Fitzgerald investigation NOT about Plame?

[BBond]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Bullsh8! She has already been confirmed to have had a classified status.

Which is why damn near every reporter, her neighbors, and almost every politican in DC knew she worked for the CIA... She was a walking advertisement for herself and her position.

Valerie Plame's status has already been verified. The investigation would never have gotten under way if Plame wasn't under non-official cover at the time she was outed by one or more members of the Bush White House.

 

[Lanyap]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
My contention (and I know it drives you nuts when I do this) is that the statute that Fitz is prosecuting under is very narrow. If he is still conducting an investigation into the violation of this statute the very first thing he should do is determine if Plame's statuts meets the definition required to convict. Thus far, when asked about her status, he has refused to use the word Covert. And that is a VERY important word because your status with the CIA can be classsified without you being a covert agent. And the law in question refers specifically to covert agents.

If that one simple fact can't be established then what has all of the rest of this all been about?

< ehnnn-n-n-n-n-n > (game show buzzer sound). I'm sorry, Whoozyerdaddy. That answer is incorrect. The correc answer is, when a prosecutor undertakes an investigation of an alleged criminal offense, he is not restricted to prosecuting only violations that are the initial reason for the investigation. He is fully authorized to prosecute any other crimes he may uncover in the course of his investigation, even if the originally alleged offenses are later found to be false.

Suppose a prosecutor is investigating a case of possible fraud in a business, and, in the course of the investigation, a murderer is found standing over the victim with the murder weapon in his hand when the investigators go to the business location.

Assuming the investigators had reasonable grounds for their investigation, would you block prosecution of the murderer because the original, underlying fraud charges were later found to be false? :roll:

Your example doesn't correlate with this situation. How about this one:

Suppose a prosecutor is investigating a case of possible fraud in a business, and, in the course of the investigation, one of the business's accountants appears to be lying about some of the accounting entries based on conflicting testimony from him and other witnesses. The accountant is indicted for perjury by the GJ because they say he was impeding the investigation by lying while they were trying to determine if a crime was commited.

Assuming the investigators had reasonable grounds for their investigation, would you block prosecution of the accountant because the original, underlying fraud charges were later found to be false?


So the Prosecutor has to ask the question, should I prosecute the accountant for possibly lying to the GJ about accounting entries when there was no fraud. Would a jury convict this accountant if I bring this to court? Probably not. Unless it was very high profile then maybe I would...

If during the GJ investigation the accountant had murdered one of the witnesses that conflicted his testimony then he would most certainly be prosecuted and probably convicted for murder.

The Clinton deal was different. It would be like the prosecutor asking the accountant during the GJ phase if he had sex with his steno at work. The accountant denies it but the prosecutor investigates and determines that it's true and then indicts him with perjury.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The entire investigation hinges on one issue: Was Plame status in the CIA Covert? Was she a covert agent? From everything I've seen on TV and everything I've read in the papers the answer, more and more, appears to be no.

Pundits on one side state outright that her status was not covert. Others dance around the word choosing instead to hurl accusations of corruption etc. at the Bush administration.

At Fitzgerald's press conference, when he read the indictment for Libby, he was asked in very simple terms if Valarie Plame was a covert agent for the CIA. He would not say that. Considering that the answer to that one simple question is the determining factor as to whether or not a crime has even been comitted you would think that he wouldn't hesitate to say yes. He dodged the question, choosing instead to play word games.

Now we come to find out that after all the hyperventillating about Cooper and Miller and what they knew and who told them... It was all really about catching Libby in a lie. And now, with the Woodward revelation, it looks like even those charges will be hard to convict on.

The more that this case unfolds the less it looks like there is anything there.

Well whatever the truth ends up being, this whole process is how you get to it. Investigations are, after all, not supposed to be about any particular outcome, simply about finding out what happened. Getting all the facts straight here will certainly help us, and Fitzgerald has been nothing but professional about the whole thing.

While I agree that it looks like there is a lack of evidence to support many charges (doesn't mean nothing happened, but that's how the legal system works), we would never have reached this point if we hadn't told the Bush supporters to sit down and shut up and let the legal system do its job. The fact that they appear to have been right about the issue makes no difference, the investigation itself was important regardless of the conclusion reached.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The entire investigation hinges on one issue: Was Plame status in the CIA Covert?

