• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fitzgerald got "creative" as expected..

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know some here want to believe that I am blind about any wrongdoing from the Bush whitehouse, ..or that I think BUsh has been at his best with everything!

Not true on both counts. However, ...I'am so sick of the way prosecutors ignore some things when it comes to investigating people like Sandy Berger who LIED & WAS CAUGHT in a LIE, or Bill Clinton.....the press does not make it a big deal like they do when repubs get prosecuted.

I suspected the prosecutor could not get Rove, or LIbby or anybody on the actual charge of deliberatley outing Valerie Plame, ..& probably WOULD resort to getting something he could dredge up.

Listen, how do we know that perhaps Libby simply got his dates, & places wrong by mistake? It has been almost two years ya know.

Even the media has PRESUMED Libby broke laws & is guilty, ..I know the prosecutor says he deserves to be seen as innocent until he is convicted in a court of law, ..but the media ALREADY HAS HIM GUILTY by the very things they say, & how they say it!

IMO I must say that whenever it comes to grand juries, & special prosecutors, ..it seems there is different press treatment, & different types of editorializing that always PRESUMES to have democrats look not quite so bad, ..& the republicans "twice the son of hell".

What TROUBLES me MOST is the fact that IT never REALLY has been established that Plame was a COVERT CIA operator, ..that fact has actually been left in limbo, or basically ignored...ecept for Fitzgerald own "opinion" which might NOT be held up in a court of law.

I will NEVER believe that LIbby was the first to KNOW of her, ..or the first to actually tell the media something that mANY of the media people probably ALREADY knew before LIbby tipped her I.D. off to them.

THe Wilson's were a very flamboyant couple, ..I'm not saying that should relieve Libby of his responsibility now, ..it just seems to me that "somebody" from the media more than likely ALREADY knew about her relationship with the CIA, ..& if that is true, ..I find it rather PETTY that Fitzgerald looked for anything to get somebody from the whitehouse on a charge, ..as long as it was a 'charge' period.

If it was because Libby lied, ..my God...Clinton should have been indicted big time for his lies, rther than just accept a fine, & be disbarred. He had ALREADY suborned perjury by a false affadavit, & knowingly lied to a judge; & his DNA was proof enough, not speculation, but damn solid proof!

In the end, ...that prosecutor felt Clinton too big to put him thru a trial, & dared NOT to attempt it.

Clinton was terribly embarrassed, ..but other than that, his crimes were basically not entered into the record, ..& they let him get out of it much more graciously than they could have.

To me....this is how it always seems to go whenever a democrat gets themself into trouble with a grand jury, ..their treatment is by far not quite the same.;)
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
What TROUBLES me MOST is the fact that IT never REALLY has been established that Plame was a COVERT CIA operator, ..that fact has actually been left in limbo, or basically ignored...ecept for Fitzgerald own "opinion" which might NOT be held up in a court of law.

LMAO I cannot believe you all are still asserting this. Hey, if you want to think that she was not "covert," you go right ahead. Why don't you do some research here and bring it to this board to prove otherwise.

Stu, logic should tell you that if she was NOT covert that the CIA would not refer this for an investigation. If she was not covert, there can be no violation of that statute. Please check out this site, if you care, particularly Larry Johnson's bio. Somehow, I highly doubt that this person doesn't know what constitutes a covert agent.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/24/134330/592

Now keep telling yourself she is not a covert agent. ;)
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
What TROUBLES me MOST is the fact that IT never REALLY has been established that Plame was a COVERT CIA operator, ..that fact has actually been left in limbo, or basically ignored...ecept for Fitzgerald own "opinion" which might NOT be held up in a court of law.

LMAO I cannot believe you all are still asserting this. Hey, if you want to think that she was not "covert," you go right ahead. Why don't you do some research here and bring it to this board to prove otherwise.

Stu, logic should tell you that if she was NOT covert that the CIA would not refer this for an investigation. If she was not covert, there can be no violation of that statute. Please check out this site, if you care, particularly Larry Johnson's bio. Somehow, I highly doubt that this person doesn't know what constitutes a covert agent.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/24/134330/592

Now keep telling yourself she is not a covert agent. ;)






Aps, be patient please. Listen, He was NOT indicted for outing her,...WHY??

