burst your bubble.

From the Washington Post, dated Jan. 12th 2005: The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?

It�s time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling �government interest,� i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.

So the two people who wrote the law don�t think a crime was committed. But it gets better.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

This also shows that Rove isn�t even remotely in danger of being charged. The best is yet to come though.

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.�

She worked at a desk at Langley, she wasn�t a covert operative and the only reason she was described as such is because she worked in the generally sensitive field of weapons proliferation. There is much more to the article than I have posted, but I�ll leave you with this last bit.

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.