Talk:Valerie Plame/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Career section quote

Is it necessary to have a quote from an editorial column at the end of Plame's "Career" entry? this comes across as biased. Anthonymendoza 5:20 pm 28 February 2006 eastern standard time

It's only necessary to counter the impression you are trying to create with your edits regarding the possible outing of Plame by Ames a decade earlier. Whatever happened with Ames, the fact is that the CIA considered Plame covert, and that is all that matters here. You have been trying to create the same impression by including known disinformation -- the Wilson quote that was blatantly out of context, which I corrected. It's a little disingenuous for you to claim that the editorial creates possible bias when you have been inserting this material for blatant POV reasons. I had not known about the Ames material until reading your edits, and I think the reason it has not been a big issue in the media is exactly as explained in the editorial and the other article I researched and added to the page -- (1) Plame was still undercover, and (2) the damage done by Novak exposing her identity was not trivial, and went beyond the immediate issue of Plame. The bottom line is that covert CIA agents should not be compromised by other federal employees no matter what -- whether or not there is dispute about their "covert" status, whether or not they were under "deep" cover, whether or not their husbands are liars. I don't see why Wikipedia editors are under any obligation to act as unpaid members of Libby's legal defense team.

By the way, you can sign your edits using four tilde (~) characters in a row, rather than writing the time in yourself :)--csloat 22:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

i put in the "disinformation" i did hoping you would counter it, which you did. but i have not once put in an editorial, which there are MANY i could chose from. the wilson quote was similar to Andrea Mitchell's quote stating that reporters covering intelligence matters knew who plame was. like wilson, she says she was misquoted. to those of us who view wilson with very little credibility, this was and still is suspicious. but i'm glad you countered it. as for the Ames story, it WAS a big issue in the media. your counter even states she was recalled in 1997 for fear she was outed. that's six years before novak "outed" her thus making Novak's column not a criminal act, which it turned out not to be! how can you say it wasn't picked up by the main stream press?? for that reason it was a BIG story. but it all goes back to the main point you made above: if exposing her was "not trivial" WHY WASN'T ANYONE CHARGED WITH LEAKING HER NAME?? fitzgerald isn't even allowing libby to see CIA documents relating to her cover or to know of other "leakers" he verified. he's made it clear this case will not be about Plame's CIA status in any way. given all the accusations and conspiracy theories relating to this case, at the end of the day, a two year investigation yielded one individual being indicted for perjury and obstruction. that's the point i'm trying to get across in my edits. i hope you stay on my case, though. this is good debate!--User:Anthonymendoza 12.203.178.107 23:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Two things I want to add to Ryan's excellent (as usual) response to this ... (1) The Ames thing was not "a big issue in the media." I looked through Lexis/Nexis and found only eight sources with "Ames" and "Plame" both mentioned, only three of which addressed the possibility that Ames compromised her identity in the 1990s. There was certainly nothing about this in any newspaper prior to 2003. And, of course, Plame was still undercover according to the CIA, which is all that matters for our purposes here. Libby's legal staff may be interested in whether Plame was covert under the terms of the IIPA, but the fact is that she was considered covert by the CIA independently of that (a point we have been over and over again on this page for months). (2) Your question "why hasn't anyone been charged" is a red herring -- the real issue is whether the leak of Plame's identity was damaging, which it was. Fitzgerald has probably not charged anyone yet for the leak because (a) he is a careful prosecutor who wants an airtight case, and the perjury one is much more clear, and (b) he does not want to press charges that will require even more classified information to be leaked. Libby's defense strategy is one of graymail, trying to force the government to drop the case by insisting that classified information is essential to the defense. Fitzgerald's charges seem limited precisely in order to prevent this strategy from working. Now, what Novak did in publishing the information may or may not be illegal (he is not a public official and he is not the original leaker of the information), but there is little question that it was immoral and that it harmed U.S. national security.--csloat 03:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

the media used it in it's legal brief and i remember it being widely reported. i guess not in the print media, but i remember a debate on hardball and other cable news shows. and of course nothing was written about it prior to 2003. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but putting in information you know to be false, or incomplete, is hurting Wikipedia. Please try in the future to provide neutral, factual content and not rely on others to counter what is in essence your furthering of a blatant misinterpretation in the interests of misinforming the public. If you knew what you posted was incomplete (and therefore misinformative), it's not good debate - it's pretty poor editing, and disruptive of Wikipedia.

