Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Their does not need to be some fucking court case to determine her a covert agent.
This is utter fantasy on your part.
There are guidlines to what makes an agent covert.
The CIA has provided the information to the nessesary court representatives LIKE THE JUDGE!
The CIA holds the documentation of her covert status, they have shown the court the nessesary documentation and they have continued with the case accepting the documentation.
What you want is to pretend a judge isnt good enough which is utter bullshit!
He would NOT have been charged with such if the VP really did declassify the document before Libby and especially Rove and Armitage, leaked the supposedly classified information about valerie's employment.... Libby and Rove and Armitage and Fleicher would be cleared and the burden of proof would be on the VP as to whether he declassified the document, legally, by following the proper protocols.
care
Don't know much about the secret prisons where torture must occur and how they got "outed"?
Are you saying that someone in the administration "outed" this classified information? If so, who? And if so, was an investigation in to such done?
What precisely are you trying to compare this situation, with Plame's situation?
ok, gotta go for a bit... be back later to respond to any posts directed at me!![]()
Can I refer to you as Mike Nifong then? I mean if the prosecutor makes a determination why do we even need the judicial system at all, eh?
Oh, and Judge Walton did NOT address the issue of Plame's status in court. Despite your protestations to the contrary, Judge Walton in his ruling said that he had no idea if she was covert or not. But I guess that'd require you actually READING his ruling and not just parroting the talkingpoints from the BDS crowd.
grand Jury two words you might want to think about
There would have been no grand jury conviened to look into a crime if there was no proof her status was covert.
I just dont get what the right wing talking points has to gain here other than confusing their own to think there was no crime?
How can anyone buy such tripe?
And they will not conviene a grand jury if there was no crime to "possibly" break!
Note the word fact from the guy and realise it was not and is still not in question.
You really need to learn how to phrase your statements. The prosecutor will request a grand jury be convened if he believes that he might have enough evidence of a crime to go to (petit) trial. The fact that he convenes a grand jury does NOT mean that such a crime has already been determined to have happened.
Moreover, since the mid 1930's, the overwhelming majority of convened grand juries have returned indictments supporting the prosecution's arguments. The few which have not supported the prosecutor's argument and have determined that there is no probable cause to indict the defendants are known as "runaway grand juries." This statistical finding has fueled the idea that the grand jury system is (for the most part) a rubber-stamp for the prosecution to bring charges.
Also worth noting is that in our Federal system, any prosecutor bringing Federal criminal charges must present his case first to a convened grand jury for indictment of the accused, and the if indictments are hadned down from the grand jury, the petit jury will be convened to determine the legal findinggs of the case.
What you seem to disregard is that simply convening a grand jury does NOT mean that a crime has been committed, only that the prosecutor believes he has probable cause supporting an indictment.
Jury Reform
When the United States was founded, the jury system was made a part of its system of government. This was done for one main reason: because the Founders did not trust judges, prosecutors, investigators, and other officials to administer justice. The jury is the ultimate safeguard of our constitutional rights, and never before in our history have those rights been in greater danger.
There are two kinds of juries: trial and grand. In a jury trial, the jury is the real judge. The "judge" who presides over the trial is really the president of the court. His proper job is only to control procedure.
There are two kinds of trial: criminal and civil. In a civil trial, the jury decides based on a preponderance of evidence, and a unanimous vote is not required. In a criminal trial, the jury has the duty to acquit the accused unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it takes the vote of all twelve jurors to convict. Once acquitted, the accused may not be retried for the same offense.
A grand jury does not decide guilt. It investigates the facts in a case and recommends a course of action. The most common issue put to a grand jury is to decide if there is sufficient evidence in a case to prosecute the accused. The finding that there is sufficient evidence is called an indictment, and there is a constitutional requirement that persons accused of serious crimes must be indicted by a grand jury before they may be prosecuted in a trial. This is to protect innocent persons from being prosecuted by corrupt, abusive, incompetent, or overzealous prosecutors. However, a grand jury can investigate any issue. They have the power to decide what issues to investigate, the power to subpoena witnesses to testify before them, and to make any finding or recommendation that they think their investigation merits. Such a finding and recommendation is called a presentment.
But most grand juries today don't do their duty the way the Founders intended they should. They too often serve as rubber stamps for prosecutors, who often joke that they can "indict a ham sandwich".
Patrick Fitzgerald is NOT Mike Nifong.
There have been no charges against Patrick Fitzgerald for any wrong doing.
Stop disparaging him for no reason other than political hackery Cocky....YOU do a disservice to our justice system imo, by doing that without merit or cause.
Care
http://tinyurl.com/2csl6t
this is exbit A of the court documents you fool!
Now for once in your life accept FACTS!