Why does it feel like Republicans and Conservatives do not give a rats ass about the outing of Valerie Plame

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: Shivetya

Look, the law states exactly what the crime is, if what the law covers did not occur then no crime occured. You can't just make things crimes because you want to or it sounds good.

We already know who revealed the name. If he is not in jail or being tried then its because he didn't violate the law, hence no crime was comitted. There are no ands, ifs, or buts, about it.

I am all for prosecuting the guy if be broke the law, but until its determined he did no one can claim otherwise.

You clearly haven't read the law, at all, on this matter and are wasting the time of the intellectually honest people here who actually want to know the reality of the matter. You are woefully misinformed.

(4) The term "covert agent" means -
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States


Both Wilson, the CIA, and a former CIA official linked above have confirmed Plame's NOC status (classified) and her active status aboard within the past 5 years.

Even officially covered agents are covered under the law, though their cover is often not as deep supposedly.

Show proof of the fact she was NOC after 1997. Otherwise all you did was quote back to me stuff I explained earlier which showed no crime was committed. She was transfered to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division in 1997. She was oriented towards issue with Iraq. It was suspected her cover was initially blown by Aldrich Ames in 1994 and as such it was one reason she was reassigned.

You really should read the link I provided more carefully, otherwise you just look stupid. The CIA has confirmed that she worked outside of the United States within 5 years of the probe, in fact the year her name was leaked (2003). Under the law that forbids covert agent's identities from being revealed illegally, she fits the bill of covert. I can't help you if you completely fail to read the bolded or italicized sections I cited.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: FoBoT
you need to talk to Richard Armitage
Armitage did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime. Libby committed a crime covering his and Cheny's role up.
Clinton did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime(getting a blow job). Clinton committed a crime covering his and Monica's role up.

Please explain the difference between what Libby did and what Clinton did.
Lied under oath? Check.
Lied in order to protect themselves? Check.
Committed obstruction of justice? Check.
Committed perjury? Check.

The only real difference is that Libby was in a criminal case and Clinton was in a civil case, otherwise they did essentially the same thing.
However, Clinton admitted to his lie, had no choice, Libby still claims to be innocent.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The simple fact that the CIA asked the DoJ to investigate is proof enough. Details of her status and duties still remain classified, remember?
Appparently this needs to be repeated and repeated until it sinks in. The CIA would know EXACTLY what was potentially compromised more so then any political hacks.
Then how come Fitz has closed up shop and not charged ANYONE with the crime of releasing her name?
If identifying her as a CIA member was a crime he could have charged Libby with the, along with the other charges, since there is no doubt that Libby did in fact mention she worked for the CIA.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: FoBoT
you need to talk to Richard Armitage
Armitage did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime. Libby committed a crime covering his and Cheny's role up.
Clinton did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime(getting a blow job). Clinton committed a crime covering his and Monica's role up.

Please explain the difference between what Libby did and what Clinton did.
Lied under oath? Check.
Lied in order to protect themselves? Check.
Committed obstruction of justice? Check.
Committed perjury? Check.

The only real difference is that Libby was in a criminal case and Clinton was in a civil case, otherwise they did essentially the same thing.
However, Clinton admitted to his lie, had no choice, Libby still claims to be innocent.

WTF are you babbling about?

You just said that Libby kept trying to cover up Cheney and Roves role so he is going to prison... and you said that Clinton came clean

BTW, how much money did the Republicans spend trying to get Clinton impeached for his blowjob?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
WTF are you babbling about?

You just said that Libby kept trying to cover up Cheney and Roves role so he is going to prison... and you said that Clinton came clean

BTW, how much money did the Republicans spend trying to get Clinton impeached for his blowjob?
What are you talking about?

I was just pointing out that Clinton and Libby did essentially the same thing, lied under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice.
Yet the left wants Libby to go to jail, but thought Clinton should get a free pass.
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
The simple fact that the CIA asked the DoJ to investigate is proof enough. Details of her status and duties still remain classified, remember?
Appparently this needs to be repeated and repeated until it sinks in. The CIA would know EXACTLY what was potentially compromised more so then any political hacks.
Then how come Fitz has closed up shop and not charged ANYONE with the crime of releasing her name?
If identifying her as a CIA member was a crime he could have charged Libby with the, along with the other charges, since there is no doubt that Libby did in fact mention she worked for the CIA.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it has something to do with the criteria of PROVING beyond a shadow of a doubt that a crime was committed.

How come Bush hasn't fired all the people involved like he said he would???
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: dahunan
WTF are you babbling about?

You just said that Libby kept trying to cover up Cheney and Roves role so he is going to prison... and you said that Clinton came clean

BTW, how much money did the Republicans spend trying to get Clinton impeached for his blowjob?
What are you talking about?

I was just pointing out that Clinton and Libby did essentially the same thing, lied under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice.
Yet the left wants Libby to go to jail, but thought Clinton should get a free pass.

You don't want Libby punished? Figures. :p
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Then how come Fitz has closed up shop and not charged ANYONE with the crime of releasing her name?
If identifying her as a CIA member was a crime he could have charged Libby with the, along with the other charges, since there is no doubt that Libby did in fact mention she worked for the CIA.

