Verdict reached in CIA leak trial of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby

[Simon W. Moon]

I'm in for $20! :2wave:

gotcha



0123456798

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Because Fitzgerald was charge with who leaked it to Novak

Do you have citation to support that narrow of a reading of Mr. Fitzgerald's purview?
The DoJ letters I've seen doesn't mention Novak at all, merely "...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..."

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_december_30_2003.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06_2004.pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_memo_august_12_2005.pdf

There's no mention of his purview, authority and charge being limited to Novak.

So, please share where you got this idea

...which is how it got published which was not a crime anyway.

Forgive me if I take the opinion of the PotUSA and the DoJ, FBI and the CIA over yours.

George Walker Bush himself said "...this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action..."

So is the President lying or merely less aware of the facts than you?

Or are you willing to relinquish this canard?

What is your basis for claiming Armitage did anything wrong

His own admission.

...was he charged with anything?

Haven't you been keeping up? To the best of my knowledge he has not been charged in the case.

 

[Stinger]

Do you have citation to support that narrow of a reading of Mr. Fitzgerald's purview?

Do you have something that says there was more?

The DoJ letters I've seen doesn't mention Novak at all, merely "...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..."

Which was the Novak article.

There's no mention of his purview, authority and charge being limited to Novak.

It was about how her name got in his article, nothing more and nothing less.

Forgive me if I take the opinion of the PotUSA and the DoJ, FBI and the CIA over yours.

George Walker Bush himself said "...this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action..."

:rofl in the very opening days of the story he said that...............THAT is what you contend supports your position, an off the cuff remark by Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHAT CRIMINAL ACTION became of her name being printed in the paper and listed as an employee of the CIA????? NOTHING.

So is the President lying or merely less aware of the facts than you?

Since when is the President they prosecutor, he was only speaking from what was being published then. We now know different.

Originally Posted by Stinger
What is your basis for claiming Armitage did anything wrong

His own admission.

When did he say he broke the law?

Haven't you been keeping up? To the best of my knowledge he has not been charged in the case.

And why not?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Do you have something that says there was more?

Umm yes. I provided them in the post you're responding to.
I also quoted from them.
I guess you didn't realize that I had already linked to and quoted from them.
Otherwise you would not have asked, right?
Or is this argumentum ad nauseam?

Now that that has been established, would you care to provide the backing for your assertion that the investigation was limited to Novak?

Which was the Novak article.

Actually, as has been previously established in this very thread, the outing began before Novak was involved.
Maybe you forgot already.

It was about how her name got in his article, nothing more and nothing less.

And, how do you know that his scope was so narrowly limited and not as the DoJ letters say:

"At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "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" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue."
​

:rofl in the very opening days of the story he said that...............THAT is what you contend supports your position, an off the cuff remark by Bush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, there's still a long *** list that has been presented previously. This is just yet another bit of evidence.
So you are asserting that Bush was just more ignorant of the facts than you are?

WHAT CRIMINAL ACTION became of her name being printed in the paper and listed as an employee of the CIA????? NOTHING.

The criminal act was the disclosure of her identity as a CIA employee. I'm incredibly surprised you don't know even THE most basic fact of this affair.

Since when is the President they prosecutor, he was only speaking from what was being published then. We now know different.

He didn't get any info from his aides about this "very serious matter"? Do things have to be very, very serious matter before he informs himself?

When did he say he broke the law?
And why not?

Same reason that Fitzgerald didn't charge Libby with a violation of Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act] - a deficiency of proof namely and to wit: "... no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work."

 

[Stinger]

Umm yes. I provided them in the post you're responding to.
I also quoted from them.
I guess you didn't realize that I had already linked to and quoted from them.
Otherwise you would not have asked, right?
Or is this argumentum ad nauseam?

Now that that has been established, would you care to provide the backing for your assertion that the investigation was limited to Novak?

Where is it stated otherwise? Where does anything state this was to or went beyond the Novak column? Did he call any witnesses to go beyond that disclosure? None that have been reported. And who cares anyway, there was no crime.

"Investigators want to know who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July. Plame is married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who has said he thinks his wife's identity was disclosed to discredit his assertions that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities to build a case for war."

CBS News | New Boss For CIA Leak Probe | December 31, 2003 06:03:02

Actually, as has been previously established in this very thread, the outing began before Novak was involved.
Maybe you forgot already.

As already stated, it wasn't a secret to begin with, she wasn't "outed".
No one was charged with any "outting" and knew who may the disclouser that resulted in the publishing of her name.