Bullsh8! She has already been confirmed to have had a classified status. Whether you want to pick on the word, covert, or not isn't even close to the issue.

The investigation started with the question of whether anyone had committed a crime by outing her identity. It didn't stop there, nor should it have.

Fitzgerald wasn't under any obligation not to prosecute if he uncovered any other crimes in the course of his investigation. So far, he came up with enough evidence to convince a grand jury that Libby committed five instances of felonies involving purjury by lying to the grand jury and obstruction of justice by lying to FBI investigators.

Do you really believe he should overlook those crimes because they were discovered as a result of his legitimate investigation into the facts surrounding the evidence of another possible crime? :roll:

No, absolutely not. If Libby lied to the GJ then he should absolutely be prosecuted.

And your other point is correct also. The investigation was to see if anyone violated the law by outing Plame.

My contention (and I know it drives you nuts when I do this) is that the statute that Fitz is prosecuting under is very narrow. If he is still conducting an investigation into the violation of this statute the very first thing he should do is determine if Plame's statuts meets the definition required to convict. Thus far, when asked about her status, he has refused to use the word Covert. And that is a VERY important word because your status with the CIA can be classsified without you being a covert agent. And the law in question refers specifically to covert agents.

If that one simple fact can't be established then what has all of the rest of this all been about?

I believe you are wrong about the "width" (as it were) of the statute. The word covert is not important, as revealing classified information (of ANY kind) is illegal for people with legal access to that information. Even if Plame's status was only classified, not covert, it would still have been illegal to release her name in connection to the CIA. Perhaps not under the same law, but still illegal. The fact that no one has mentioned such charges would suggest your interpretation is wrong. And in any case, I don't see how being a covert agent would be different from being an agent with a classified association to the CIA...wouldn't that imply that you can be an overt, yet classified, agent? Do you have a source on that?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Bullsh8! She has already been confirmed to have had a classified status.

Which is why damn near every reporter, her neighbors, and almost every politican in DC knew she worked for the CIA... She was a walking advertisement for herself and her position.

Source? That would be pretty good evidence to shut the case down right now...which is why I doubt that it is. Fitzgerald would have to be a pretty stupid lawyer to ignore that kind of bombshell, don't you think?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Fitzgerald is an awesome proliferator of the embellishments of persuasion!!

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur

Bullsh8! She has already been confirmed to have had a classified status.

Which is why damn near every reporter, her neighbors, and almost every politican in DC knew she worked for the CIA... She was a walking advertisement for herself and her position.

Source? That would be pretty good evidence to shut the case down right now...which is why I doubt that it is. Fitzgerald would have to be a pretty stupid lawyer to ignore that kind of bombshell, don't you think?

He's clearly making a portion of this up, or listening to some reality distorting conservative propoganda, as Fitzgerald clearly established as part of his investigation that at least the overwhelming majority of her neighbors had no idea she worked for the CIA, quite probably none of them did.

The rest of the statement defiantely falls under the absurd overstatement at best catagory, most politicians wouldn't even have a reason to be aware or care if Plame worked for the CIA before this whole scandal blew up with the leak.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Very interesting article in the NY Times today.

According to the lawyers for Miller and Cooper, their testimony was not compelled by Fitz to add to an investigation about national security... It was in fact to establish a perjury/obstruction case against Libby.

Link

Floyd Abrams, who represented Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper before the appeals court, said Mr. Fitzgerald's filing was significant for the light it shed on the inquiry's progress.

"The revelation," Mr. Abrams said, "that Mr. Fitzgerald advised the court as early as the spring and fall of 2004 that his focus on Mr. Libby related not to potential threats to national security but to possible violations of perjury and related laws raises anew the question of whether the need for the testimony of Judy Miller and Matt Cooper was at all as critical as had been suggested."

I've been giving Fitz the benefit of the doubt througout this whole process but this whole thing is starting to look more and more like a witch hunt by the day.

So lying to federal investigators and the grand jury is OK in your book so long as the perps share your political beliefs. Check.

Originally posted by: rhatsaruck

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Very interesting article in the NY Times today.

