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

[maineman]

STILL waiting for your explanation on WHY Libby wasn't charged with outing Plume. You have STATED he did it and that he specifically said she was covert. You have stated there are a host of witnesses to this. Either retract that or explain it.

I think I am still waiting for YOU to explain why the director of central intelligence - a Bush appointee - would state that Plame was a covert agent if she wasn't...especially given how damaging that statement is to the administration.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I think I am still waiting for YOU to explain why the director of central intelligence - a Bush appointee - would state that Plame was a covert agent if she wasn't...especially given how damaging that statement is to the administration.

Red herring

 

[maineman]

yellowfin tuna.

I can name fish too....

what does that have to do with answering my question?

uncomfortable?

 

[Care4all]

STILL waiting for your explanation on WHY Libby wasn't charged with outing Plume. You have STATED he did it and that he specifically said she was covert. You have stated there are a host of witnesses to this. Either retract that or explain it.

I don't know why Libby, Armitage, the Veep or Rove were not charged in this crime other than what Fitzgerald said, that the obstruction of Justice by Libby was like sand being thrown in the Umpire's eyes as the ball was crossing the plate, he being the umpire.

I think the case may have been too sensitive to pursue in the public once discovery was complete, but that is just speculation on my part, I admit.

I am disappointed that we never got to the bottom of it, and how it related to the hype of the administration regarding wmd's and saddam's threat to us.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not at all. The CIA director is NOT now nor in the future, under current law, the decider on who is legally Covert. His opinion is JUST that, an opinion. He has a duty to state his opinion ( or more likely an opinion designed to not ruffle feathers of the non political employees at CIA) BUT a COURT has to make the determination as to legal status. Otherwise there is NO reason to have a law that doesn't state " the Director of the CIA determines who is Covert"

Keep avoiding the question... If as Care has insisted and as the Prosecutor kept claiming, Libby outed Plume why wasn't he charged? Why only get him on the lesser charges? Care has INSISTED there are a host of witnesses to testify that not only did he out her as a CIA operative BUT specifically as a COVERT one.

Of course the ludicrous claim is belied by the fact all one had to do was call Langley and ask if she worked there and the answer was " Why yes, she is employed by the CIA"

So let me get this straight, if I am a foreign government and I suspect that Joe Dirtbag , the US embassy guy is REALLY a CIA plant, all I need do is call Langley with his name and they will freely tell me that YES indeed, he works for the CIA? All I need do if I think Sarah Rottencrouch , that representative of Company Bongsellers is really a CIA agent, all I need do is call Langley and they will freely admit that YES she is an Employee of the CIA?

If she was supposedly an employee of a "Front " Company for the CIA WHY would the CIA admit she was really an employee of the CIA? The switchboard at Langley outed her AND disclosed the fact her "Front" company was bogus.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I don't know why Libby, Armitage, the Veep or Rove were not charged in this crime other than what Fitzgerald said, that the obstruction of Justice by Libby was like sand being thrown in the Umpire's eyes as the ball was crossing the plate, he being the umpire.

I think the case may have been too sensitive to pursue in the public once discovery was complete, but that is just speculation on my part, I admit.

I am disappointed that we never got to the bottom of it, and how it related to the hype of the administration regarding wmd's and saddam's threat to us.

Care

What? More unsubstantiated opinion? What happened to that list of witnesses and that claim Libby outed her COVERT status BY telling everyone she was Covert?

Are you also disappointed we never got to the bottom of the Clinton scandals because McDougal OBSTRUCTED Justice?

 

[Truthmatters]

Where is your proof this court proof thing has NOT already happened?

You see there is a judge in this trail.

He has seen the evidence and so has congressional commitee heads.

They have seen the documentation you are screaming about and found it met the covert status.

Do you really think they need a court case to determine if she was covert?

damn you people are funny.

 

[Care4all]

Not at all. The CIA director is NOT now nor in the future, under current law, the decider on who is legally Covert. His opinion is JUST that, an opinion. He has a duty to state his opinion ( or more likely an opinion designed to not ruffle feathers of the non political employees at CIA) BUT a COURT has to make the determination as to legal status. Otherwise there is NO reason to have a law that doesn't state " the Director of the CIA determines who is Covert"

Can YOU show us where in the Law that it states a court determines the status of a CIA employees classified status, and not the government agency that employs the agent?

