May 30 2007
Wilson and Plame have failed to understand one thing about the DoJ – they do not like ANYONE lying to them about investigations. There is a point where professional morals and conduct trump partisan feelings. People tend to associate very much with their career and profession (of course). So when that profession is under attack at its core, they tend to ignore partisan needs and work to salvage what is, in essence, a very real part of them. So if I were Plame and Wilson I would be very, very concerned that many career laywers and investigators will be ready to punish ALL of those who tried to warp the legal process in this country by giving false and misleading testimony in a serious (OK, some claim ‘serious’) Federal investigation.
A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That “doesn’t square” with Plame’s March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband’s name, Bond told USA TODAY.
Here are Plame’s three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:
â€¢She told the CIA’s inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.
â€¢Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn’t remember whether she had suggested Wilson.
â€¢She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney’s office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, “Well, why don’t we send Joe?” Plame told the committee.
Corruption of the process will destroy the institutions and all associated with them. Letting lies stand openly taints everyone involved, just as it would any witness to a crime – with the power to do something – who stands by and lets it happen. Plame’s variations are as serious and more obvious than Libby’s bizarre recollections. Remember Libby actually testified talking about Plame to Russert, making the case he DID leak about Plame, but Russert denied he was leaked to – making the entire incident irrelevant to the IIPA charges! Only Fitz-Magoo would charge someone with not testifying he was innocent of the leak, instead of claiming he did talk to the media and possibly guilty of the leak. I think this has to be the first time in history someone perjured themselves for not claiming their innocence to the charge being investigated.
But I digress. Lying under oath to committees trying to understand the intel leading up to the Iraq invasion is just as problematic – if not more – than covering up who leaked Plame’s name to the media (which we know WAS NOT Libby). Plame is in some trouble here. And the statute of limitations will not help her out here. She has no immunity for false testimony to Congress. My gut tells me if there is another power switch in 2008 (and right now I would bet there would be) Wilson and Plame will find themselves on the wrong side of witness table. Of course, their credibility will be tested in any civil case as well – so we may get some answers much sooner than 2009.