Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I take offense to that. I haven't run away on this issue.
Dodged then?
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.
Noone is ovelooking it, its relevance has been put into perspective as part of the investigation,
not the point upon which the whole thing hinges.
The question has been answered, and is clear both from the nature of the request for
investigation, the reported working position of Plame at the time of the alleged leaks,
the number and frequency of the leaks, and the terms of the initial indictment against
Libby. The IPA has only been the centerpoint in those threads that have been
diverted towards it as the only factor that may provide evidence of a crime, which
it is not.
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 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.
Two years that have now been shown to have and incomplete body of testimony and
evidence in part due to the actions of Libby, Miller and others in not providing factual
and timely information to the opening Grand Jury. We have heard plenty of complaints
from both sides of Congress about stonewalling and refusual to release requested information;
and examples of white house staffers claiming no connection or involvment
in the original leak which later turns out to be less that truthful.
We didn't hear complaints from Kenneth Starr either IIRC, just continued requests for information
as his investigation proceeded, and continued complaints from the opposition that it was a fishing
expedition and a waste of taxpayer time and money. The "hoopla" surrounding Cooper and Miller was
to establish that the primary investiagation had been undermined by their initial testimony
(or lack therof) causing delays that were detrimental to the course of the opening Grand Jury.
Cooper and Miller can be subpoenaed again if it is deemed their followup testimony will have further
relevance as relates to the Plame leak investigation. Woodwards testimony has no relevance on the
charges against Libby, as it does not clear Libby as the staffer who leaked information to Miller
against security policy. In fact, Woodwards statement that he got the leak from an as yet unidentified
source undermines the credibility of the White Houses claims that this leak was an isolated incident
that was limited to only one or two people, and unknown to the rest of the staff.
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!"
Breaches of secure handling and transmission of classified materials have been reported
by both the White House and the CIA. The CIA has requested (and been backed by the White House)
an investigation to help establish the scope and severity of those breaches. Particularly the
impact that revealing the identity of Valarie Plame as a CIA operative with NOC status (a fact still
unknown to the general populace) may have had to ongoing operations involving still classified
agents and assets that she (and the front company she worked for) can now be connected with.
Operations that themselves are connected to ongoing intelligense efforts in Afganistan, Iraq,
and as an asset in the war on terror.
The case at this point is that "Scooter" Libby and Karl Rove have at the very least admitted under
oath to direct violations of security policy in the manner that they were involved in the leaking of
Plame's identity to parties not cleared for such information, not reporting thier involvement to the
White House security office, and claiming no such involvement in connection to the leaks.
And Libby in particular is also under indictment for actions that can been seen as both perjurous,
and obstructive to the initial investigation.
Rove remains under investigation as long as there is a question of how severe an impact the initial leak investigation has. In other words, guilt has been established, the question of whether that guilt
rises to the level of Federal indictment, and of what charges, rests on the conclusions of the overall investigation into the original breach of security and how far reaching its effects are to ongoing operations, whether or not Plame herself was still considered a Covert operative.
Facebook
Twitter