According to the lawyers for Miller and Cooper, their testimony was not compelled by Fitz to add to an investigation about national security... It was in fact to establish a perjury/obstruction case against Libby.

...

I've been giving Fitz the benefit of the doubt througout this whole process but this whole thing is starting to look more and more like a witch hunt by the day.

Witch hunt?

Cliffs Notes for those suffering from Attention Deficit-type disorders:

1. Fitzgerald appointed to investigate crimes of treason.
2. Libby indicted for obstructing the investigation into crimes of treason.

Any questions?

Nope, that sums it up pretty well, thanks. :thumbsup:

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: irwincur

Bullsh8! She has already been confirmed to have had a classified status.

Which is why damn near every reporter, her neighbors, and almost every politican in DC knew she worked for the CIA... She was a walking advertisement for herself and her position.

Source? That would be pretty good evidence to shut the case down right now...which is why I doubt that it is. Fitzgerald would have to be a pretty stupid lawyer to ignore that kind of bombshell, don't you think?

He's clearly making a portion of this up, or listening to some reality distorting conservative propoganda, as Fitzgerald clearly established as part of his investigation that at least the overwhelming majority of her neighbors had no idea she worked for the CIA, quite probably none of them did.

The rest of the statement defiantely falls under the absurd overstatement at best catagory, most politicians wouldn't even have a reason to be aware or care if Plame worked for the CIA before this whole scandal blew up with the leak.

You are correct. irwincur comment is a pure regurgitation of "Talking points" used primarily by Rush L, Sean H, and others of their ilk to Diminish the investigation.

That is Fine. They are historical Manipulators of the truth and if irwincur has no problem being a mindless toady for them, thats his prerogative, ........Some People just cant get enough Snake Oil.

 

[irwincur]

Hmm, there seem to be quite a few reporters who knew who she was. Three off of the top of my head - as well as their editors and most likely staff. Some of her neighbors did indeed know who she was. She may have been 'covert' but being covert implies that you should try to be hiding your identity. Not attending DC dinner parties and bragging to members of congress about what your job is.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Hmm, there seem to be quite a few reporters who knew who she was. Three off of the top of my head - as well as their editors and most likely staff. Some of her neighbors did indeed know who she was. She may have been 'covert' but being covert implies that you should try to be hiding your identity. Not attending DC dinner parties and bragging to members of congress about what your job is.

Do you have any -- any -- evidence for this, or can we safely assume you're just making up BS ... again? This talking point has been parroted many times before. I have yet to see any of the drones back it up.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: irwincur
Hmm, there seem to be quite a few reporters who knew who she was. Three off of the top of my head - as well as their editors and most likely staff. Some of her neighbors did indeed know who she was. She may have been 'covert' but being covert implies that you should try to be hiding your identity. Not attending DC dinner parties and bragging to members of congress about what your job is.

Do you have any -- any -- evidence for this, or can we safely assume you're just making up BS ... again? This talking point has been parroted many times before. I have yet to see any of the drones back it up.

Well he is write that Bush's whitehouse told at least 3 differenent reports but the reset you can assume is made up BS

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
No, absolutely not. If Libby lied to the GJ then he should absolutely be prosecuted.

And your other point is correct also. The investigation was to see if anyone violated the law by outing Plame.

My contention (and I know it drives you nuts when I do this) is that the statute that Fitz is prosecuting under is very narrow. If he is still conducting an investigation into the violation of this statute the very first thing he should do is determine if Plame's statuts meets the definition required to convict. Thus far, when asked about her status, he has refused to use the word Covert. And that is a VERY important word because your status with the CIA can be classsified without you being a covert agent. And the law in question refers specifically to covert agents.

If that one simple fact can't be established then what has all of the rest of this all been about?

This is at least the third time you've floated this misdirection. In the previous threads, you disappeared once it was challenged. Any chance you'll take a more honorable approach this time?

I agree the Identities Protection Act is quite narrowly focused, but it is only one of the laws that might have been broken when Plame was exposed. There are other laws against divulging classified information, and Fitzgerald is free to investigate and indict based on any of them. To keep pretending that the IPA is the only law he can consider is partisan disinformation. As you have noted, Fitzgerald did refer to Plame's status as "classified". I suspect he chose that word carefully.

