Plame Redux
From the time that Novak's infamous column appeared to the appointment in December 2003 of Chicago-based federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, I and other Democratic members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence repeatedly pressed our Republican colleagues to open a formal Congressional investigation into the matter. Then-chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Porter Goss showed absolutely no interest in pursuing the matter. We received the usual excuses: "The Justice Department is already reviewing this matter," "Internal CIA damage reviews can take care of it," etc. Indeed, it was only under intense public pressure that then-Attorney General Ashcroft finally recused himself from the criminal investigation--almost 6 months after the Novak column ran. That simply wasn't good enough for me.
The reason Congress should deal with this matter, whether or not there a legal inquiry, is that we in Congress have a responsibility to see that those whom we ask to protect America have everything they need to do it. For soldiers in the field that means everything from competent command to body armor. Agents charged to collect intelligence engage in no less risking undertakings so that with information about the world we can avoid conflict (at least that is supposed to be a purpose of intelligence) or, if there is conflict, to prevail. Agents operating under cover have only their cover to protect them. Some have diplomatic immunity, but others are really "out on limb" without even that. Congress needs to make certain we have in place protections for these people in service to their country.
One of the great problems we face in Washington these days in the general lack of appetite among many in Congress--including, unfortunately, some Democrats--to uphold Congress' Constitutional prerogatives and duties. The most important of these by far is oversight of the executive branch, particularly in the national security arena. The Plame leak investigation is a prime case in point (as are various matters associated with the invasion and occupation of Iraq).
On January 21st, 2004, I introduced what is known in Congressional parlance as a "Resolution of Inquiry" (or ROI for short). Such a resolution is a legislative instrument making a direct request or demand of the President or the head of an executive department to furnish the House of Representatives with specific factual. Unlike a normal bill or resolution, the referred committee must report to the House on the Resolution of Inquiry, either favorably or adversely, within 14 legislative days of introduction. If the referred committee does not report the resolution back to the House within 14 legislative days, a Member of the House may raise a privileged motion to discharge the committee from further consideration of the resolution and to bring the resolution to the House Floor for a vote.
That's the value of the Resolution of Inquiry--there is no way for Congress to avoid a vote on it, even if only a vote is to table it, which is to vote it down. Because my Resolution of Inquiry in 2004 sought documents from the President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, as well as the Attorney General, it was referred to multiple committees, including the HPSCI, of which I am a member. How the Republican majority chose to deal with this ROI spoke volumes about their commitment to upholding Congress's responsibility to police the executive branch.
One week after I introduced it (H. Res. 499), Intelligence Committee Republicans called a meeting of the HPSCI and passed a motion to close the meeting and make the proceedings secret. The committee later reopened the meeting to vote to report the resolution adversely. The Resolution met the same fate with the other committees it was referred to. No investigation. No accountability for White House officials. Case closed.
Except it wasn't--at least not for me, and a few other Members and at least some in the media, who kept after the story even as the war in Iraq and the 2004 presidential contest pushed other issues off the pages of the newspapers.
The issue also consumed the time and energies of special counsel Fitzgerald, who took a rather unusual approach to the case by threatening journalists with jail time unless they cooperated with his investigation. As we all now know, TIME magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's primary source on the Plame story--and Plame's CIA affiliation--was none other than Karl Rove, the chief political advisor and deputy White House chief of staff. This is the same Karl Rove who had "no role" in this breach of national security, according to the repeated assurances of White House press secretary Scott McCllelan. Based on this latest revelation, as well as Fitzgerald's previous court filings indicating that his investigation was largely complete (with the exception of the ongoing legal battle with TIME and the New York Times to compel their journalists to testify in the case), I decided to reintroduce a series of Resolution's of Inquiry just before the Congressional August recess.
I am particularly interested in learning who in the State Department wrote the June and July 2003 memos that apparently named Valerie Plame Wilson by name, and who among the White House staff and the staffs of the Departments of State and Defense saw the memos, either before, during or after the President's July 2003 trip to Africa--a trip that preceded Novak's column by less than a week. The circumstances surrounding how that classified and sensitive information made its way into a policy memo for then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, and whether it was shown to other people in the administration, deserve a thorough inquiry by Congress.
