Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[Gunny]

In the final analysis, a jury convicted Lewis 'Scooter' Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation of the leak of a CIA operatives name. The CIA forwarded the matter to the DoJ for investigation, and that investigation could have led straight to the office of the Vice President. But we'll never know as Libby perjured himself before a Grand Jury and mislead FBI investigators. He was not convicted of leaking anything, he was convicted of obstructing an investigation into a possible conspiracy involving political payback against a person who embarrassed the administration. That such payback involved blowing a nuclear counterproliferation operation in a supposed time of war is damning in and of itself, and the CIA has yet to reveal the extent of the damage caused in the roll up of that operation.

What you think the investigation could have led to is partisan, idle speculation.

As for those who claim 'Scooter' was railroaded, one can only ask, "For what...?" Evidence of his perjury and deliberately misleading statements was compelling enough that a jury convicted him on four counts. Had he told the truth, he would not be in his present straights and we would have the truth of the matter in hand.

As for the status of Ms. Plame, I am satisfied with the DCIA's and Mr. Fitzgerald's assessment of her status.

Of course. Forget the law. Who needs THAT?
Of course you are

I am only left wondering if the inmates at any of the facilities he might be going to are having a last-man-standing-beat-down to see who gets to be the first to 'ride' poor 'Scooter'.

No class.

 

[CockySOB]

So if I say Trurhmatters may be a troll. I am only listing a possibility?

Yes. However had you said, "TruthMatters is a troll," You would be stating a fact, at least as far as TruthMatters' logic is concerned. After all, for TruthMatters, opinion is interchangeable with fact. After all, you are able to use your own definition of "troll" to evaluate TruthMatters, and you need not refer to any other definitions of "troll" since you are using it in the context of your own choosing.

There, does THAT help clarify why an objective third party (the judiciary) must be called upon to clarify the situation when multiple other parties (including the object of scrutiny, yourself in the above example) have a difference of opinion.

This is even more important when there is a question of criminality which may be impacted depending on how the third party rules. In this case, if Plame were ruled to be covert per the IIPA, then Libby is in a world of hurt and could be charged as a participant in the alleged conspiracy and possibly even treason. On the other hand, if Plame is ruled to NOT have been covert per the statutes, then it ends all the ruckus about an "outing" once and for all. And I'm guessing that since Fitzgerald deigned NOT to pursue this angle, he was less than confident that a judge would rule in his favor, so he stuck with the charges which were rock-solid and for which Libby was eventually convicted.

 

[Gunny]

What I am saying is that a court does not determine the "status" of agent being outed.

The Law, defines it, and the agency employing the agent in question of being outed, acknowledges to the Investigating prosecutor the covert status of the agent.

In this case, the CIA is the intelligence agency that had to acknowledge she met the criteria of a covert officer or a classified undercover officer, to Fitzgerald, the special investigator/prosecutor.

A court is not invoved in acknowledging an agent's undercover status in this procedure.

When Fitzgerald recommends an indictment, he presents his acknowledgement from the CIA of the agent's covert status as an exhibit or in an opening argument but this is not the court determining a covert agent's covert status.


gosh, that was a tongue twister and I am still not sure if I made it clear enough....

Wrong. It is NOT a matter of the just the CIA's say-so. She ahs to meet the criteria defined by law. THAT requires a legal determination; otherwise, this is just a farce.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/bjqqa


here is some documentation

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

 

[Gunny]

He used words like could have ad possible so NO they are not speculation.

They are possibilities

Dude, you are dumber'n a box of rocks. They aren't "speculation" they are "possibilities?"

GMAFB.

 

[Gunny]

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

So? That means ANYTHING in that paragraph could be secret.

 

[CockySOB]

Her status is only in question to people who refuse the facts.

Then you'd have no objection to bringing this issue before a Federal court, would you? Just tell me yes or no. Are you willing to let a Federal judge rule on whether Plame was covert under the definition of the US Codes?

 

[CockySOB]

So? That means ANYTHING in that paragraph could be secret.

Was anything in that "document" redacted? Just curious.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/speculation

Speculation that applies to this post is the third definition which involves coming to a conclusion.

He came to no conclusion he was merely stating a possibility.

spec·u·la·tion / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spek-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking.

 

[Gunny]

Was anything in that "document" redacted? Just curious.

You don't get the document. His link is to a WP article.

 

[Gunny]

spec·u·la·tion / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spek-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking.

Which is speculation, dimbulb. Geez.

 

[CockySOB]

spec·u·la·tion / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[spek-yuh-ley-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the contemplation or consideration of some subject: to engage in speculation on humanity's ultimate destiny.
2. a single instance or process of consideration.
3. a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation: These speculations are impossible to verify.
4. conjectural consideration of a matter; conjecture or surmise: a report based on speculation rather than facts.
5. engagement in business transactions involving considerable risk but offering the chance of large gains, esp. trading in commodities, stocks, etc., in the hope of profit from changes in the market price.
6. a speculative commercial venture or undertaking.

Now go look up "deflection" which is what you're practicing, and not very well at that.

 

[Care4all]

Wrong. It is NOT a matter of the just the CIA's say-so. She ahs to meet the criteria defined by law. THAT requires a legal determination; otherwise, this is just a farce.

