home

David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson

Lawyer and pundit Victoria Toensing has gone on the attack, accusing journalist David Corn of being the first to out Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert employee of the CIA. Corn denies it.

Here is Corn's original article from July 16, 2003.

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

Today, Corn writes:

The reasoning underlying my supposition that Valerie Wilson might be a NOC was simple. Before I wrote the article, I spoke to Joe Wilson. He would not confirm or deny that what Novak wrote was true. He would not say whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. Wilson noted that his wife was known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm, and added, "I will not answer questions about my wife." I placed that quote in the piece.

In the article, I noted that if Novak had gotten it right and if Valerie Wilson was a CIA operative, she had to be a NOC. Why? CIA officers who have "official cover" (and who, by the way, are sill considered "covert") tell people they work for the Defense Department, the State Department or some other part of the government. CIA officers working under nonofficial cover tell friends, relatives, associates that they are businesspeople, writers, consultants, tour guides or whatever--anything but a government official. So a CIA officer who informed acquaintances that she worked for a private energy firm would have to be a NOC. It's elementary.

Consequently, I noted in the article that Valerie Wilson was "apparently" a NOC--that is, if she were a CIA officer at all. The piece noted that if she were not in the CIA, "then the White House has wrongly branded a woman...as a CIA officer." That line is proof that I was supposing, not reporting. Unlike Novak, I had no facts about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment to disclose.

As to Toensing, with whom Corn says he has been friendly in the past, he writes:

Toensing is flat-out wrong--sloppy wrong. Any intelligent lawyer who bothered to peruse the piece I wrote could discern that I was engaging in a thought exercise, not an act of disclosure. Besides, how can you out a CIA operative who has already been identified as a CIA operative in newspapers across the country?

Why would Toensing disregard the obvious? That's for her to explain. But I do hope she is more careful with evidence when it comes to her legal work. And I'm sorry that we will likely not be enjoying each other's company any time soon.

< Iraqi President: U.S. Needed One More Year | Dog the Bounty Hunter Makes Bail >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#1)
    by roxtar on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 01:05:15 PM EST
    Corn is technically correct, but too clever by half. In essence his position is: "Novak said she was an agent. I only said it was a secret." It's true that once Novak his half of the cat out of the bag, the other half would inevitably follow. But Corn's explanation smacks of two tattletales running to the teacher when she returns to the classroom. Novak: "Teacher, Valerie was chewing gum!" Corn: "And I can prove it!"

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    The article makes it clear that Novak was the source and that he had been contacted by people eager to expose Plame. Since Novak published two days earlier, anyone accusing Corn of exposing Plame is lying. What else is now?

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    RePack - And the people was Armitage. I confess that I am no fan of Corn and enjoy watching him twist and turn. I hope that doesn't make me an evil person...

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#5)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Sep 16, 2006 at 08:31:08 PM EST
    Why would Valerie Plame lie to her neighbors and others about her job?

    whatever...Novak is and always will be scum

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:01:10 AM EST
    Enjoying watching someone twist and turn may or may not make you an evil person. However, here, it is academic, since Corn isn't twisting and turning(though Toesing is), you aren't getting much enjoyment out of it. Novak revealed Plame was a CIA operative, not Corn. That bit of info was all foreign governments with an interest needed to know- after all, "Does the agency have non-secret operatives?" Why do conservatives like Jimakappj hate America?

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#8)
    by Rick B on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    Posted by wowser September 16, 2006 10:13 PM whatever...Novak is and always will be scum
    Make that treasonous scum. When does Novak get the Benedict Arnold award?

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimcee on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    Actually Richard Armitidge outed Ms Plame and all the delusional references that it was Rove et al are just that, delusional. David Korn is a smirking schmuck who himself acknowledged that it was the Deputy Secretary that exposed Plame in his new book thus making anyone who fell for his earlier attempts to implicate the WH into fools. Fools that refuse to admit that they were taken for a ride by one of thier own Lefties. Sheesh, I would think that the Left would let this episode quietly disappear instead of reminding everyone of how speculative and goofy they were pinning thier hopes on a non-scandal, trumped up by one of thier own.

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 10:51:34 AM EST
    Jimcee, Maybe the left will let it disappear when the Justice Dept. and the CIA themselves take your sage advice. I'll wait for the fat lady.

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:44:22 PM EST
    Molly - Since the SP has said she wasn't covert, the answer must be, yes. Hope that isn't too complicated.

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:55:15 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ, Jim, Jim, Jim... Give it up Dude! The SP said here identity was classified. Is there such a thing as a classified, but yet non-secret operative? Why do conservatives hate America?

    Re: David Corn Denies Outing Valerie Plame Wilson (none / 0) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Sep 17, 2006 at 04:55:35 PM EST
    JimakaPPJ, Jim, Jim, Jim... Give it up Dude! The SP said here identity was classified. Is there such a thing as a classified, but yet non-secret operative? Why do conservatives hate America?

    BEFORE Novak's piece was published, multiple senior White House officials disclosed the confidential information about Valarie Plame's status at the CIA including; Libby (goverment official) told Judy Miller (reporter) Armitage (goverment official) told Novak (reporter) Rove (goverment official) confirmed it for Novak (reporter) Hadley (government official) told Woodward (reporter) Rove (goverment official) told Cooper (reporter) Armitage's disclosure does not contradict the claim there was a coordinated effort to undermine the credibility of Joe Wilson. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald stated in a court filing in the CIA leak case (April 5, 2006) that his investigators have obtained evidence during the course of the two-year-old probe that proves "multiple" White House officials conspired to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. Fitzgerald wrote in the filing, "There exist documents, some of which have been provided to defendant and there were conversations in which defendant participated, that reveal a strong desire by many, including multiple people in the White House, to repudiate Mr. Wilson before and after July 14, 2003." Although Fitzgerald makes it abundantly clear that Libby is not charged with conspiracy, he argues that Libby's suggestion that there was no White House plot to discredit Wilson is ludicrous, given the amount of evidence Fitzgerald has in his possession that suggests otherwise. "Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a 'White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson,'" the filing states. "Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July 14, 2003, discussed Wilson's wife's employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 - which evidence has been shared with defendant - it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."