Very soon, members of key Congressional committees will have to decide whether they intend to take their Constitutional responsibilities seriously and investigate this flagrant breach of national security, or to vote four more times to rubber stamp their approval of an executive branch abuse of power whose damage to our nation's intelligence services will be with us for decades. That process will start Wednesday afternoon at 2pm, when the House Armed Services Committee takes up H. Res. 417, my Resolution of Inquiry that seeks any documents and related materials in the Plame case from the Secretary of Defense.
I will use that hearing, and the subsequent hearings in the other three committees, to remind my colleagues that the issues in this case are far more serious than the damage to one person's career and the harm that may come to those associated with her. The outing of Valerie Plame has damaged the efforts of all those serving America under cover, intelligence officers who from now on will never be sure that their government will not cut them adrift--without even a peep of dismay from the White House. And the damage will be magnified as our clandestine case officers--the people who recruit, manage, and care for the foreign nationals who give us the secret information we need to protect America--find it increasingly difficult to convince their foreign contacts to risk their lives talking to an American. That is why legal accountability in this case and legislative corrective action are both vital, and it's why I'll keep fighting for both for as long as it takes.
Great column, but I'm curious. Does this sentence from above, "Very soon, members of key Congressional committees will have to decide whether they intend to take their Constitutional responsibilities seriously and investigate this flagrant breach of national security . . ." extend to the following areas as well:
Hurricane Katrina: levee funding beforehand and disaster response afterwards
The War in Iraq: military planning beforehand and security operations afterwards
Terrorism: current security operations including the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. (Where in the hell is he by the way)
Immigration: why, exactly, can't we secure our own borders
The rise of China and India: how, exactly, do we intend to compete economically with China; and how, exactly, will US children compete for jobs in the future when India educates its children better than we do.
Energy: how can we achieve true national security if our energy supplies lie outside our borders. (The fact that this ancient, ancient question is not being discussed intelligently at the highest level of government is stunning. And a discussion about drilling for oil in Alaska ain't the intelligent discussion I'm looking for.)
Good luck this week. After the failure of the government (Federal, State, and local) in Louisiana to keep our fellow citizens alive, we are going to hold our elected representatives to a far higher standard.
September 6, 2005 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you - please don't let the ball drop. When will Fitzgerald's investigation come to light? Regardless of the back-pedalling that I hear constantly (that the law about outing CIA agents doesn't apply in this case because it doesn't meet a certain standard) how can Karl Rove still have a high security clearance?
If his defense is that he didn't know the information was classified, he is either lying (oh, no!) or dangerously incompetent. Surely the burden is on the person with the security clearance to ascertain that information he gives out is not protected. If not, what secrets ARE safe?
I do believe that Rove, Libby, et al will get a pardon anyway, but that will just add one more nail to the coffin of George Bush's murderously incompetent presidential legacy.
September 6, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Representative Holt, and thanks for being here!
Thank you for your determination, also! It is shameful to see the House Republicans continuing to run interference for the White House spin machine, specially when they do it in "secret" sessions.
I think that your job has gotten much tougher since this DHS/FEMA debacle. It seems even the WaPo is getting spun by being fed documentable lies by the Rove machine and publishing them as fact, only to have retract later.
This same cynical use of the lack of transparency in the workings of government is what destroys the faith in government. The "leaks" that the media actively participate in amount to nothing less than government propaganda, and when it involves national security OR homeland security, criminal indictments and the pardons that follow them are unacceptable.
I look forward to your follow up reports on this issue, because I see the connection between the Plame/Blanco leaks as one in the same.
September 6, 2005 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hello Rush,
Can you also address the issue of the short circuiting of intelligence by the Office of Special Plans. Given that Gingrich, Feigh, and other zealots were doctoring intelligence reports and responses why is there not more public discussion on this important issue.
It also seems that Novak's publishing House is acting as a shadow government agaency in relation to the Plame criminal activity. Should a special prosecutor be named to investigate the entanglement of White House insiders with subversive psuedo-news organisations such as Novak's and Gannon's?
September 6, 2005 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome Mr. Holt...
First off I wan't to say the DoD closing Fort Monmouth is a travesty. We were lucky up here, the New London sub base was saved, but it is a national disgrace that the defense of our country can be compromised by partisan politics. But that is for a different discussion...
