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

[maineman]

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

nice dodge SOB....

kind of beneath your normal standards of posting though, I must say.

 

[CockySOB]

nice dodge SOB....

kind of beneath your normal standards of posting though, I must say.

That was me being nice. Please go back and clarify your convoluted statement. I couldn't tell what the hell you were trying to say. (My mind's going to mush after a long week teaching game & animation programming techniques in a boot camp format - and I've got another week to go, oy!)

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.

 

[maineman]

the government can acknowledge that anyone is an employee of the CIA. That is not the same thing as acknowledging that the person is a covert employee.

Like I said. I have known several military officers who were covertly working for the CIA.... the government clearly would have acknowledged that they were in uniform, but not what they were doing or who they were reporting to.

The guy who, to everyone's knowledge, is the janitor at CIA HQ...or a cook in the CIA cafeteria, might very well be a superspy. Acknowledging that the superspy was a cook or a janitor who worked for the CIA is not synonymous with acknowledging that the superspy is, in fact, a superspy.

There are a host of folks who pour into Langley every day that are NOT covert..... even if the janitor (really a covert agent) himself were to admit to his neighbor that he was the janitor at CIA HQ, do you think he has "outed" himself?

 

[maineman]

and your mind going to mush is hardly my fault.

what I wrote might have been convoluted, but, if you took the time to try to understand it, it DID and DOES make sense

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

SO you AGREE that Libby did not out her as a covert agent?

 

[maineman]

SO you AGREE that Libby did not out her as a covert agent?

no...I agree that the CIA did not admit she was covert.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

The peon here is the one that thinks because a document is classified that means any name in said document is there for covert. That anyone that works with classified material is there for COVERT.

You made a specific claim, YOU said Libby told people specifically that she was a Covert agent..... STILL waiting for proof of that claim or a retraction.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The CIA made no effort to keep her identity secret. Your analogy doesn't work. They even allowed the switchboard to openly identify her as an employee of the CIA.

 

[maineman]

The CIA made no effort to keep her identity secret. Your analogy doesn't work. They even allowed the switchboard to openly identify her as an employee of the CIA.

CIA HQ.... yes...we have a Valerie Plame working for us...she is a (cook in our cafeteria)(on our cleaning crew)(in the typing pool)(ad nauseum)

in those example(s), did they admit she was a covert agent? yes or no

 

[RetiredGySgt]

CIA HQ.... yes...we have a Valerie Plame working for us...she is a (cook in our cafeteria)(on our cleaning crew)(in the typing pool)(ad nauseum)

in those example(s), did they admit she was a covert agent? yes or no

DID ANYONE say she was covert from the Administration? Provide evidence if you say yes.

 

[maineman]

RGS... I never claimed that the adminstration outed her....SOB did:

.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RGS... I never claimed that the adminstration outed her....SOB did:

.

Let me get this right.... Libby Obstructed an investigation into outing a CIA employee and lied about his involvement BUT there was no outing to begin with? The Vice President committed treason by ordering the outing of an agent that NO one outed from the Administration?

 

[CockySOB]

and your mind going to mush is hardly my fault.

what I wrote might have been convoluted, but, if you took the time to try to understand it, it DID and DOES make sense

Um, no. Unless you are reading something into my response to Care regarding how 50 USC 422 is read. She had indicated that she thought the contrapositive of her citation was a valid interpretation of the law, which it is not. I put forth a hypothetical in my explanation to her, and perhaps you misread that hypothetical as being opinion. (The key word being the 4th in your highlighted text quotation from my post - "if").

I have never claimed that anyone from the GWB administration "outed" Plame. There has never been a finding of legal fact as regards her status under the IIPA, which means that there has been no substantive crime committed.

Again, perhaps you should clarify where I made a claim that anyone in the GWB administration "outed" Plame. Or perhaps you should recant your statement to RetiredGySgt regarding my statement. Either response would be appropriate I think.

 

[CockySOB]

RGS... I never claimed that the adminstration outed her....SOB did:

.

That was a hypothetical statement to Care to demonstrate how her citation of 50 USC 422 would be applied regarding the Plame-kerfluffle, as opposed to her stated belief that the law's contrapositive (negation of hypothesis and negation of conclusion) is somehow a valid interpretation of the actual law.