THat WAS the whole intent of the grand jury, THe charge man, ..the charge!

He was indicted for lying, perjury, & obstruction...but NOT for outing her because THEY could NOT prove that charge.

I'm not saying LIbby is lilly white clean, ..you misunderstand me here.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
To still asume that the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was not classified reuiqres one to assume that the CIA et al are some combination of incompetent and liars.
A fellow who was a CIA spokesman came out and said that the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. The CIA investigated the matter before they sent it to the DoJ.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
2,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Stu Ghatze said:
Aps, be patient please. Listen, He was NOT indicted for outing her,...WHY??

THat WAS the whole intent of the grand jury, THe charge man, ..the charge!

He was indicted for lying, perjury, & obstruction...but NOT for outing her because THEY could NOT prove that charge.
Maybe Fizgerald couldn't prove the charge because Libby lied and obstructed justice?

And to say the media wasn't all over Clinton is ridiculous. It was plastered on every news station in the country for months, I got sick of hearing about it.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The CIA investigated the matter before they sent it to the DoJ.
The CIA, having no legal authority to bring indictments, referred the matter to the DoJ because they always, as a matter of policy, refer apparent or possible leaks of classified info. The CIA did not refer the matter to the DoJ because Valerie Plame may or may not have been 'outed'. The classified info that was leaked and referred to the DoJ pertained to the Niger mission itself.

The statute on revealing the identity of covert agents (emphasize 'covert') specifies that such will put the agent's life in jeopardy. It is problematic nad arguable whether or not Plame's current (for more than 5 years) soccer mom life was placed in jeopardy by the revealing of her identity as Joe Wilson's wife.

And lets emphasize 'problematic' too, because this aspect may or may not still be on the prosecutor's radar screen. We don't know, he hasn't told us definitively one way or the other.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Maybe Fizgerald couldn't prove the charge because Libby lied and obstructed justice?

And to say the media wasn't all over Clinton is ridiculous. It was plastered on every news station in the country for months, I got sick of hearing about it.
Are you equally "sick of hearing about it" now pertaining to this case?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
The CIA did not refer the matter to the DoJ because Valerie Plame may or may not have been 'outed'. The classified info that was leaked and referred to the DoJ pertained to the Niger mission itself.
Who on earth told you this malarkey. Whoever was, don't trust them any more.

This appears to be at odds w/ how the DoJ is characterizing the affair.
To wit, the letter from the Acting Attorney General to Fitzgerald December 30, 2003:
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.
So, again, I ask where you got your faulty info? Is your source more authoritative than the Office of the Attorney General re this matter?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
To still asume that the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was not classified reuiqres one to assume that the CIA et al are some combination of incompetent and liars.
A fellow who was a CIA spokesman came out and said that the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. The CIA investigated the matter before they sent it to the DoJ.
The question was whether she was covert, she was not as far as anyone can tell. The question for Fitzgerald is why didn't he clear that fact up once and for all. Leaking classified information is not in and of itself illegal according to the legal experts I heard discussing it yesterday, and everyone at the CIA just about is "classified", that is an entirely different matter from being a covert operative. And she was outed several times before this ever happened so her being classified was no longer operative. He said he wasn't going to address that matter because he could not determine if Libby knew she was or was not and gave his baseball analogy. Well the umpire first has to determine if someone was hit by the ball before he move on to whether it was intentional. He did not. His whole indictment raises as many questions as it answers. Guess we'll just have to wait until it goes to court, if it ever does.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
Who on earth told you this malarkey. Whoever was, don't trust them any more.

This appears to be at odds w/ how the DoJ is characterizing the affair.
To wit, the letter from the Acting Attorney General to Fitzgerald December 30, 2003:
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.
So, again, I ask where you got your faulty info? Is your source more authoritative than the Office of the Attorney General re this matter?
That's exactly what Oldreliable was saying, it was not a referal based on whether she was covert, I can't find them right now but I believe there were 11 questions in thier referral and not one said anything about covert.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
And she was outed several times before this ever happened so her being classified was no longer operative.
This is not true. As the saying goes, "CNN is not a declassifying authority." What's classified is classified until it is declassified.

Stinger said:
He said he wasn't going to address that matter because he could not determine if Libby knew she was or was not and gave his baseball analogy.
That's not an accurate description. He refers merely to her status being classified, (which may sometimes be something different than being 'covert'.):

QUESTION: The indictment describes Lewis Libby giving classified information concerning the identify of a CIA agent to some individuals who were not eligible to receive that information. Can you explain why that does not, in and of itself, constitute a crime?

FITZGERALD: That's a good question. And I think, knowing that he gave the information to someone who was outside the government, not entitled to receive it, and knowing that the information was classified, is not enough.

FITZGERALD: You need to know at the time that he transmitted the information, he appreciated that it was classified information, that he knew it or acted, in certain statutes, with recklessness.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
That's exactly what Oldreliable was saying, it was not a referal based on whether she was covert, I can't find them right now but I believe there were 11 questions in thier referral and not one said anything about covert.
It is not "exactly what Oldreliable was saying."

Oldreliable specifically said;
"The CIA did not refer the matter to the DoJ because Valerie Plame may or may not have been 'outed'."
Yet the record shows that the CIA did refer the case because "Valerie Plame may or may not have been 'outed.'"As far as I can tell, these are opposite and contrary things, not the same things let alone "exactly" the same things.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
This is not true. As the saying goes, "CNN is not a declassifying authority." What's classified is classified until it is declassified.
You miss the point. The CIA itself had mistakenly outed her so there was no outing to be done. And leaking classified information is not on it's face illegal. The fact is he did not charge Libby on the core issue and I find his explaination of why not very lacking and crurious that he did not even investigate whether the law even applied.

That's not an accurate description. He refers merely to her status being classified, (which may sometimes be something different than being 'covert'.):
And by all accounts IS in this case, she was not covert. He went to great lengths to NOT use that word to describe but used repeatedly said her employment was classified, that's a very broad description covering, from what many I heard yesterday say, just about everyone over there.

Again it seems to me the first thing he should have done, using his baseball analogy, was to find out of the hitter was indeed a baseball player and had indeed been standing at the plate. He is NOT charging Libby with anything to do with leaking anything at all. So why did he go on with the investigation without first establishing whether Plame was subject to a leak violation and someone had violated that law.

One other thing pops up. The charge is he told the grand jury and the FBI that he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from reporters but Fitzgerald claims that he first heard it from Cheney because there is a note that says Cheney said it. Does he have incontriable proof Libby didn't hear it from a reporter before he heard it from Cheney? A week before or even a month before? Just because there are notes he did hear it from Cheney why does that automatically preclude him having heard it before from someone else beflore. Guess we'll have to wait till the trial to find out
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
2,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
cnredd said:
Are you equally "sick of hearing about it" now pertaining to this case?
Actually, yes. I'm sick of hearing about corrupt government and lying politicians. Please don't label me, I never said why I was sick of hearing about Clinton. Perjury is perjury, I say throw the book at 'em no matter what side they're batting for.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
... I find his explaination of why not very lacking and crurious that he did not even investigate whether the law even applied.
What leads you to believe that "he did not even investigate whether the law even applied?"

Stinger said:
And by all accounts IS in this case, she was not covert. He went to great lengths to NOT use that word to describe but used repeatedly said her employment was classified, that's a very broad description covering, from what many I heard yesterday say, just about everyone over there.
I'm unsure how much credence to grant your FOAF citation here.

Stinger said:
Again it seems to me the first thing he should have done, using his baseball analogy, was to find out of the hitter was indeed a baseball player and had indeed been standing at the plate. He is NOT charging Libby with anything to do with leaking anything at all. So why did he go on with the investigation without first establishing whether Plame was subject to a leak violation and someone had violated that law.
There's no reason to think that he that he did not.

Stinger said:
The charge is he told the grand jury and the FBI that he first heard that Plame worked for the CIA from reporters but Fitzgerald claims that he first heard it from Cheney because there is a note that says Cheney said it. Does he have incontriable proof Libby didn't hear it from a reporter before he heard it from Cheney? A week before or even a month before? Just because there are notes he did hear it from Cheney why does that automatically preclude him having heard it before from someone else beflore.
If you examine the indictment, you'll see that more than merely failing to remember something, there're instances of 'remembering' things that did not happen. You should also notice that cites reporters as his sole source.
So, even if he had heard of it from reporters first, they were not his only source of info on the matter.
Consider:
... in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, [Libby] stated that:
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President.
a. Russert did not ask LIBBY if LIBBY knew that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did he tell LIBBY that all the reporters knew it; and
b. At the time of this conversation, LIBBY was well aware that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

... in response to questions posed to him by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated that:
During a conversation with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine on July 12, 2003, LIBBY told Cooper that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, but LIBBY did not know if this was true.
... LIBBY did not advise Cooper on or about July 12, 2003 that reporters were telling the administration that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, nor did LIBBY advise him that LIBBY did not know whether this was true; rather, LIBBY confirmed for Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

... he [Libby] gave the following testimony regarding a conversation that he represented he had with Tim Russert of NBC News, on or about July 10, 2003 (underlined portions alleged as false):
. . . . And then he said, you know, did you know that this – excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA?And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said – he may have said a little more but that was – he said that. And I said, no, I don't know that. And I said, no, I don't know that intentionally because I didn't want him to take anything I was saying as in any way confirming what he said, because at that point in time I did not recall that I had ever known, and I thought this is something that he was telling me that I was first learning. And so I said, no, I don't know that because I want to be very careful not to confirm it for him, so that he didn't take my statement as confirmation for him.

So then he said – I said – he
said, sorry – he, Mr. Russert said to me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife, or his wife, works at the CIA? And I said, no, I don't know that. And then he said, yeah – yes, all the reporters know it. And I said, again, I don't know that. I just wanted to be clear that I wasn't confirming anything for him on this. And you know, I was struck by what he was saying in that he thought it was an important fact, but I didn't ask him anymore about it because I didn't want to be digging in on him ...
Testimony Given on or about March 5, 2004 Regarding a Conversation With Matthew Cooper on or About July 12, 2003:
Q. And it's your specific recollection that when you told Cooper about Wilson's wife working at the CIA, you attributed that fact to what reporters –
A. Yes.
Q. – plural, were saying. Correct?
A. I was very clear to say reporters are telling us that because in my mind I still didn't know it as a fact. I thought I was – all I had was this information that was coming in from the reporters.
Q. And at the same time you have a specific recollection of telling him, you don't know whether it's true or not, you're just telling him what reporters are saying?
A. Yes, that's correct, sir. And I said, reporters are telling us that, I don't know if it's true. I was careful about that because among other things, I wanted to be clear I didn't know Mr. Wilson. I don't know – I think I said, I don't know if he has a wife, but this is what we're hearing.
Testimony Given on or about March 24, 2004 Regarding Conversations With Reporters:
Q. And let me ask you this directly. Did the fact that you knew that the law could turn, the law as to whether a crime was committed, could turn on where you learned the information from, affect your account for the FBI when you told them that you were telling reporters Wilson's wife worked at the CIA but your source was a reporter rather than the Vice-President?
A. No, it's a fact. It was a fact, that's what I told the reporters.
Q. And you're, you're certain as you sit here today that every reporter you told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, you sourced it back to other reporters?
A. Yes, sir, because it was important for what I was saying and because it was – that's what – that's how I did it.
Q. The next set of questions from the Grand Jury are – concern this fact. If you did not understand the information about Wilson's wife to have been classified and didn't understand it when you heard it from Mr. Russert, why was it that you were so deliberate to make sure that you told other reporters that reporters were saying it and not assert it as something you knew?
A. I want – I didn't want to – I didn't know if it was true and I didn't want people – I didn't want the reporters to think it was true because I said it. I – all I had was that reporters are telling us that, and by that I wanted them to understand it wasn't coming from me and that it might not be true. Reporters write things that aren't true sometimes, or get things that aren't true. So I wanted to be clear they didn't, they didn't think it was me saying it. I didn't know it was true and I wanted them to understand that. Also, it was important to me to let them know that because what I was telling them was that I don't know Mr. Wilson. We didn't ask for his mission. That I didn't see his report.
Basically, we didn't know anything about him until this stuff came out in June. And among the other things, I didn't know he had a wife. That was one of the things I said to Mr. Cooper. I don't know if he's married. And so I wanted to be very clear about all this stuff that I didn't, I didn't know about him. And the only thing I had, I thought at the time, was what reporters are telling us.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Actually, yes. I'm sick of hearing about corrupt government and lying politicians. Please don't label me, I never said why I was sick of hearing about Clinton. Perjury is perjury, I say throw the book at 'em no matter what side they're batting for.
Good call...

You would be correct in thinking I put out a "leading" question...Your earlier comment about Clinton did appear partisan and I was calling you on it...If your current comment is sincere, then that nips my question right in the bud...

One thing your comment DOES prove is that the comparisons between the Clinton scandal & the Libby scandal are legit...both are about "corrupt government and lying politicians"...(Although Libby isn't convicted...yet?, the story is still ABOUT this)...
 

scottyz

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
What exactly do you think the obstruction of justice charge was for? :2wave: Fitzgerald probably could have gotten to the bottom of this if admin. officials would stop lying to him.
 

TwoPops4Sure

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Re: READ THESE AND WEEP....

Stu Ghatze said:
I know some here want to believe that I am blind about any wrongdoing from the Bush whitehouse, ..or that I think BUsh has been at his best with everything!

Not true on both counts. However, ...I'am so sick of the way prosecutors ignore some things when it comes to investigating people like Sandy Berger who LIED & WAS CAUGHT in a LIE, or Bill Clinton.....the press does not make it a big deal like they do when repubs get prosecuted.

I suspected the prosecutor could not get Rove, or LIbby or anybody on the actual charge of deliberatley outing Valerie Plame, ..& probably WOULD resort to getting something he could dredge up.

Listen, how do we know that perhaps Libby simply got his dates, & places wrong by mistake? It has been almost two years ya know.

Even the media has PRESUMED Libby broke laws & is guilty, ..I know the prosecutor says he deserves to be seen as innocent until he is convicted in a court of law, ..but the media ALREADY HAS HIM GUILTY by the very things they say, & how they say it!

IMO I must say that whenever it comes to grand juries, & special prosecutors, ..it seems there is different press treatment, & different types of editorializing that always PRESUMES to have democrats look not quite so bad, ..& the republicans "twice the son of hell".

snip...(remainder of this delusional diatribe deleted for brevity)

QUOTE]

Stu,

You really need to get out of the house and adjust your medication dose. I'm sure meds can do something for dellusions, but willful ignorance..that's another question altogether.

From that bastion of liberal thought, The Economist
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5084726

and yet another article from a former federal prosecutor on what to expect and what to NOT imply from the proceedings:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/102705R.shtml

Sorry..but you'll have to supply your own kleenex.

TwoPops
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
oldreliable67 said:
It is problematic nad arguable whether or not Plame's current (for more than 5 years) soccer mom life was placed in jeopardy by the revealing of her identity as Joe Wilson's wife.
What is up with all of you attempting to state that Plame was NOT covert at the time of the leak? I am not saying that the statute was violated. But if she wasn't covert, the investigation would have concluded very soon after it had been assigned to a special prosecutor. There are experts who have stated she was covert. Fitzgerald said she was covert. So why you all continue to argue this point is just plain ridiculous. To me, it's you all doing one of the following: (1) throwing a tantrum, (2) trying to convince yourselves that she was not covert, or (3) trying to convince everyone else that she was not covert. I have some news for you, reiterating such fact will not make it so.

If any of you can prove to me that she was not covert, I would love to see the evidence.
 

TwoPops4Sure

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aps said:
What is up with all of you attempting to state that Plame was NOT covert at the time of the leak? I am not saying that the statute was violated. But if she wasn't covert, the investigation would have concluded very soon after it had been assigned to a special prosecutor. There are experts who have stated she was covert. Fitzgerald said she was covert. So why you all continue to argue this point is just plain ridiculous. To me, it's you all doing one of the following: (1) throwing a tantrum, (2) trying to convince yourselves that she was not covert, or (3) trying to convince everyone else that she was not covert. I have some news for you, reiterating such fact will not make it so.

If any of you can prove to me that she was not covert, I would love to see the evidence.
Good points. I believe the indictment specifies her as a classified employee. There may be some distinction between "classified" and covert, but it's not much of a stretch to see that both are sensitive in nature. There are many "civilian" employees at the CIA who do not work in either intelligence or "operations". The fact that Valarie Plame even worked at the CIA could be classified. In fact the information in the indictment states that her friends and neighbors knew nothing about her CIA employment. The nature of her position at the CIA could be classified--in fact that is stated in the indictment. This does not mean that she is a covert operative. Whether someone blabbed this to the public beforehand is a moot point. The information is still classified. She was obviously retired from being a covert operative to a classified status. Her association with a front firm which to my understanding is still operational, would have compromised the "covert" nature of that firms' employees and operations. Ironically, she was employed as a WMD analyst. It sickens me to think that repugnicans who have a blood lust for the Iraq war would condone anything remotely resembling outing a CIA agent in such a sensitive and critical position.

One other point. Anyone who has ever had secret clearance knows that you get access to information on a need to know basis. Even amongst a crowd that you know to have such clearance, you are advised not to freely share information within your purview. And this certainly extends to discussing said information with "civilians" such as New York Times reporters. It really makes no difference if you think the information is not classified. Any seasoned employee who works in a government intelligence agency would know that they should never discuss the operations of that agency with "civilians"--on or off the record. In fact, the requirement states that you cannot even confirm through so much as "body language" any "good guesses" that might be thrown your way. Scooter Libby was in a position in which he should have realized that information discovered through contacts at the CIA, about CIA operations had the potential to be classified. He was reckless at best, and should lose his access to secret information should he be found guilty in this indictment.

Had a meeting occurred between any one of the individuals with cleared access to that information in which a reporter had asked to verify Plames employment or her involvement, that would be considered a breech of secrecy. This certainly does apply to military intelligence and those of you who have been in such situations know exactly what I'm talking about.

TwoPops
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
TwoPops4Sure said:
The nature of her position at the CIA could be classified--in fact that is stated in the indictment. This does not mean that she is a covert operative. Whether someone blabbed this to the public beforehand is a moot point. The information is still classified. She was obviously retired from being a covert operative to a classified status. Her association with a front firm which to my understanding is still operational, would have compromised the "covert" nature of that firms' employees and operations. Ironically, she was employed as a WMD analyst.
Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.
 

TwoPops4Sure

New member
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Simon W. Moon said:
It is not "exactly what Oldreliable was saying."

Oldreliable specifically said;
"The CIA did not refer the matter to the DoJ because Valerie Plame may or may not have been 'outed'."
Yet the record shows that the CIA did refer the case because "Valerie Plame may or may not have been 'outed.'"As far as I can tell, these are opposite and contrary things, not the same things let alone "exactly" the same things.
Well the whole issue has been about her being "outed" as a "covert", her job just being classified has not been the subject or of interest at all until now. The whole issue of the Wilson trip was classified, information was leaked, the CIA requested the DOJ investigate to see if any classified information had been leaked and if any law was violated in the process. No charges were brought for any illegalites in regards to any information that was leaked.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
Well the whole issue has been about her being "outed" as a "covert", her job just being classified has not been the subject or of interest at all until now.
If by the word 'now,' you mean about two years ago, then I'll agree with you.

From what I can see, Mrs. Wilson and here job have been central to the issue, the entire time.

This investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity was in response to a letter the CIA sent, dated 30 July 2003, wherein the "CIA reported to the criminal division of DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information."

Then, later in 2003 ...

Acting Attorney General to Fitzgerald December 30, 2003:
By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U. S .C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.
But, if by the word 'now,' you do not mean about two years ago, then I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Stinger said:
The whole issue of the Wilson trip was classified, information was leaked, the CIA requested the DOJ investigate to see if any classified information had been leaked and if any law was violated in the process.
This would mean that in 2003, when the CIA requested "an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover." They really, truly and actually meant to request an investigation in to the possibility that in the discussion of Wilson's trip classified information was leaked?

And, it would also mean that when the Acting Attorney General asked Fitzgerald to investigate "alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity," he really, truly and actually meant to request an investigation in to the possibility that in the discussion of Wilson's trip classified information was leaked?

So, the CIA and the DoJ have it all screwed up, but Stinger has it straight?
 
Top Bottom