What has been the mantra of the administration when testifying before Congress since 9/11? They can't answer because of "national security concerns". Repeatedly we have heard the stonewalling by the administration. But when push comes to shove this administration,, pardon my language, doesn't give a rats ass about national security concerns, only protecting their power. And the outing of Valerie Plame is the essence of their politicizing of our security. The outed a CIA operative for partisan political reasons and for no other reason.
I am of the belief that Fitzgerald will be let go at the end of his current term of employment. They will try to discredit and smear him, which they have already started to do. I think the onus falls on the shoulders of Congress to make sure the Plame case doesn't expire like Fitzgerald's job will.
What is the old saying? "Even reasonable people can disagree". That might be the case but reasonable people don't compromise our national security. I hope their feet get held to the fire on this one, the GOP acted far from reasonably or responsibly in the Plame case...
September 6, 2005 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr. Holt,
One issue regarding a Congressional inquiry regarding the Plame affair is whether people such as Karl Rove and Lewis Libby would be granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for their testimony. Is this part of your plan? From what I have read there is every reason to have confidence in Patrick Fitzgerald's prosecution of this case. Is it your plan to derail his investigation?
I would prefer that Congress complete it's report on Administration actions regarding analysis of WMD intelligence. I will also add that I was glad to read that George Tenet is eager to discuss both pre-911 anti-terror strategy and the Iraq WMD issue with Congress. I look forward to hearing testimony on these issues and would rather that the Plame case be left to Fitzgerald.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050831-091719-1217r.htm
Thanks for your post.
September 6, 2005 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to re-emphasize this point. Speaking as a Citizen, if a criminal violation has occured there must be a criminal prosecution, and it must not be short-circuited by Congressional grants of immunity, nor any doubt cast on the prosecution by testimony given before Congress.
After the criminal prosecution is over, I am sure the guilty parties will enjoy a few days' break from their life sentences to testify before Congress.
sPh
September 6, 2005 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kimberly, You are right. I remember seeing the ever-so-squeaky-voiced-but oh-so-sincere Oliver North deliver himself from accountability by his testimony.
And look at him now: the big war hero, narrating "War Stories" as a major patriot on Faux News.
Thanks for bringing that up. If something DOES derail Fitzgerald, though, it would be nice to know that Congress would have the ability to take this crew to task
September 6, 2005 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kimberly,
I did not read imunity from prosecution (for Powell's staff nor Rove, and complicit journalists) into Rush's description.
But I would strenuously agree that until the prosecution phase is concluded that Congress and the House stay out of it. Justice really needs to be served.
September 6, 2005 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I'd write again and say that I agree with Rep. Holt that the Plame leak would have seriously endangered people around the world who worked with Plame and her collegues, may even have lead to their death. Finding a way to know this would be good, perhaps during a trial would be best?
It is presently easy for Republicans like Senator Roberts to downplay the seriousness of this leak, and question whether Plame's status was even classified, but if someone has died as a result of partisan vengefullness by the West Wing that position starts to look very weak.
September 6, 2005 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get away from forming a Congressional Committee and let the law do its work. Larry Fitzgerald is a mob-busting ballbreaker and if you find an excuse to open a 'window of immunity' loophole we'll be certain to make sure any involved in obstruction of an ongoing Federal Civil(soon to be criminal) investigation in ANY WAY gets ostracized from the ranks of the Political community.
In fact, Congress has a share in the Plame outing. Specifically former Rep. Porter Goss(R-Embry Riddle) who had a CIA background and was one of the people in the patriot provisions who got authority to see names.
He may not have seen Plame's function, but he did see her name, and pieced two and two together from there. He knew her from a previous CIA capacity, and was mentioned visiting the WH around the same time of the Novak outing/crossfire appearance.
To the day of Novak's outing Porter Goss, now CIA head, was on his program. CNN took its blog and transcripts off line before cancelling the show.
The FCC should be served papers for the entire weeks of Novak's appearances from the times he met Goss before Plame's outing until the show's cancellation. The FCC has an entire record of every appearance and things said and should consider using renewal license as the chief compliance fulcrum with respect to the investigation.
You really want to know what the citizens have the right to know?
We want the after action report/damage assessment of the impact Plame's outing had? Nobody has said it didn't have noticable impact.
