cc032049c080…

What a shill. She is so slimey I have trouble reading her press releases

Reality and facts played no part in -her- Treason and that of her husband.

They Provided material aid to the enemy by way of false and misleading statements.

You wouldn’t be from The Parish, would you, highhopes?

Nah! I live in chocolate city. You know, the place where the city attorney is so friendly he even harbors criminals at his home.

This woman openly lied to Congress. Why is she walking around like a “free” person, and why does Matthews conveniently ignore all of that? I know, I know… but I’m still incredulous at all of this… and this bitch has the balls to say the Administration committed treason?

I’d love to bump into her someday and give her my two cents…

1. WILSON, VALERIE E. MS.
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
BREWSTER-JENNINGS & ASSOC.

GORE, AL
VIA GORE 2000 INC
04/22/1999 1000.00 99990049155

2. WILSON, VALERIE E
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
N/A/RETIRED

AMERICA COMING TOGETHER
10/11/2004 372.00 25990054828

1. WILSON, JOSEPH C.
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRAT

GORE, AL
VIA GORE 2000 INC
03/26/1999 2000.00 20990085074

2. WILSON, JOSEPH C. MR. IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRAT

GORE, AL
VIA GORE 2000 INC
04/22/1999 -1000.00 20990083339

3. WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
J C WILSON INTERNATIONAL

KENNEDY, EDWARD MOORE SENATOR
VIA KENNEDY FOR SENATE 2000
05/13/1999 1000.00 99020072578

4. WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
JCWILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURE

BUSH, GEORGE W
VIA BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC.
05/20/1999 1000.00 99034574225

5. WILSON, JOSEPH
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
J C WILSON INT’L VEND

RANGEL, CHARLES B
VIA RANGEL FOR CONGRESS
02/10/2000 500.00 20035504927

6. WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
CONSULTANT

ROYCE, ED MR
VIA ED ROYCE FOR CONGRESS
06/25/2000 500.00 20035840881

7. WILSON, JOSEPH C. MR. IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
SELF/CONSULTANT

ROYCE, ED MR
VIA ED ROYCE FOR CONGRESS
06/28/2001 500.00 21990361666
06/12/2002 500.00 22991283299

8. WILSON, JOSEPH C. IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
JC WILSON INT. VENTURE/FINANCE

HILL PAC
02/13/2002 1000.00 22990553957

9. WILSON, JOSEPH
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES

BLINKEN, ALAN JOHN
VIA BLINKEN FOR SENATE CAMPAIGN 2002 LLC
09/20/2002 500.00 22020711147

10. WILSON, JOSEPH C. IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
SELF/CONSULTANT

RAHALL, NICK JOE J II
VIA KEEP NICK RAHALL IN CONGRESS COMMITTEE
09/25/2002 250.00 22992019457

11. WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES/

KERRY, JOHN F
VIA JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
05/23/2003 1000.00 25971205419
09/04/2003 1000.00 25971201486

12. WILSON, JOSEPH C MR. IV
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
SELF-EMPLOYED/CONSULTANT

VETERANS’ ALLIANCE FOR SECURITY AND DEMOCRACY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (VETPAC)
10/11/2006 500.00 26940522620

Why is this stupid woman still on tv at all?

Defector01 on October 25, 2007 at 7:53 PM

Because Chrissy Matthews is a tool. And a blatantly horny one at that.
I really hate to admit it though… Plame can be a babe.

Isn’t she supposedly up for CIA Director under Hillary?

Pam on October 25, 2007 at 8:05 PM

Shudder.

Dyed blond, cute, and apparently unencumbered by complicated thoughts. Neat.

Jaibones on October 25, 2007 at 10:19 PM

True. Let’s get her a pole and some music.

THIS WOMAN WORKED FOR THE CIA?

These are two not so bright people that tried to damage the administration during a time of war with uber media Liberals like Matthews trying to give their all wet story some smoke. These two are also a good example of what today’s Liberals are all about. Rich, self-centered and damaged. The Everyman of today’s political landscape has nothing in common with these types, and the Democratic party was hijacked decades ago.

highhopes on October 25, 2007 at 8:49 PM

Wow. First a reference to “lagniappe”, then channeling me on why Ms. PrettySecretAgentGirl had Joe Wilson as a husband (the “sugar daddy” comment).

You wouldn’t be from The Parish, would you, highhopes?

/grin

I must admit, I am very curious as to what she writes in her book.

And who wants to listen to a pair of plaming idiots?

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He – he’s perfect. She – she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) “I know who’ll look at it.” Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, “oh, yeah, hubby will go.”
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

If only an investigative journalist had known about this…

Valerie Plame’s attack on the Bush Administration is totally deceitful and irresponsible. She was not covert within the meaning of the Agent Identities Protection Act, as she was a desk bound analyst in Washington D.C. for more than than the last five years, and thus there was no violation of any law, much less treason, in revealing her identity; and in any event, it was Colin Powell’s boy Richard Armitage, not Cheney or Libby, who revealed Plame’s identity to Robert Novak. If Plame’s identity was something to be protected, then her husband Joe Wilson had no business having an op-ed column published in the New York Times falsely intimating that Cheney sent him to Niger and that his report did not support Saddam seeking to buy yellow cake uranium (his oral report was inconclusive and the contrary conclusion was adhereed to by Brit intelligence). The natural question was “who sent Wilson?” — the question asked by Novak, which Armitage answered. Plame should be told she and her husband have had their fifteen minutes of fame and that it is time for them to get lost with their sleazy deceit.

ohhhh ok. I was wondering what the right wing spin was on this. Thanks.