 

[Care4all]

Um, no. Unless you are reading something into my response to Care regarding how 50 USC 422 is read. She had indicated that she thought the contrapositive of her citation was a valid interpretation of the law, which it is not. I put forth a hypothetical in my explanation to her, and perhaps you misread that hypothetical as being opinion. (The key word being the 4th in your highlighted text quotation from my post - "if").

I have never claimed that anyone from the GWB administration "outed" Plame. There has never been a finding of legal fact as regards her status under the IIPA, which means that there has been no substantive crime committed.

Again, perhaps you should clarify where I made a claim that anyone in the GWB administration "outed" Plame. Or perhaps you should recant your statement to RetiredGySgt regarding my statement. Either response would be appropriate I think.

what MM has said the law means, is that the accused can not be charged with outing an agent if the usa gvt outed her themselves previous to the accused's outing.

 

[red states rule]

Let me get this right.... Libby Obstructed an investigation into outing a CIA employee and lied about his involvement BUT there was no outing to begin with? The Vice President committed treason by ordering the outing of an agent that NO one outed from the Administration?

Liberal logic makes a figure eight look like a straight line

 

[red states rule]

the government can acknowledge that anyone is an employee of the CIA. That is not the same thing as acknowledging that the person is a covert employee.

Like I said. I have known several military officers who were covertly working for the CIA.... the government clearly would have acknowledged that they were in uniform, but not what they were doing or who they were reporting to.

The guy who, to everyone's knowledge, is the janitor at CIA HQ...or a cook in the CIA cafeteria, might very well be a superspy. Acknowledging that the superspy was a cook or a janitor who worked for the CIA is not synonymous with acknowledging that the superspy is, in fact, a superspy.

There are a host of folks who pour into Langley every day that are NOT covert..... even if the janitor (really a covert agent) himself were to admit to his neighbor that he was the janitor at CIA HQ, do you think he has "outed" himself?

Plame was NOT covert and her "outing" was not a crime

Scooter was made a scapgoat to justify the time and money spent investagating a non crime

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm

 

[CockySOB]

what MM has said the law means, is that the accused can not be charged with outing an agent if the usa gvt outed her themselves previous to the accused's outing.

If you're talking about post #418 he was quoting ME although he managed to mangle the quote tabs so that the first part of his post which quoted me did not properly attribute the content to me. A simple review of the text will show that. His original text was teh bold text immediately following my words.

The main thing though is that you properly understand how the Defense and Exception section of the law (50 USC 422) works, and that your prior application of it was incorrect. That's the main thing.

Or are you going to insist that it still gives directives to the prosecution about them having to have proven a crime happened BEFORE the investigation can start?

 

[red states rule]

Since Scooter could not remember how a conversation went years earlier - we all can be convicted of a crime

 

[CockySOB]

Since Scooter could not remember how a conversation went years earlier - we all can be convicted of a crime

Here's an interesting article from Susan Estrich which follows the same theme. I find it interesting because I would NEVER have imagined Ms. Estrich taking the stance, especially when it would mean defending a Republican. I've snipped two of the more salient paragraphs from her article, but I recommend reading the entire article.

...
The only problem here is that there was no underlying crime. The answer to the question Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was initially appointed to investigate — had anyone violated the law in disclosing Ms. Plame's name in their effort to discredit her husband's criticism of the administration's war policy — was no. No one violated what we used to call the "Agents Law." Dick Armitage, the guy who admits he gave out her name in the first place, isn't facing time; nor are Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or any of the reporters or news organizations who didn't hesitate to disclose her identity.
...​

...
There is something troubling about prosecutors using perjury and obstruction of justice to turn into criminals people who haven't committed any other crime. Instead of using the grand jury as a tool for investigating other criminal activity, it becomes the forum for creating criminal conduct. The role of the FBI and federal prosecutors becomes one of creating criminals instead of catching them. Technically, I know, it's not entrapment, but it's still different than the usual business of tracking down those who have violated the law and punishing them for their bad acts. The investigation doesn't solve the crime; it creates it.
...​