I don’t usually watch Rita Cosby, but I happened to catch this last night:

COSBY: And joining me now is Jim Marcinkowsky, who trained with Valerie Plame, and also Melissa Boyle Mahle. She‘s a former CIA spy, and she‘s the author of a book called “Denial and Deception: An Insider‘s View of the CIA From Iran-Contra to 9/11.”

Jim, let me start with you. How betrayed do you feel, as a former agent, about this leak?

JIM MARCINKOWSKY, FORMER CIA AGENT WHO TRAINED WITH PLAME: We‘re outraged. Betrayal—I mean, that‘s the—that‘s the lowest description I can put on it. We held this secret for 18 years until betrayed by the White House, whether we were inside the agency or outside the agency. It‘s is simply outrageous.

COSBY: You know, Melissa, do you find it sort of ironic that here you go—I know when you go for your job and your training, you‘re told, Keep these things covert. You don‘t expect the government to be the one doing the outing.

MELISSA BOYLE MAHLE, FORMER CIA SPY: No, you certainly don‘t because you know your cover is what allows to you do your job. And so since the government presumably wants you to do your job, that they‘ll also protect it.

COSBY: You know, Jim, let‘s talk about this company, I found this fascinating, a company called Brewster Jennings and Associates. It‘s been outed now by others, so we can talk about it. But explain (INAUDIBLE) sort of it was sort of a mock company under a cover.

MARCINKOWSKY: Well, that‘s exactly right. There‘s commercial covers. You‘re not protected overseas by governmental immunity, diplomatic immunity. And if you get caught under one of those kinds of covers, non-official cover, you‘re going to suffer the consequences of any other body that may be operating and conducting the espionage in a foreign country.

COSBY: But Jim, with this Brewster-Jennings, it was a business card. It was sort of a pseudo-company that folks who worked for the CIA could pretend that they worked for this company, right?

MARCINKOWSKY: Correct. And it doesn‘t matter whether it‘s just a telephone or a business card. The fact of the matter was, it was sufficient to get in and out of a country safely, and that‘s all that matters in the eyes of an agent.

COSBY: You know, and how detrimental, Melissa, when something like a Brewster Jennings is let out? Because I would imagine a lot of agents use that as their cover.

MAHLE: Well, I tell you, when you start exposing how—what kinds of covers that the CIA uses in whether business or whatever, you start setting a trail that bad guys can follow and say, Hey, let‘s look at these kind of companies and see what—you know, Maybe we can find some more agents.

COSBY: Well, that‘s what I was going to say. There‘s a huge rippling effect, right, Melissa?

MAHLE: Yes, and I think that‘s one of the things that really concerns the CIA because we need to protect our agents and our officers if we‘re going to be able to achieve our mission.

COSBY: You know, Melissa, you worked as a female spy in the Middle East. What was that like? And how dangerous was it?

MAHLE: Listen, I was a counterterrorism officer. I worked in the Middle East. My cover was extremely important to me because I depended on it for hiding my identity so I could protect myself, my family and my agents.

COSBY: And we‘re, in fact, looking at one of the pictures here. This is of you a couple of—how many years ago was this, Melissa, as we‘re looking at…

(CROSSTALK)

COSBY: … because you‘re holding a big gun.

MAHLE: More than a few!

(LAUGHTER)

COSBY: You look like you know how to use that weapon. I‘m a little scared of you now. And here you are with Arafat. I remember reading one of the stories that you actually brought your baby to Arafat because you couldn‘t find a nanny, right?

MAHLE: Well, yes, that was one of those times. You know, everybody has child care issues.

COSBY: Yes, I think that‘s a great story.

Hey, Jim, how has—how has this affected Valerie Plame‘s career, this whole ordeal?

MARCINKOWSKY: Well, her career is essentially over. If you have a career as an undercover officer, you‘re traveling from one country to the other, obviously, the one time you‘re exposed, you can‘t take that back. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You can‘t put it back in. Her career is ended.

COSBY: And Melissa, real quick, how‘s this affected her career, in your opinion?

MAHLE: Well, I agree with Jim that her career is over, and that means that we have lost a very important officer that has experience in weapons of mass destruction.

COSBY: Both of you, thank you very much for talking about this important issue. We appreciate it.

MAHLE: Thank you.

MARCINKOWSKY: You‘re welcome..

A story by Dafna Linzer in today’s Washington Post explains why exposing Valerie Plame Wilson as an agent was a serious matter.

More than Valerie Plame’s identity was exposed when her name appeared in a syndicated column in the summer of 2003.

A small Boston company listed as her employer suddenly was shown to be a bogus CIA front, and her alma mater in Belgium discovered it was a favored haunt of an American spy. At Langley, officials in the clandestine service quickly began drawing up a list of contacts and friends, cultivated over more than a decade, to triage any immediate damage. …

…after Plame’s name appeared in Robert D. Novak’s column, the CIA informed the Justice Department in a simple questionnaire that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation, officials said.

The article says the CIA has not done a formal damage assessment, possibly because it is waiting until after legal proceedings are finished. There is “no indication” agents still engaged in covert operations lost their lives because of Plame Wilson’s exposure.

The article quotes Mark Lowenthal, who retired from a senior management position at the CIA in March: “You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put them at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources.”

Righties everywhere are belittling this episode as no big deal and saying it has nothing to do with national security. As usual, they lie. Possibly they are lying to themselves as much as to the rest of the world, but they lie, nonetheless. As usual, partisan loyalty means more to them than the security of their country.

One other point–nearly all rightie bloggers are saying that “no crime was committed” regarding the exposure of an agent. What Patrick Fitzgerald said repeatedly in the press conference is that, because of Libby’s obstruction, he could not determine if such a crime had been committed.

Update: Today’s Mo Dowd:

Mr. Fitzgerald claims that Mr. Libby hurt national security by revealing the classified name of a C.I.A. officer. “Valerie Wilson’s friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life,” he said.

He was not buying the arguments on the right that Mrs. Wilson was not really undercover or was under “light” cover, or that blowing her cover did not hurt the C.I.A.

“I can say that for the people who work at the C.I.A. and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected,” he said, adding: “They run a risk when they work for the C.I.A. that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don’t run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow government employees.”

To protect a war spun from fantasy, the Bush team played dirty. Unfortunately for them, this time they Swift-boated an American whose job gave her legal protection from the business-as-usual smear campaign. …

…what we really want to know, now that we have the bare bones of who said what to whom in the indictment, is what they were all thinking there in that bunker and how that hothouse bred the idea that the way out of their Iraq problems was to slime their critics instead of addressing the criticism. What we really want to know, if Scooter testifies in the trial, and especially if he doesn’t, is what Vice did to create the spidery atmosphere that led Scooter, who seemed like an interesting and decent guy, to let his zeal get the better of him.

Mr. Cheney, eager to be rid of the meddlesome Joe Wilson, got Valerie Wilson’s name from the C.I.A. and passed it on to Scooter. He forced the C.I.A. to compromise one of its own, a sacrifice on the altar of faith-based intelligence.

Vice spent so much time lurking over at the C.I.A., trying to intimidate the analysts at Langley into twisting the intelligence about weapons, that he should have had one of his undisclosed locations there.

This administration’s grand schemes always end up as the opposite. Officials say they’re promoting national security when they’re hurting it; they say they’re squelching terrorists when they’re breeding them; they say they’re bringing stability to Iraq when the country’s imploding. (The U.S. announced five more military deaths yesterday.)

I believe I have spotted the Republican talking point du jour–Orrin Hatch on CNN just spend several minutes fudging the distinction between covert and classified.

My understanding is that in 2003 Valerie Plame Wilson was not actively engaged in any covert operations (I could be wrong), yet her status with the CIA was classified. My understanding is that this classification was necessary to protect the identities of agents still in the field that Plame Wilson had worked with in covert operations in the past. There has been testimony that when Plame Wilson’s identity as an agent was revealed, some foreign governments worked backward to figure out what other people associated with Plame Wilson in the past might be CIA agents.

The rightie noise machine is trying to put out the meme that Wilson was not covert in 2003; revealing her status at the CIA was not a crime.

This is from page 3 of today’s indictments:

Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Yet Hatch on CNN babbled on: She wasn’t covert. Therefore, “outing” her was no big deal. Expect the Right Blogosphere to pick up this point and run with it.

Page 2 of the indictment makes it clear that Libby was obligated not to disclose classified infomation:

As a person with such clearances, LIBBY was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 (as modified by Executive Order 13292), not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to receive such information, and otherwise to exercise proper care to safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure. On or about January 23, 2001, LIBBY executed a written “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” stating in part that “I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government,” and that “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”

Watch out for usage of the words covert and classified over the next few days..

As I keyboard Fitzgerald’s news conference is ongoing, but it seems to me the quality of the questions is deteriorating, so I’m movin on to something else. As I explained at the end of the last post, the big points from the press conference are these:

The investigation is ongoing. A new grand jury is available to Fitzgerald if he needs one. He will not comment on Karl Rove or anyone not named in the indictment. He will not say if there will be other charges.

The obstruction and perjury charges should not be interpreted to mean that Libby did not violate other laws. The charges mean Fitzgerald was unable to find out if other laws were violated or not, because of the obstruction.

Also, I infer that Fitzgerald needed Judy Miller’s testimony to bring the perjury charge. Miller was an eyewitness to a crime as far as Fitzgerald was concerned.

I haven’t had time to digest the entire indictment, but this section, which begins on page 4 of the indictment, explains what happened up to the publication of Joe Wilson’s New York Times op ed.

This is from page 4 of the indictment:

4. On or about May 29, 2003, in the White House, LIBBY asked an Under Secretary of State (“Under Secretary”) for information concerning the unnamed ambassador’s travel to Niger to investigate claims about Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake. The Under Secretary thereafter directed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research to prepare a report concerning the ambassador and his trip. The Under Secretary provided LIBBY with interim oral reports in late May and early June 2003, and advised LIBBY that Wilson was the former ambassador
who took the trip.

5. On or about June 9, 2003, a number of classified documents from the CIA were faxed to the Office of the Vice President to the personal attention of LIBBY and another person in the Office of the Vice President. The faxed documents, which were marked as classified, discussed, among other things, Wilson and his trip to Niger, but did not mention Wilson by name. After receiving these documents, LIBBY and one or more other persons in the Office of the Vice President handwrote the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents.

6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.

7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson’s trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

8. Prior to June 12, 2003, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus contacted the Office of the Vice President in connection with a story he was writing about Wilson’s trip. LIBBY participated in discussions in the Office of the Vice President concerning how to respond to Pincus.

9. On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson’s wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

10. On June 12, 2003, the Washington Post published an article by reporter Walter Pincus about Wilson’s trip to Niger, which described Wilson as a retired ambassador but not by name, and reported that the CIA had sent him to Niger after an aide to the Vice President raised questions about purported Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium. Pincus’s article questioned the accuracy of the “sixteen words,” and stated that the retired ambassador had reported to the CIA that the uranium purchase story was false.

11. On or about June 14, 2003, LIBBY met with a CIA briefer. During their conversation he expressed displeasure that CIA officials were making comments to reporters critical of the Vice President’s office, and discussed with the briefer, among other things, “Joe Wilson” and his wife “Valerie Wilson,” in the context of Wilson’s trip to Niger.

12. On or about June 19, 2003, an article appeared in The New Republic magazine online entitled “The First Casualty: The Selling of the Iraq War.” Among other things, the article questioned the “sixteen words” and stated that following a request for information from the Vice President, the CIA had asked an unnamed ambassador to travel to Niger to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The article included a quotation attributed to the unnamed ambassador alleging that administration officials “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also was critical of how the administration, including the Office of the Vice President, portrayed intelligence concerning Iraqi capabilities with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and accused the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence agencies on this topic.

13. Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

Fitzgerald’s news conference has been postponed to 2:15. I will live blog.

It’s beginning. Fitzpatrick speaks:

A federal grand jury returned a 5 count indictment against Libby.

National security was at stake, so we had to find out accurate facts.

It is important that the witnesses who come before a grand jury tell the complete truth.

Fall of 2003–when it was clear that VW’s cover had been blown, the investigation began. Libby was interviewed. Mr. Libby gave the FBI a compelling story that he got this information from Tim Russert.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer, and in July 2003 this was classified. Her friends, colleagues had no idea. It is important that a CIA officer’s identity be protected. Her cover was blown in July 2003. Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told about this. Libby told Miller; this was the first leak of her identity. Libby said when he passed this information on to reporters he had made it clear he didn’t know the story was true. Libby said the same thing to the grand jury, under oath. Just passing gossip. Long end of a change of phone calls.

This story was not true.

At least four people within the government had told Libby about VW before the Russert conversation. A full month before Novak’s column he discussed NW with a CIA somebody.

Fitzgerald continues to recount all of the circumstances in which Libby discussed VW with other people. Libby was the first government official to discuss this information with reporters.

Questions:

Q Began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with leaking.

A Investigation is not over. Substantial part of the work is concluded. Another grand jury will be kept open to consider other matters. Baseball analogy: If a pitcher hit a batter in the head with a ball, you’d like to know why he did that. Lots of reasons. What you want to do is have as much information as you could to find out what the batter might be thinking. Then you make a decision whether the pitch was deliberate or an accident.

What was done to Valerie Wilson was done to all of us. What we have are charges of obstruction of justice. I can’t tell you what Libby’s motives were. The obstruction charge is not less than a leak charge. This is a very serious matter.

Q Do you have evidence against Dick Cheney encouraged Libby.

A I don’t talk about people not charged in the indictment. We make no allegations about criminal acts. I will not comment on anyone but Libby. This is a standard practice. Don’t read anything into that.

Q What about the “senior official” mentioned in indictment.

A We can’t tell you everything we know. This is the law. We gather information, the explicit requirement is that if we don’t talk about people not under indictment.

Q Is Karl Rove off the hook, other individuals might be charged?

A Cannot comment.

Q What are you still working on?

A Cannot comment.

No one wants this over with more than I do. We hope to finish as soon as possible.

Q Damage done to all of us, to the nation. Can you be more specific?

A No, but let me say this. People who work at CIA have to expect that information and identities will be protected.

Q What about “leaks” from witnesses?

A Grand jury secrecy does not bind witnesses. Jurors or prosecutors cannot speak about grand jury, but witnesses are not restircted.

Q Were you troubled that people in government were talking about VW weeks before she was outed.

A Not my concern.

Q — I didn’t hear this question clearly.

Q What about Judy Miller?

A No one wanted to have a dispute with the NY Times. I didn’t have a vested interest in litigating it, a first amendment showdown. Our job was to find information. We thought long and hard before we issued subpoenaes. We only subpoenaed if we really needed that testimony. What we did in seeking that testimony was born out by judges rulings. (Miller’s testimony needed for perjury charges, apparently.)

Q You said Mr. Libby the first person to leak outside the government. Other people leaked? What can you tell us of other leakers?

A I can’t go beyond what’s in the indictment.

Q Did Mr. Libby know VW was covert?

A Let me say that I am not speaking to whether VW was covert. Her association with the CIA was classified. We do not know if Libby knowingly outed a covert agent.

Q Missed question; about secrecy and grand jury rules.

A Grand jury testimony rarely shared with congress.

Q Your critics charge you with being a partisan.

A One day I read I was a Repubican hack and the next day I was a Democratic hack. I am not registered with either party.

Q Final report?

A No final report. Used to be issued by independent counsels, included information about people not charged with crimes. I don’t have the authority to write a report. We should charge someone or be quiet.

Q Other prosecutors issued reports.

A I am not an independent counsel. I have to follow the code of federal regulations.

Q You are being criticized for not bringing charges in the underlying crime, outing a CIA agent.

A That doesn’t fly. Any notion that anyone might have that we are singling out a high official is just not true. We indict on obstruction all the time.

Q How did Wilson get sent to Niger; what was VW’s part in this.

A The only thing that’s relevant is the idea in the minds of some people that she was involved; this is not relevant to this investigation. The belief that she was involved is an issue, however.

Q Do you think Libby tried to discourage Miller’s testimony?

A I don’t comment on anything not in the indictment.

Q Why isn’t it a crime to give classified information to someone not authorized?

A He had to know it was classified. If Mr. Libby is proved to have done what we allege, this will vindicate the public’s interest. The point here is that we will make fine distinctions; we need to know the truth about what they said and what they know.

The act of obstruction keeps us from knowing the whole truth.

Q Will you participate in trial.

A Yes, part of team.

Q If information comes out in trial, what would you do?

A Any new information will be handled by our investigation team.

Q You won’t have a grand jury?

A We can use anothr grand jury.

Q You are dealing with memories from long ago. How can you prosecute that.

A That’s the point of the trial.

Q At the last minute there was FBI activity. Wlson’s neighbor’s interviewed. Why?

A With all respect, someone interviewed the guy who shined my shoes the other day. We wanted to get as much done before October 28 as we could. Don’t read anything into that.

Q Is this indictment a vindication of antiwar sentiment?

A This indictment is not about the war. People should not look to this indictment for vindication or resolution of how they feel. The indictment will not seek to know whether the war was justified or unjustified.

Q (questions garbled)

A All I’ll say; there is no statute that says it is a crime to pass on secret information. You have to know motive, state of knowledge, intent, facts; if the allegations in the indictment are true, then there is no way to know if Mr. Libby violated other laws. We didn’t get the straight story.

Now we’re getting down to the dumb questions. I think the major points discussed are these:

The investigation is ongoing. A new grand jury is available to Fitzgerald if he needs one. He will not comment on Karl Rove or anyone not named in the indictment.

He will not say if there will be other charges.