Second, your statement "she was recalled in 1997 for fear she was outed. that's six years before novak "outed" her thus making Novak's column not a criminal act, which it turned out not to be!" is completely erroneous. Plame was recalled by the CIA, not publically 'outed'. Novak's act of publicly naming Plame as a CIA operative in WMD was very likely a crime that created the entire leak investigation - and her recall at the time of the Ames incident is irrelevant to that fact - thus your comment is simply incorrect on its face. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

no. In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose a "covert agent." To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." Plame hadn't been posted overseas in the last five years when Novak wrote the column. the Ames incident is very relevant to this and is likely why no one was charged with violating this act. as for poor editing, there is a reason this page is tagged as being "disputed". from reading the talk page, i say it's because one side is being represented in its makeup. User:Anthonymendoza 12.203.178.107 00:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read this talk page and the Plame Affair talk page, you'll see your (second) erroneous comment is equally refuted. The case is not necessarily based on violations of IIPA. It is a crime to identify a CIA operative independently of the IIPA, when such information is 'classified'. In simple language, the definition of 'covert' under the IIPA is not required to be met for the leak to have been a crime. Your assertion "Plame hadn't been posted overseas in the last five years when Novak wrote the column." is not true (prove it). Your other comment, "the Ames incident is very relevant to this and is likely why no one was charged with violating this act." is purely speculation on your part. Speculation is not fact.

You've identified your bias (that you view wilson with very little credibility as you say above)... so good editing would mean checking that bias against fact. However, your continuing and blatant false assertions (at least three so far) seem to indicate you aren't interested in offsetting your bias with objective fact. Please spare Wikipedia article spaces your opinion (you're welcome to raise them here on Talk), and in the article space, please try to concentrate on fact. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

first off, the entire plame investigation is based on speculation. everything being reported in the press and on this site is speculation. second, the fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her status wasn't a crime, under IIPA guidelines or any other guidelines. third, as this is a current event topic and one already pinned as in dispute, various opinions and takes on the issue are important. i will use better judgement before i post, but the gerth story wasn't even on the site until i mentioned it, so i have done a service. fourth, if Plame had been outed by the CIA to the Cuban government, if makes perfect sense to speculate the CIA would no longer see fit to use her in covert operations as Cuba is no friend of the US government. fifth, i shouldn't be lectured about my bias as the Plame Affair site uses Raw Story as a source and quotes it as gospel, a web site with links devoted to anti-bush and anti-republican merchandise and blog pages. thanks for the advice, but i don't believe i've made "blatant false assertions". User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you have made a false assertion. You just wrote: "the fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her status wasn't a crime." It proves nothing of the sort. Fitzgerald made it quite clear that whether a crime was committed was difficult to prove because some of the key witnesses purjured themselves. (And in any event, the investigation is still ongoing.) -- Sholom 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of your post above is factually bereft. I've taken it apart to illustrate how. You are welcome to your opinion, though - and I do appreciate your willingness to 'use better judgment' as you say. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"the entire plame investigation is based on speculation."

Libby has been indicted.

"The fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her name wasn't a crime under {...} any other guidelines"

Completely logically fallacious. This comment is 100% in error.

"i shouldn't be lectured about my bias as the Plame Affair site uses Raw Story as a source and quotes it as gospel, a web site with links devoted to anti-bush and anti-republican merchandise and blog pages."

Not sure what one has to do with the other. Your bias is involved in your edits, Raw Story isn't.

"i don't believe i've made "blatant false assertions"