I am uncertain precisely how it works, I know that Fitzgerald made sure he noted all of the specific things that would make an agent covered under this act, for Valerie plame, in his Libby Indictment....

He said that through the FBI Investigation, it was determined that Plame had traveled overseas 7-10 on undercover missions for the CIA.

He said that the CIA was actively trying to keep her status classified

He said that through investigation, it was determined that valerie's neighbors, relatives, friends, DID NOT know that she worked for the CIA

-------------

Why he listed all of these things about Valerie Plame in his perjury and obstruction case for Libby is beyond me, unless they were pertinent to the law and case?

------------------

But you are right, there is "some' step that seems to be missing in this, where I differ is the courts having to be involved....the law defining a covert, undercover officer is very simple to interpret, it's a matter of the CIA saying yes or no to a few simple questions about Valerie's work history.

Fitgerald had the FBI Investigators for the possible outing, get the pertinent information regarding valerie that would confirm her being an undercover agent covered by the protection.

Fitgerald's investigation was commissioned to find out who, if anyone, intentionally outed a CIA classified undercover, agent.

The agent's classification was not in question or it would have been part of the commission, the task given to him.... imo.

 

[red states rule]

I am uncertain precisely how it works, I know that Fitzgerald made sure he noted all of the specific things that would make an agent covered under this act, for Valerie plame, in his Libby Indictment....

He said that through the FBI Investigation, it was determined that Plame had traveled overseas 7-10 on undercover missions for the CIA.

He said that the CIA was actively trying to keep her status classified

He said that through investigation, it was determined that valerie's neighbors, relatives, friends, DID NOT know that she worked for the CIA

-------------

Why he listed all of these things about Valerie Plame in his perjury and obstruction case for Libby is beyond me, unless they were pertinent to the law and case?

------------------

But you are right, there is "some' step that seems to be missing in this, where I differ is the courts having to be involved....the law defining a covert, undercover officer is very simple to interpret, it's a matter of the CIA saying yes or no to a few simple questions about Valerie's work history.

Fitgerald had the FBI Investigators for the possible outing, get the pertinent information regarding valerie that would confirm her being an undercover agent covered by the protection.

Fitgerald's investigation was commissioned to find out who, if anyone, intentionally outed a CIA classified undercover, agent.

The agent's classification was not in question or it would have been part of the commission, the task given to him.... imo.

Plame Game

Former CIA officer Valerie Plame has accused high-ranking government officials of leaking her covert identity to the press, so you'd think she'd be especially sensitive to exposing classified information.

But Plame and the publisher of her upcoming memoirs are suing the CIA for refusing to let her write about her undercover work during her years at the agency.

An intelligence source says the manuscript as written would damage CIA operations, saying "the issue is her desire to talk about things she did which remain legitimately classified."

Plame announced the lawsuit at a New York trade show, where's she's promoting her new book

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,277193,00.html

 

[CockySOB]

Let's not forget the fact that Richard Armitage confessed to being the source for both Novak AND Woodward regarding who recommended Wilson be sent to Niger. With such a confession, does it not stand to reason that if an actual violation of the US Codes has occurred that Armitage would have been indicted? It would have been a slam-dunk, cut-and-dried case. So why didn't Fitzgerald indict Armitage for the substantive crime he was investigating? Perhaps because Plame was NOT a covert intelligence agent per the statutes? I mean, what else could it have been? Armitage admitted that he told both Novak and Woodward about Plame being Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, and that she recommended him for the trip. What else is required to prosecute this? An actual violation of the criminal codes!

Frankly if Fitzgerald couldn't make a case against Armitage, there is no way in he would be able to make a case against anyone.

Just something else to consider when discussing Plame's alleged covert status.

 

[maineman]

Let's not forget the fact that Richard Armitage confessed to being the source for both Novak AND Woodward regarding who recommended Wilson be sent to Niger. With such a confession, does it not stand to reason that if an actual violation of the US Codes has occurred that Armitage would have been indicted? It would have been a slam-dunk, cut-and-dried case. So why didn't Fitzgerald indict Armitage for the substantive crime he was investigating? Perhaps because Plame was NOT a covert intelligence agent per the statutes? I mean, what else could it have been? Armitage admitted that he told both Novak and Woodward about Plame being Wilson's wife, a CIA employee, and that she recommended him for the trip. What else is required to prosecute this? An actual violation of the criminal codes!

Frankly if Fitzgerald couldn't make a case against Armitage, there is no way in he would be able to make a case against anyone.

Just something else to consider when discussing Plame's alleged covert status.

so..again.... do you honestly think that the Director of Central Intelligence does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

 

[red states rule]

so..again.... do you honestly think that the Director of Central Intelligence does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

The point is she was NOT covert - just another government paper pusher who now wants a book deal

 

[maineman]

The point is she was NOT covert - just another government paper pusher who now wants a book deal

so you think that you do, in fact, know more about the status of his employees than the director of central intelligence does?

pretty sold on yourself, aren't ya?

 

[red states rule]

so you think that you do, in fact, know more about the status of his employees than the director of central intelligence does?

pretty sold on yourself, aren't ya?

Joe Wilson said she was not covert

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ar...plame_not_clandestine_when_novak_wrote_story/

 

[maineman]

that isn't what I asked you...

I asked you whether you think you know more about the status of his employees than the director of central intelligence does?

do you?