If YOU ever BOTHERED to read the laws regarding outing a covert agent or the laws surrounding the leaking of classified information you would know
that the law being discussed as being broken is not a law defining a covert agent, it is a law requiring the protection of such classified identies of such agents. (The Intelligence Identities Protection Act)



Keep avoiding the question... If as Care has insisted and as the Prosecutor kept claiming, Libby outed Plume why wasn't he charged? Why only get him on the lesser charges? Care has INSISTED there are a host of witnesses to testify that not only did he out her as a CIA operative BUT specifically as a COVERT one.

All I can say, as I have said, is that Fitzgerald said that Libby's obstruction of Justice prevented him from getting to the bottom of this...

In the trial evidence was produced that showed that scooter Libby revealed Plame's identity to Judith Miller Prior to the Novak article.

In the trial evidnce are memos regarding Wilson and plame that were classified, and shown to libby and known to Libby a MONTH ahead of the outing, with hand writen notes from the vp and Libby discussing on how to handle this info with the press, the angle that Wilson was sent on the trip by his wife, implying nepostism and implying Plame had an agenda to fill just 5 months after 9/11 against the administration.

As I have said on another thread, perhaps after disclosure, it was too sensitive to pursue it further? I honestly do not know.

Of course the ludicrous claim is belied by the fact all one had to do was call Langley and ask if she worked there and the answer was " Why yes, she is employed by the CIA"

Covert does not mean secret...it means in disguise of sorts.

Novak said she was a covert operative in the WMD counter/ intelligence division or something like this...he did not report that she was just some analyst if memory serves.

So let me get this straight, if I am a foreign government and I suspect that Joe Dirtbag , the US embassy guy is REALLY a CIA plant, all I need do is call Langley with his name and they will freely tell me that YES indeed, he works for the CIA? All I need do if I think Sarah Rottencrouch , that representative of Company Bongsellers is really a CIA agent, all I need do is call Langley and they will freely admit that YES she is an Employee of the CIA?

If she was supposedly an employee of a "Front " Company for the CIA WHY would the CIA admit she was really an employee of the CIA? The switchboard at Langley outed her AND disclosed the fact her "Front" company was bogus.

I am uncertain if the front company still existed after she was called in to duty at the home office. I believe she was promoted and her duties change, though still being undercover and classified from what I have read?

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Dance Care, Dance.

 

[CockySOB]

I think I am still waiting for YOU to explain why the director of central intelligence - a Bush appointee - would state that Plame was a covert agent if she wasn't...especially given how damaging that statement is to the administration.

Once again, "covert" as a regulatory definition used internally at the CIA is NOT the same "covert" definition used in the US Codes. Moreover, the DCI can hold whatever beliefs he wants, but his beliefs are NOT a codification of US law. So a court ruling would still be required to produce the legal finding of fact of Plame's legal status under the law.

What part of THAT is confusing?

 

[CockySOB]

What are you talking about SGT?

There is a law regarding the outing of a covert agent.

Pertaining to that law, there are definitions of the specific terms used in a separate section, which includes the definition of covert.

also in a separate section of that Law, it says the USA gvt must Acknowledge to the Justice Dept/Investigating prosecutor the covert status of the agent outed, before the prosecutor can bring an investigative case and indictment against the "outers".

I'm still waiting for you to cite the specific Title and Section for this law which lays out such a process.

I don't know why Libby, Armitage, the Veep or Rove were not charged in this crime other than what Fitzgerald said, that the obstruction of Justice by Libby was like sand being thrown in the Umpire's eyes as the ball was crossing the plate, he being the umpire.

I think the case may have been too sensitive to pursue in the public once discovery was complete, but that is just speculation on my part, I admit.

I am disappointed that we never got to the bottom of it, and how it related to the hype of the administration regarding wmd's and saddam's threat to us.

Care

If you can ever wrap you head around the FACT that an investigation is undertaken AFTER an incident occurs, and BEFORE it is finalized whether a crime was actually committed, THEN we might get somewhere.

I'm still waiting for you to show the specific citation of US Codes which dictates your allegation from the top quotation. My guess is that once you realized you we're talking shit, you decided to run for the hills. So please, present your citation which dictates that a prosecutor cannot begin an investigation until after it is proven that a crime has been committed. As I said earlier, part of the investigatory process IS determining whetehr a crime has been committed.

Title and Section of the US Codes, please.

 

[Care4all]

I'm still waiting for you to cite the specific Title and Section for this law which lays out such a process.



If you can ever wrap you head around the FACT that an investigation is undertaken AFTER an incident occurs, and BEFORE it is finalized whether a crime was actually committed, THEN we might get somewhere.