The starting point for the Libby case is the point that Valerie Plame was NOT “covert” within the meaning of the Agent Identities Protection Act. To be “covert,” you need, among other things, to have a foreign posting within the last five years and to have the C.I.A. take affirmative steps to conceal the identity. Plame had been a Washington D.C. desk bound analyst for six or seven years, and her identity was not given the special concealment required. This happens to be the opinion of Victoria Toensing, the lawyer who was a principal draftsperson of what became the 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act for the sponsorship of then Senator Barry Goldwater; and Ms. Toensing has been making this point for some time and explaining that the definition of “covert” was given the definition it was in order not to impede public discussion of public issues.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not charge anyone with violating the Agent Identities Protection Act — particularly one Richard Armitage, the one who revealed Victoria Plame to journalist Bob Novak — because Fitzgerald couldn’t charge anyone with violating the Agent Identities Protection Act without directly confronting the problem that he would have to prove that Valerie Plame was covert when she wasn’t. The advantage of the perjury and obstruction of justice charges for Fitzgerald was that he could intimate that Plame was covert without having to prove it. My view is that Fitzgerald played a sleazy prosecutor’s game with respect to the issue of what was the non-covert status of Plame. It was his motion the trial judge granted to keep out of the jury’s consideration the question of Plame’s status, yet in his closing talked about how revealing Plame’s identity endangered her, as if that had anything to do with the narrow charges against Libby. There are plenty of people who say that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is impressive. I don’t think so; I have said to keep one’s eye on what he does. I think that he is a low life schmuck.

Of course, we cannot tolerate perjury and obstruction of justice. But this perjury and obstruction of justice case was a poor one, based on differences in recollections between Libby and a few journalists (Matthew Cooper as to one count and Tim Russert as to three counts) as to what was said two to three years earlier in conversations in 2003 that were not documented. Such differences in recollection as to undocumented conversations years old are standard in any case. Indeed, the failures of memory on the part of prosecution witnesses at trial demonstrated the point, which I have known as a litigator for thirty years. It always is the case that there are differences of recollection as to such undocumented conversations, and it does not mean someone is lying. Also, when there is no underlying crime (and there was not here), bringing a perjury and obstruction case is questionable.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s case succeeded for wrong reasons, among them the following.

First, Fitzgerald’s case depended on keeping away from the jury the non-covert status of Plame while painting an alternative universe of painting a Bush Administration striking out at war critic Joe Wilson, instead of what was the case — an Administration trying to respond to Wilson who, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, lied in his New York Times op-ed column. Wilson did not do a written report of any kind, much less one that had denied British intelligence as to Saddam’s intentions in Africa to purchase yellow cake uranium (mentioned in Bush’s State of the Union Address in the lead up to war); what Wilson did was to give oral comments in a debriefing that Saddam was up to something in Niger, and since yellow cake uranium was the only thing of interest to Saddam in Niger, that seemed if anything to tend to support British intelligence. Also, Wilson was not sent on his trip to Africa by the Vice President, but by his wife Plame. This whole case arose because Bob Novak, an experienced Washington D.C. journalist, asked “who sent Wilson?” Wilson was a left wing Democrat. If Cheney did not send Wilson (and Cheney wouldn’t), who did? The answer was Wilson’s wife; and it was Richard Armitage, one of Secretary of State Powell’s boys at the State Department and an internal critic of the Iraq War, who answered Novak’s question. Yet, Fitzgerald was successful in creating what might be called an alternative universe in the trial courtroom with Wilson and Plame as the victims.

Second, Fitzgerald sought and got a Washington D.C. jury with people hostile to the Bush Administration and susceptible to accepting that Fitzgerald’s alternative universe, with a barbecue buddy of prosecution witness Tim Russert and a former employee of prosecution witness Bob Woodward on that jury. A red state America jury in the heartland would not have returned this verdict. But this Washington D.C. jury did, after asking themselves, reportedly, where were the higher ups in the Bush Administration and why were they not on trial? It was absurd given the actual case before them. The case and the conviction were based on the different recollection of Russert (the Cooper count is not supported by the evidence) about an undocumented conversation — whether Russert told Libby about Plame; and it was Russert who changed his story from his November 2003 statement to the FBI saying he might have told Libby that to his early 2007 testimony saying that e did not tell Libby that, whereas Libby was consistent in saying that Russert did tell him about Libby.

Third, Libby’s defense team, headed by my Harvard Law School classmate Ted Wells (Class of 1976), did do some good cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses but still made serious mistakes. One mistake was that the defense team did not have Libby testify after Wells seemed to say in his opening statement that Libby would testify. You don’t promise in an opening statement something you don’t later deliver on; and you needed to have had the defendant Scooter Libby speak to the jury directly so that the jury concludes and wants to conclude that if Libby misremembered any conversation, it was not a matter of intentionally lying. Another defense team mistake — a very bad mistake –was that the defense team bought into the alternative universe of Fitzgerald, calling Libby the “fall guy,” instead of taking on Fitzgerald’s case directly.

So back off of using the Libby case as meaning anything other than that miscarriages of justice do happen.