That's a pretty damning vote of confidence. Grow some and call for the damage assessment review in full COmittee and ask former Director Tenet and the other gentlemen previously at the Waxman hearing to testify the impact.
We will not allow you to carry water for them and provide a free pass. To do sop would be to begging to have blood on your hands. They've baptised our best in the blood red waters of warfare already. They will not get a free pass.
If the Republicans want to run on security then they need to allow the after action assessment of Valerie Plame's outing on Brewster Jennings, and the underlying reasons for her appearance(Cheney's Daughter in Near East Affairs at State overriding the Niger Ambassador's confirmations. Contrary to Ambassador's, the statements John Botlon would go forward to see get pushed over the objections of traditional channels- analysts and assets in field).
September 6, 2005 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Representative Holt for keeping this story alive. Bush, Rove, and company are hoping that this all gets lost what with Roberts, Katrina, and Rehnquist in the news. I guess the idea is to drag things out until the end of Bush's power grab (I refuse to call it a Presidency) and then pardon everybody. Hopefully, Fitzgerald can prevent this story from disappearing. I wouldn't be surprised if another Saturday Night Massacre ala Nixon might not be in the works for Fitzgerald.
September 6, 2005 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent initiative, Representative Holt.
One question though. If a closed door maneuver is again used by the HPSCI, do you see a chance to gather a quorum for a direct Discharge Petition (assuming it is applicable to a ROI)? It requires 218 signatures, I believe. All Democrats should be on board but am I wishful to believe there will be 20 or so Republicans ready to sign it ?
September 6, 2005 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amid the partisan sniping on Plame, it might be worth noting that the CIA managed, with the help of Aldrich Ames, among others, to lose practically every important foreign agent and source it ever had. To work with the CIA at this point, on trust, would require a great deal of ungrounded optimism.
The people, who run the CIA are incompetent. Let's start with that premise, and work, as best we can, from there.
September 6, 2005 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amid the partisan sniping on Plame,
And it shouldn't be? Republicans seem to have no problem with outing a CIA agent. In fact, they seem to have no concern with national security at all, based on their performance in New Orleans this week, and their response to 9/11.
If the Democrats are not going to be partisan about national security, who will?
September 6, 2005 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
the general lack of appetite among many in Congress--including, unfortunately, some Democrats--to uphold Congress' Constitutional prerogatives and duties
Rep. Holt -- what's your take on this? If you follow the goings-on of the blog world, you know that many of us are simply fed up with the timidity and lack of opposition from within our party.
Do you think seeing the Bush Administration's negligence and failures of this past week will finally be what Dems need to start standing up to the Republicans?
September 6, 2005 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Rep. Holt,
I agree with the first 2 posters that you should be extremely careful not to let the Republican-controlled Congress undermine the Fitzgerald investigation by granting immunity to any of the principals (as they did in the Iran Contra debacle). Those of us who have been following this closely have reason to hope that Mr. Fitzgerald knows what he's doing.
I'd prefer to see you aid the Fitzgerald investigation by investigating the New York Times, which appears to be getting away with murder in this case. Their shameless stonewalling and coverup of Judith Miller's sordid role in the whole affair is painfully transparent and no one seems to be calling them on it.
I also agree with the other posters that full advantage should be taken of the rift between George Tenet and the neo-cons.
September 6, 2005 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Enjoy the Newspeak which will help end the attempt to impeach Bush. (Newspeak is supported by the blind-folded media and greedy politicians)
September 6, 2005 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dustin, could you explain what you meant in your post? It makes no sense to me, and has nothing that I can tell to do with the thread.
And if you think that finding out the truth about the Plame issue will somehow vindicate Mr. Bush, PLEASE explain how! Thank you.
September 6, 2005 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm merely explain how the media & politicians use words & dichotomy to avoid massive critical thinking thus defusing the situation at-hand. I take no side of the issue, just meant to explain the scenario which will play out. If the Plame case implicated Karl Rove or anyone in the administration it could have a ripple effect (possibly implicating Bush's exaggeration of WMD) but before it even gets to either of those points it first is massively adovacated against by the use of Newspeak. Do you understand?
September 6, 2005 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been very queasy about the centralization of intelligence for this country especially because our intelligence services have been so easily compromised by republican partisan subversives.