I'm still waiting for you to show the specific citation of US Codes which dictates your allegation from the top quotation. My guess is that once you realized you we're talking shit, you decided to run for the hills. So please, present your citation which dictates that a prosecutor cannot begin an investigation until after it is proven that a crime has been committed. As I said earlier, part of the investigatory process IS determining whetehr a crime has been committed.

Title and Section of the US Codes, please.

422. Defenses and exceptions


(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent

It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply
(A) in the case of a person who acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, or
(B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.
(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.
(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

That BEFORE the commission of the offence involved in section 421, (which to me means before the Prosecution even tries to develop the case to charge someone with outing an agent...he better damn well have gotten the acknowledgement that the agent was covert, otherwise he has wasted his time and the gvt's time and money.)

...the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

In the trial, Fritgerald acknowledged before the court that she met the criteria of covert under 421, according to the FBi investigators and other sources he used, he said the CIa was actively trying to keep her identity undercover, he said that it was found out that she had made 7-10 trips undercover for the CIA within the last few years, and it was determined that her friends, her extended family, and her neighbors did not know that she worked for the CIA and that her identity was not common knowledge or known to the public.....

He began his trial case with all of that...

Even though, he did not have to in my opinion because he was not charging Libby with the outing, but I guess because it was obstruction regarding the investigation in to the outing he brought it up? I really am not sure why, but he did, and he listed those criterias of Plame's situation in the exact order of the definition of covert in the law.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The entire point is that one MUST know that a person is Covert for the law to apply. Libby was not charged because there either was No outing of a Covert agent OR no proof he knew she was Covert.

Either one makes the entire "obstruction of Justice" moot, as then he would have NO reason to Obstruct.

YOU on the other hand have INSISTED over and over AND refused to provide one shred of proof, that Libby KNEW she was Covert, that there are a slew of witnesses to state he TOLD them she was covert AND that he was lying and obstructing to Protect the Vice President.

The excuse that her name appears in a report that was classified does not equal SHE was Covert, nor does it equate to proof he outed a KNOWN Covert agent. Using your logic, we can assume her husband, whom also appears in the CLASSIFIED report must also be a Covert Agent of the CIA.

Further the fact the CIA openly and readily told anyone calling Langley she WORKED for the CIA belies the claim no one knew or could find out she was a CIA employee. To add to that MOST CIA employees are NOT Covert. And analysts are generally NOT Covert.

I worked in a classified area on classified equipment with a security clearance, while I was in the Marine Corps. I was NEVER Covert. Using your criteria one would have to assume that I was simply because my work was classified.

 

[maineman]

I worked in a classified area on classified equipment with a security clearance, while I was in the Marine Corps. I was NEVER Covert. Using your criteria one would have to assume that I was simply because my work was classified.

If you worked on highly classified projects and the marine corps went to extraordinary lengths to portray your service as something mundane, you might very well be covert.

I have known more than one military officer who was covertly working for the CIA. The fact that they worked for Uncle Sam in uniform was not a secret, what they DID for Uncle Sam and who they also reported to was.

 

[CockySOB]

That BEFORE the commission of the offence involved in section 421, (which to me means before the Prosecution even tries to develop the case to charge someone with outing an agent...he better damn well have gotten the acknowledgement that the agent was covert, otherwise he has wasted his time and the gvt's time and money.)

...the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

In the trial, Fritgerald acknowledged before the court that she met the criteria of covert under 421, according to the FBi investigators and other sources he used, he said the CIa was actively trying to keep her identity undercover, he said that it was found out that she had made 7-10 trips undercover for the CIA within the last few years, and it was determined that her friends, her extended family, and her neighbors did not know that she worked for the CIA and that her identity was not common knowledge or known to the public.....

He began his trial case with all of that...

Even though, he did not have to in my opinion because he was not charging Libby with the outing, but I guess because it was obstruction regarding the investigation in to the outing he brought it up? I really am not sure why, but he did, and he listed those criterias of Plame's situation in the exact order of the definition of covert in the law.

Care

Wrong. You need to learn how to read the law. Let me assist you.

The Defenses and Exceptions code (50 USC 422) provides for an affirmative defense OF THE ACCUSED that should the government of the USA have acknowledged that the identity of a covert intelligence agent PRIOR to the accused having exposed that identity. This means that if the government had publicly acknowledged that Plame was covert PRIOR to when Armitage, Libby or anyone else had revealed same information, there would be no violation of the law since the information was already public.

Specifically, if John Doe was accused of "outing" Jane Smith on 1/1/2003, but that the government had publicly acknowledged that Smith was a CIA employee PRIOR to 1/1/2003, then John Doe could not have violated the law because the information/identity of Jane Smith and her relationship to the government of the USA was already public information.

By the way, the contrapositive of this example is NOT a valid argument, as negating the hypothesis does not necessarily negate the conclusion as a matter of law. So trying to take the negative of the defense is not affirmation of the negative of the conclusion. And I think that's where you made your mistake.

 

[Care4all]

The entire point is that one MUST know that a person is Covert for the law to apply. Libby was not charged because there either was No outing of a Covert agent OR no proof he knew she was Covert.

the dept she worked for contains MOSTLY undercover agents and this was WLL KNOWN by all.

Either one makes the entire "obstruction of Justice" moot, as then he would have NO reason to Obstruct.

no, it would not make obstruction charge moot, where in heaven's name do you get that from sgt?

it is common practice, martha stewart just went to jail on obstruction of justice charges, they never were able to charge her with the insider trading.

YOU on the other hand have INSISTED over and over AND refused to provide one shred of proof, that Libby KNEW she was Covert, that there are a slew of witnesses to state he TOLD them she was covert AND that he was lying and obstructing to Protect the Vice President.

huh? no, i never said he told the press she was covert. novak did that though, he labeled her as a covert operative...

The excuse that her name appears in a report that was classified does not equal SHE was Covert, nor does it equate to proof he outed a KNOWN Covert agent. Using your logic, we can assume her husband, whom also appears in the CLASSIFIED report must also be a Covert Agent of the CIA.


the reason libby knew plames status was classified is 1, the dept she worked in, and 2 the classified document with her identity on it had the word ''secret'' penciled right next to her name, which identified her status as classidied undercover.


Further the fact the CIA openly and readily told anyone calling Langley she WORKED for the CIA belies the claim no one knew or could find out she was a CIA employee. To add to that MOST CIA employees are NOT Covert. And analysts are generally NOT Covert.

I worked in a classified area on classified equipment with a security clearance, while I was in the Marine Corps. I was NEVER Covert. Using your criteria one would have to assume that I was simply because my work was classified.

you are a peon compared to valerie plame, you do not in any way come close to comparing yourself with her classified undercover officer for the CIA status. you were never covert or a NOC for the cia.

care

 

[DeadCanDance]

this is one of the funniest threads ever.

Over the course of two years, Cons have danced between claiming that virtually everyone in Washington knew who plame was, and what she did, to trying to tell us that the CIA and Patrick Fitzgerald are wrong about plame being a covert agent.

After one has been wrong so many times, you'd think they'd stop tap dancing and continually changing their stories.

 

[maineman]

The Defenses and Exceptions code (50 USC 422) provides for an affirmative defense OF THE ACCUSED that should the government of the USA have acknowledged that the identity of a covert intelligence agent PRIOR to the accused having exposed that identity. This means that if the government had publicly acknowledged that Plame was covert PRIOR to when Armitage, Libby or anyone else had revealed same information, there would be no violation of the law since the information was already public.

and the government NEVER acknowledged that Plame was covert. They may have not gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the fact that she worked at the CIA, but the CIA employs janitors and cafeteria workers and clerks and typists and a whole host of peons who are not covert. Telling anyone that Plame worked for the CIA was NOT synonymous with acknowledging that she was COVERT.

 

[Care4all]

The Defenses and Exceptions code (50 USC 422) provides for an affirmative defense OF THE ACCUSED that should the government of the USA have acknowledged that the identity of a covert intelligence agent PRIOR to the accused having exposed that identity. This means that if the government had publicly acknowledged that Plame was covert PRIOR to when Armitage, Libby or anyone else had revealed same information, there would be no violation of the law since the information was already public.

and the government NEVER acknowledged that Plame was covert. They may have not gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the fact that she worked at the CIA, but the CIA employs janitors and cafeteria workers and clerks and typists and a whole host of peons who are not covert. Telling anyone that Plame worked for the CIA was NOT synonymous with acknowledging that she was COVERT.

ohhhhhhhhh, i seeeeee ok

 

[CockySOB]

ohhhhhhhhh, i seeeeee ok

I'm glad someone understood what he wrote. To be honest I thought perhaps Psychoblues had grabbed maineman's keyboard and gone to town....