I take offense to that. I haven't run away on this issue.

On the contrary, you have yet to address the FACT that there are many laws pertaining to divulging classified information. So far, in every thread including this one, you have fixated on the Identities Protection Act as if it is the only law that could apply. That is simply not the case.

I keep bringing it up because it's an important point that some people try to conveniently overlook. It's a question that is on my mind and it's one that nobody seems to have an answer to. Every thread on this issue has centered on the IPA. I haven't seen anyone else bring up another point in regards to this issue.

I see you conveniently overlooking the general issue of exposing classified information. I disagree that every thread on the Plame outing has focused on the IPA. I believe I posted the very first thread about this issue, and have been active in those that followed. I remember the IPA being hammered by the Bush faithful long after the rest of us moved on to the broader issue of revealing classified information. The Bush faithful cling to the IPA because it's the only possible loophole they can use to deny accountability for the repugnant behavior of certain BushCo officials.

What's more, Fitz has had two years to investigate this subject. During that time waivers have been signed by whitehouse staff releasing reporters from their obligations of confidentiality. E-mails, phone records, etc have been released at the request of Fitz. I haven't heard Fitz complain once about whitehouse stonewalling or refusal to release requested records.

And? Perhaps you've not noticed that Fitzgerald has avoided prosecuting this in the media. You have no idea what he's been doing behind the scenes. The one thing we do know for sure is he believes Libby has been obstructing his investigation.

And now we find out that all the hoopla surrounding Cooper & Miller was to secure a perjury charge? An indictment that many legal experts say may not hold up now that Woodward decided to enter the scene.

Speculation.

So pardon me if I have questions about the purpose of this investigation. I would think that even you would agree that it's never a good idea to just blindly accept what is presented to you. I look at this case and I ask questions. You look at it and scream "GUILTY!"

Nonsense on multiple fronts. You are not simply asking questions. You are repeatedly suggesting that the Identities Protection Act is the only applicable statute. This is patently false. This has been pointed out every time you float it, yet you continue. Re. your last two sentences, you have it pretty much backwards, IMO. We are the ones who look at this outrage and demand answers. You and the other Bush faithful look at it and scream excuses. Had the parties been reversed, you would be standing outside the White House with torches and pitchforks. Instead, since it's your boy, you dodge and spin and desperately seek every possible rationalization to deny accountability.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Hmm, there seem to be quite a few reporters who knew who she was. Three off of the top of my head - as well as their editors and most likely staff. Some of her neighbors did indeed know who she was. She may have been 'covert' but being covert implies that you should try to be hiding your identity. Not attending DC dinner parties and bragging to members of congress about what your job is.

irwincur -- WTF are you smoking? Your reality plane has vanished from the radar. :roll:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Hmm, there seem to be quite a few reporters who knew who she was. Three off of the top of my head - as well as their editors and most likely staff. Some of her neighbors did indeed know who she was. She may have been 'covert' but being covert implies that you should try to be hiding your identity. Not attending DC dinner parties and bragging to members of congress about what your job is.

So is that a "no" on the sources?

 

[conjur]

Now the FBI is re-investigating the Niger document issue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,4700538.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
Now the FBI is re-investigating the Niger document issue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,4700538.story?coll=la-home-headlines

It's no wonder Bush has (reportedly) fallen into a bunker mentality. It's just one piece of bad news after another.

Good.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
The entire investigation hinges on one issue: Was Plame status in the CIA Covert? Was she a covert agent?

NO.... the entire investigation hinges on one issue!

Do you break security protocols for revenge?

The answer is NO NO NO. All involved in publicizing Plame's job at the CIA are guilty of treason. End of sentence end of conversation.

YOU DON'T DO THAT!

This ism't a finesed issue YOU JUST DON'T DO THAT!

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
Now the FBI is re-investigating the Niger document issue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld...0,4700538.story?coll=la-home-headlines

It's no wonder Bush has (reportedly) fallen into a bunker mentality. It's just one piece of bad news after another.

Good.

I think it's Drudge (among others) who claims Bush is talking only to his mother and his wife?
Greaaaaat.