It seems to me that Congress is not the only agency that is being derelict in its duty to police other agencies. This country needs the diversity of intelligence agencies that produce independent conclusions. We cannot afford myopia when it comes to executive decision making and that's precisely where we are heading.
This does not mean that intelligence shouldn't be shared by a mutually agreed upon protocol. It means that information must be analyzed in as many ways as we can afford. One big agency will deliver a dubious conclusion.
September 6, 2005 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Holt:
Your efforts to shine some light on the Presidency and to encourage, or force Congress to wear the mantle of authority it is given by the Constitution is perhaps the most important thing anyone can do right now. The Constitution molded a government with a relatively weak executive branch, and a very powerful Congress. But over the last 229 years Congress has managed to create unwise internal rules and procedures that thwart its own ability to govern. It is now so hamstrung with its own web of tricks and treats that the party in power governs the nation. That is not what the Framers intended and it is extraordinarily dangerous and self destructive.
We are all eager to find out what Fitzgerald will do. You probably have information most of us do not have. Waiting on Miller to speak is like waiting for Bush to say something that is not a fabrication. Miller appears to be so deeply involved in helping the administration deceive the public and Congress that she will take her own life before she will talk. It is not about protecting sources, it is about deliberately falsifying reports and being able to push them past NY Times editors to deceive everyone except the White House.
The best course of action with Miller is to stop waiting for her to talk, sentence her to life in prison for treason or whatever is appropriate, and move on with the parts of the investigation that can be successfully laid to rest.
As a side comment, I would like to suggest that all commentators not call this the "Plame Affair". That is a derogatory reference and would not be used if Plame were male. Scandals tend to be called "affairs" if they focus on a woman, and something else if focused on a male. It's a silly and insulting non-think.
Ed Kennedy
September 6, 2005 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The reason Congress should deal with this matter, whether or not there a legal inquiry, is that we in Congress have a responsibility to see that those whom we ask to protect America have everything they need to do it."
I'm sorry Mr Holt, this sentence is self contadictory. Congress can best protect the interests of those that protect us by insuring that justice does prevail. The needs of our representatives to posture and put on a show of "getting to the bottom of this" will just have to be put aside. The idea that hearings being called and there NOT being immunity granted by the Republican members to some thoroughly reprehensible people would be as predictable as the damage of Katrina, and completely demoralizing to these people you profess to care so much about. There needs to be some kind of meaningful punishment for these people just to have any sense of morale left.
Find ways to burn these people and keep the issue alive. I would dearly love watching Karl Rove take the Fifth Amendment before Congress, but I know that just ain't gonna happen. Find some other way.
dc
September 6, 2005 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, but it all comes back to the popular trend in deregulation and privatization. We are losing the conservatives' War on the Public Sphere, and it is most malignant in our communications media. How can we expect a comfortably deregulated industry to ruin a good thing?
Lord help me. I can see Bush-Cheney and the Iran-Contra Comeback Crew getting away with this, with the pitiful response to Hurricane Katrina, and with politicizing the Supreme Court, just as they got away with all their Iraq War rationales, their failure to bring Osama bin Ladin to justice, and the failure to implement a practical 21st century energy policy. They have been getting away with it from day one (remember "vandalgate"?).
Someone please convince me that this will be different.
September 6, 2005 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was "vandalgate?"
September 6, 2005 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was the utterly false accusation that outgoing Clinton Administration staffers had "trashed" the White House, destroying furniture, offices and computers, stealing W keys from keyboards, etc.
Three months later the GSA released its final report: damage was typical for a large-scale move and less than average for a Presidential transition. Bush spokesmen simply refused to address requests for a retraction, and of course the MSM buried it on page C27.
I was always surprised that no Clinton staffer sued the Bush Administration for libel.
sPh
September 6, 2005 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I remember now. Well, I guess it's a good sign that I had to be reminded!
Can you imagine what they will do to the White House if a Democrat is elected AND gets to take office next time?
September 6, 2005 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's one of the characteristics of Republican politicians. They know what they do. They assume everyone else is equally evil. That's why they never trust anyone. They know just how untrustworthy they themselves are.
You have to trust to be trustworthy.
September 6, 2005 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink