Plamegate – A Crime?

The right’s talking point on the “outing” of Valerie Plame is that there was no crime. They say that Fitzgerald would have brought charges for the outing if the outing were a crime.
I would like to remind everyone that Fitzgerald said that he indicted Libby for obstruction of justice BECAUSE Libby obstructed – “threw sand in the eyes of” – the investigation which kept it from finding out who committed the crime. That is what “obstruction of justice” means, and that is what Libby was convicted of. He blocked the investigation into the crime.
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s Press Conference

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
… This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

There are a lot of people trying to throw sand in everyone’s eyes now that Libby is convicted. Here is where we are today: A covert CIA agent was outed by the White House, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff has been convicted of obstructing the investigation into who was behind it.
I suggest reading the entire transcript.

Outing CIA Agents OK — If You Are A Republican

The latest claim that Vakerie Plame was not really a covert agent comes from Plame’s identity, if truly a secret, was thinly veiled. The evidence? She said she was employed by “Brewster-Jennings & Associates.” And just how does this indicate she worked for the CIA?

Brewster-Jennings was not a terribly convincing cover. According to Dun & Bradstreet, the company, created in 1994, is a “legal services office” grossing $60,000 a year and headed by a chief executive named Victor Brewster. Commercial databases accessible by the Tribune contain no indication that such a person exists.

There you have it, indisputable evidence that the company was a CIA front!
The article then says that “Another sign” the company was a CIA front was,

the online resume of a Washington attorney, who until last week claimed to have been employed by Brewster-Jennings as an “engineering consultant” from 1985 to 1989 and to have served from 1989 to 1995 as a CIA “case officer,” the agency’s term for field operatives who collect information from paid informants.

So OK, that’s a mistake. If terrorists have the resources to locate and scan every resume of every person in the United States and cross-check them and find a resume that made this mistake, then they could surmise that the company was a CIA cover, and look at the other employees of the company.

Continue reading