Q. E. D.

And as to the Ames incident, all I can say is Nicholas Kristof and Victoria Toensing's amica curae notwithstanding, there's scant proof she was outed to either Cuba or Russia. Can you provide some, so we can be sure you've done a service, as you claim? Thanks again! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What Plame's role in the CIA is subject to pure speculation. every article written about what she did in the CIA has come from anonymous sources and has never been confirmed. novak has stated repeatedly he can't wait until the investigation is over so he can set the record straight, as has Valerie Plame, from what i've read. her role in the CIA is subject to speculation and that's what i was referring to. you stated that "some of the key witnesses perjured themselves", yet only one person was charged and fitzgerald has said the bulk of the investigation is over. fitzgerald has made it clear the trial of libby will in no way be about Plame or her status. there's also scant proof Plame was working on Iran's nuclear weapons program and that intelligence was set back 10 years after novak's column, yet this story is posted. why is posting a story from national review online speculative but posting a story from Raw Story not speculative?User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 13:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I partially agree with you. To wit: (a) I should have said that Fitzgerald said that "one key witness purjured himself"; (b) I agree that the claims by RawStory should not be included unless there is a more reputable corroborating citation. But I mostly disagree with much else you have written, particularly: "the fact that no one was charged with leaking her name proves revealing her status wasn't a crime". This not only violates common sense, it violates the rules of logic. (I'll note that Al Capone was convicted (afaik) of only tax evasion -- does that "prove" he was not a gangster?) -- Sholom 14:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't agree with the analogy. being a gangster isn't a crime. gangster related activities are, and tax evasion is a gangster related activity. in this case, revealing a covert CIA operative or revealing classified information is a crime. libby wasn't charged with this. he's charged with perjury and obstruction, which are crimes within an investigation. Judith Miller told fitzgerald she got plame's info from libby, cooper testified he got it from rove. court documents suggest fitzgerald knows who told novak. in any case, where the information came from is no secret, so why wasn't anyone charged with leaking the information. libby's trial will be about which reporters he talked to and when, not whether what he told them was a criminal act. what is everyone waiting for, Cheney to be indicted and for impeachment charges? it was a two year thorough investigation that's pretty much over, unless new information comes to light. User:Anthonymendoza 12.203.178.107 16:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1- The fact that Plame's role was undercover is not "speculation." The CIA asked for an investigation. They would know whether or not she was covert and they have made it clear that she was. This is not about speculation. If the Justice Department was unsure of what her status was, they could pick up the phone and call the CIA. 2- The reason nobody was indicted for revealing classified information is what we can speculate on. There are a couple of possibilities far more likely than your assertion that no crime was committed. For example - a) Fitzgerald's investigation has been sabotaged by perjury of a key witness. We know this is likely since the witness was in fact charged for this. b) Fitzgerald does not want to do even more harm to national security than has already been done. Libby's graymail strategy indicates that if anyone actually was charged with violating the IIPA, there is no way the government would let the case proceed. 3- Both of these have been explained to you and you simply ignore these explanations. Your theory that there was no leak of classified information is ludicrous on its face, since the organization that employed Plame has indicated her classified status from the beginning of the investigation. 4- Nobody has adequately explained what is wrong with Raw Story. It has been properly cited so that anyone can visit the page and learn more about the source. Sources from right and left should not be held to different standards -- there are citations from the Weekly Standard, Cybercast News Service, and other right wing sources all over wikipedia and indeed in this article. The opinions of far less reputable sources are included here. I am a strong believer in the American theory of freedom of information, which holds that the remedy for false information is additional information rather than censorship. I also do not understand why the people whining about this source do not go to the page about The Raw Story and add your theories to that page. It makes these claims seem totally disingenuous -- why bring it up only on this page, when there are more relevant pages for your theories? And why bring it up without challenging the right-wing sources that are demonstrably less reputable?--csloat 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hear the argument you're making, i just completely disagree. the indictment states that Libby CONFIRMED to cooper "without elaboration or qualification" that "wilson's wife" worked at the CIA, and that he told judith miller that "wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the cia", and that the topic wasn't discussed with tim russert. libby is charged with perjury and obstruction for apparently falsifying the entire russert conversation, and for telling investigators and the grand jury that he told cooper and miller other reporters had told him about "wilson's wife". that's the extent of the indictment. it looks bad for libby. his defense will have to be that he forgot the context of the conversations and will have to convince a jury he misspoke because he forgot. i don't see a graymail strategy here since Cooper didn't learn wilson's wife worked at the cia from libby, the issue wasn't discussed at all with russert, and he told miller that wilson's wife "might work at the cia". if libby is seeking classified information, it's to prove that he was busy with other matters and forgot the context of conversations he had with reporters. all of this appears to be a clear cut perjury and obstruction case, and that's it. i doesn't make sense to me that fitzgerald is using these charges because he doesn't want to further damage national security, or that libby sabatoged the investigation and prevented the truth of the matter to be discovered. libby wasn't novaks source or cooper's original source. and miller never published her article about plame. where am i wrong here? User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere. First, you've ignored #1 above - the fact is, the CIA asked for an investigation because a leak of classified information occurred. They have not rescinded that claim, and the various leaks they have made to the press about Plame's covert status confirms this. If the Justice Department had some confusion about this, they could have called the CIA for clarification. If the CIA saw that the Justice Department was incorrect, they could have called the Justice Department to clarify (and to avoid wasting taxpayer money and energy on an investigation based on a mistake!) Judge Tatel clearly states his opinion that Fitzgerald thought she was covert. Second, your assertion that you "don't see a graymail strategy" because of what Cooper told Miller simply ignores reality. The fact is Libby has requested tons of info including every PDB for a year - far beyond what anyone might consider necessary to prove the claim that he was busy. Surely his appointment book could prove that without exposing all this national security information. Moreover, Libby specifically hired an attorney known for his skills at graymail, and the first major step he takes is to request outrageous amounts of classified information. Finally, your assertion that there was no crime committed simply because there have yet been no indictments under IIPA is a logical fallacy. I shouldn't have to spell this out but I will -- not every crime is prosecuted.--csloat 23:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then we just see it two different ways and there's no point in debating it anymore. you haven't convinced me and i haven't convinced you. (one more point, just because an investigation is requested doesn't automatically mean a law was broken, and i believe you've misinterpreted Judge Tatel's opinion, and how else is Libby to defend himself, an appointment book is a laughable defense.) i added the raw story claim to the Legal Questions segment of the Plame Affair. i think this should be included since we've established Raw Story is a fine source for a current events piece. i won't care if you edit it but i can't see any justification for completely deleting it. when i added it the first time, it probably shouldn't have been put under Actual Damage and so i understand why it was deleted. but i think i corrected the problem. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First, do not disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. You keep inserting material from Raw Story that has nothing to do with the sections you are putting it in; you even state that it has a reputation for investigative reporting after you criticized the source. The implication you are trying to create with the quote is false -- nowhere does Raw Story say that the neighbors claimed that they knew of her CIA employment before, and in fact we know that the neighbors did not know based on interviews they gave to the Times and what they told the FBI. But you make it sound that way in the quote, tying it to the grand jury indictments. I will erase it here as I did on the other page. If you find a relevant section for that quote, fine, but don't use it to twist the truth. It is not clear that it has any other purpose. As for the rest of this argument, I don't expect to convince you, but if you are unable to think of reasonable answers to these arguments, you should not edit the page to say otherwise. As for Judge Tatel, your "belief" isn't enough; he spelled out his opinion on that matter quite clearly. And as for "how is Libby supposed to defend himself?" I don't know or care -- I'm not a member of his legal staff, and frankly I think he's guilty. But I can tell you that asking for lots of unrelated classified information (particularly an entire year's worth of PDBs) is a graymail strategy.--csloat 18:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute. here's the entire quote from raw story: "We reported that the Washington Post's Jim Vandehei told Hardball that law enforcement agents interviewed Valerie Plame's neighbors to see if they were aware of her CIA status. This was confirmed. We later reported they were interviewed in an attempt to convince a skeptical grand jury that White House officials may have violated a law criminalizing the outing of CIA agents, and that the jury was unlikely to accept such a charge. This was true; no charge was made in the indictment." i never implied plame's neighbors knew she was CIA. i thought i implied the opposite. as for stating raw story has a "reputation for investigative reporting", that comes directly from the wikipedia site for raw story. if the Iran story is going to be posted, this needs to be posted to, but the fact that you don't see "any purpose" in this article is telling. plus now you've revealed your bias when you say you think Libby is guilty. you keep saying fitzgerald didn't charge anyone with the leak itself in order to protect national security, yet this raw story article (a web page you've defended) says fitzgerald was trying to get an indictment on the leak itself. how is this story not relevant?! it needs to be posted, so since your opinion seems to reign supreme here, where should i post it? User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 19:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That borders on a personal attack, and I'd try to focus on the facts without attacking your fellow editors. Csloat's opinion is no more supreme than anyone else's (including yours)... it's just that his opinion is backed up with objective fact. If yours are, they are equally important to the article. Last - bias isn't something to be hidden as you may have subconsciously implied "now you've revealed your bias when you say you think Libby is guilty". It was no revelation, ony a statement. Any lack of willingness to own up to bias that I've seen in this conversation isn't coming from csloat. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

