Quick Links to Posts By Category

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The Ol' Misdirection Play?

Fascinating articles over at Accuracy in Media:

Was the Wilson Affair a CIA Plot?

The Untold Story: Joseph Wilson, Judith Miller and the CIA

I found this paragraph from the first piece intriguing [emphasis added]:
[Former prosecutor Joseph E. ] DiGenova doubts that the CIA had a case to begin with. He says he would like to see what sworn information was provided to the Justice Department about the status of Wilson's CIA wife, Valerie Plame, and what "active measures" the CIA was taking to protect her identity. The implication is that her status was not classified or protected and that the agency simply used the stories about her identity to create the scandal that seems to occupy so much attention these days.
I would assume that filing false claims with the Justice Department is a criminal offense. Recent stories that the FBI was interviewing in the Wilson's neighborhood might lead one to believe Fitzgerald is interested in nailing down the veracity of the CIA's claims vis-a-vis Plame's undercover status. If someone at the CIA blatantly misrepresented Plame's status to Justice, I would think a prosecutor of Fitzgerald's reputation would take offense at such an abuse of the justice system.

Would it be any surprise that Fitzgerald, in the process of investigating the CIA, has been running a misdirection operation to keep the CIA in the dark? Keep everyone looking at Rove and Libby while evidence is collected against a CIA hack? It might also explain why the rumored indictments are expected to be sealed, as explained by Andrew McCarthy over at NRO:
The rules of sealing are not hard and fast. There are three main justifications for it: (a) when multiple defendants will be indicted and there is a reasonable fear (because of the nature of the crimes or the defendants) that defendants will flee if they become aware that they are wanted, indictments will typically be sealed until law enforcement agents have everyone "in pocket" (i.e., located so that they can be placed under arrest on short notice); (b) if there is a reasonable fear that defendants will alter or destroy evidence if they become aware they are wanted, indictments may be sealed until the government can obtain and safeguard that evidence; and (c) if there are national security implications, indictments may be sealed until steps can be taken to notify the appropriate officials, so they can take steps to deal with whatever the national security fall-out may be.
b) and c) sound reasonable if you're dealing with the CIA.

How likely is any of this? How would I know. I'm just speculating like everyone else - and it seems about as likely as indictments of Libby or Rove for poor recall of a non-crime. I just want to be on the record with this scenario, just in case...


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


MOB Logo

Powered by Blogger