why is one raw story article more important than another raw story article?? can i get clarification on that from anyone. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 19:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Who says one is? I think this is a non-issue, because I see no one making such an assertion. Facts, please. Facts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

csloat saws the raw story article indicating fitzgerald sought indictments for the leak itself serves no purpose and it has been deleted. yet he posted a raw story article saying plame worked on Iran nuclear ambitions and intelligence was set back ten years. just tell me where to post the article on what indictments fitzgerald sought. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 19:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So let's cut out the part about the neighbors. I still don't understand the point you're trying to make with this quote but I don't object to it being put in, without this misleading part about interviewing the neighbors. (What is the point? That Libby was not indicted under the IIPA? Don't we already know this?) Perhaps I'm missing something in your explanation, but I see no reason to imply that the neighbors' interviews had something to do with Libby not getting indicted for the IIPA violation. As for bias, lol, did you just figure out that I had a point of view? I'm not sure what this has to do with the Iran issue, which is why I think you are making a WP:POINT with this inclusion. You seem to see this as a way of "balancing out" the evidence that Plame was working on Iran WMD - content-wise, however, one story has nothing to do with the other.--csloat 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

the point of the article is to show that indeed fitzgerald did try to indict for the leak itself. i don't know why you don't see this as relevant. i mention the iran story because if plame was that deep undercover, why was the grand jury skeptical any law were broken in her outing. as for the neighbors, i thought it important to include the entire raw story quote. look, there is speculation as to what charges fitzgerald actually sought and raw story stated he sought to indict over the leak itself but the grand jury was skeptical. that's all i want posted on this sight, and i see it as very relevant. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 20:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming way too many things. For one, the status of her cover is only one element of the potential crime. The other element is that Libby had to be aware of her status. So, it's perfectly possible that she was under deep cover, but that Libby didn't realize it. Or, even more simply, that they couldn't prove Libby's state of mind because he had perjured himself. To say "they tried to indict on the leak itself but the grand jury was skeptical" is too much of an assumption. One could just as easily write "they tried to indict on the leak itself, but there was enough perjury that the truth couldn't be fully determined." -- Sholom 21:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right - Fitzgerald himself makes this point.--csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i merely sourced what Raw Story reported. if this site is going to source raw story, than all relevant material should be out there. people can read it and come to there own conclusions, as you and i have, but it should be made available nonetheless. this site either includes all reports by raw story or none. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And what you have not established in any way is the relevance of this piece of material. Stop making this about Raw Story -- again, your attempt to "balance" things by including irrelevant statements just because they are printed in a source that is used here is an example of WP:POINT.-csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is the entire quote again: "We reported that the Washington Post's Jim Vandehei told Hardball that law enforcement agents interviewed Valerie Plame's neighbors to see if they were aware of her CIA status. This was confirmed. We later reported they were interviewed in an attempt to convince a skeptical grand jury that White House officials may have violated a law criminalizing the outing of CIA agents, and that the jury was unlikely to accept such a charge. This was true; no charge was made in the indictment [1] how should this be written and in what section should it appear? here's another potential link to this claim [2].here's a quote from that link: "The lawyers said Fitzgerald needed more evidence to convince the grand jury that Plame was in fact an undercover agent. On Monday, he sent FBI agents to her residential neighborhood to obtain testimony from neighbors that they were unaware of Plame’s employment prior to her outing.Evidence collected in these inquiries was aimed at convincing the jury that she was covert, the lawyers said. A Reuters story indicated that Plame’s neighbors were not aware that she was working at the agency." and another quote from the same article: "Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent."

please give me some guidance on this. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been trying to. The quotes you have above indicate nothing that isn't already in the article. We already know Fitz did not get an indictment under IIPA. We also know that the neighbors confirmed that they did not know about her CIA work, which supports the view that she was covert. We also know a number of other things support that view, including Judge Tatel, including the CIA's request to have the matter investigated, etc. This has been debated to death here already. I honestly don't see anything in the quotes above that adds new material to this debate.--csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

how about this:

The Raw Story, a progressive Internet news publication known primarily for its investigative reporting, reported on October 26, 2005 that "Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent." According to the report, "Fitzgerald needed more evidence to convince the grand jury that Plame was in fact an undercover agent. On Monday, he sent FBI agents to her residential neighborhood to obtain testimony from neighbors that they were unaware of Plame’s employment prior to her outing. Evidence collected in these inquiries was aimed at convincing the jury that she was covert, the lawyers said. A Reuters story indicated that Plame’s neighbors were not aware that she was working at the agency." In a December 15, 2005 summation of it's reporting on the entire Plame investigation, the Raw Story stood by this story, saying "We reported [that Plame's neighbors were] interviewed in an attempt to convince a skeptical grand jury that White House officials may have violated a law criminalizing the outing of CIA agents, and that the jury was unlikely to accept such a charge. This was true; no charge was made in the indictment."

this is a rough cut, please give me feedback User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 22:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I don't see what this adds to the discussion of Plame that is already on this page, and it still seems like an attempt at WP:POINT. What is with the obsession with the raw story?--csloat 23:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

i don't see anywhere on this page where is states that fitzgerald actually sought an indictment under IIPA. it has been suggested in the talk pages that he didn't because he didn't want to further damage national security, or because he wasn't sure libby new she was covert. i don't have an obsession with raw story, it's just that raw story is the only outlet i have found that specifically reports fitzgerald tried to get an IIPA indictment but was denied by the grand jury. that's the only reason i want to put it in. User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 02:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, how about i add this to the raw story page and create a heading called "Raw Story's Coverage of Plame Investigation". User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's relevant there either, but at least it's more honest in that your concern seems to be about the Raw Story rather than about Valerie Plame.--csloat 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)