If you bothered to read this thread or any other Libby thread, you would know by now that the mere leaking of a classified agent's identity is not a crime. Issues such as authorization to classified material, intent, and/or knowledge of that's agent's status are key legal issues written into that law.
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: dahunan
WTF are you babbling about?

You just said that Libby kept trying to cover up Cheney and Roves role so he is going to prison... and you said that Clinton came clean

BTW, how much money did the Republicans spend trying to get Clinton impeached for his blowjob?
What are you talking about?

I was just pointing out that Clinton and Libby did essentially the same thing, lied under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice.
Yet the left wants Libby to go to jail, but thought Clinton should get a free pass.

its quite simple......

the outing of plame was a threat to her life and to national security...and it was done to attempt to stop disagreeable information from becoming popular
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,505
3
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
OR.. am I wrong about this?

This case is not just about some NON-Neocons WIFE..

How about Brewster Jennings & Associates... GONE..

After watching the Republican Congress and their supporters get medieval on Bill Clinton, I can only conclude that the reason the "conservatives" aren't spitting blood about this outing of a CIA agent is that a Republican is in the White House.

Have you notice how tolerant this forum's conservatives are of GWB's mistakes and screwups no matter how serious and costly they are?

I am surprised I have not read that outing of Valerie Plame was Bill Clinton's fault.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Then how come Fitz has closed up shop and not charged ANYONE with the crime of releasing her name?
If identifying her as a CIA member was a crime he could have charged Libby with the, along with the other charges, since there is no doubt that Libby did in fact mention she worked for the CIA.
If you bothered to read this thread or any other Libby thread, you would know by now that the mere leaking of a classified agent's identity is not a crime. Issues such as authorization to classified material, intent, and/or knowledge of that's agent's status are key legal issues written into that law.
If it is a crime then how come no one has been charged with that crime?
We KNOW who the leakers are, there is NO question at all about who leaked her name and when, but none of the leakers are being charged with that leak... why not?
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

If it is a crime then how come no one has been charged with that crime?

Wow, you mean that crimes are committed and no one gets charged? Holy Moly, Batman, we better call Dick Tracy in on this one!!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If it is a crime then how come no one has been charged with that crime?
We KNOW who the leakers are, there is NO question at all about who leaked her name and when, but none of the leakers are being charged with that leak... why not?

Because there's a fundamental difference between Armitage's and Novak's account of exactly what was revealed by Armitage. Armitage claims all he knew was that Plame worked for the CIA, not that her job was sensitive, while Novak claims Armitage knew and told the whole story... Fitz and the jury believed Armitage, while Novak enjoys the protection of the first amendment...

As for the other side of it, in the Whitehouse, the true perps are beyond Fitz' reach. When siccing their minions on the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney tacitly declassified the information concerning her situation, simply as revenge and a warning to would-be war critics. They'll never owe up to it.

Only Congress has the power to indict the President and Vice President, and their underlings are immune from prosecution for anything related, because they were only doing what they were told... disseminating information on the authority of the presidency.

Lying to a grand jury wasn't covered under such authorization... Rove escaped prosecution only because Fitz couldn't catch him in enough lies to make a solid case...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
If it is a crime then how come no one has been charged with that crime?
We KNOW who the leakers are, there is NO question at all about who leaked her name and when, but none of the leakers are being charged with that leak... why not?

Because there's a fundamental difference between Armitage's and Novak's account of exactly what was revealed by Armitage. Armitage claims all he knew was that Plame worked for the CIA, not that her job was sensitive, while Novak claims Armitage knew and told the whole story... Fitz and the jury believed Armitage, while Novak enjoys the protection of the first amendment...

As for the other side of it, in the Whitehouse, the true perps are beyond Fitz' reach. When siccing their minions on the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney tacitly declassified the information concerning her situation, simply as revenge and a warning to would-be war critics. They'll never owe up to it.
Exactly which minions were sent after Wilson?
We know for a fact that Armitage is leaker number 1, and we know that Amritage is in no way shape or form a minion.
So how can you make the jump from Armitage having a big mouth to Bush and Cheney sicking their minions on Wilson?

Had Armitage never said that Wilson's wife was in the CIA then Novak would have never asked Libby if that was true and Libby would have never 'leaked' her name. (From my reading and understanding Novak asked Libby if he knew/heard that Wilson's wife was CIA and Libby said "that's what I hear too" or something similar.)

You guys are so sure that the outing of Plame was a crime, but when asked why no one was ever charged with that crime all you can do is make excuses.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91

The Republicans are being silent because they don't want the Bush Administration to go down for this. If Clinton could get impeached for perjury, then Bush and Cheney should get impeached for this offense.

Basically, the Bush Administration put a U.S. government employee's life at risk and perhaps the lives of several U.S. government employees in an attempt to mislead the public about the rationale for invading Iraq. Also, they endangered American citizens by destroying an undercover operation that was investigating uranium trafficing. Presumably, millions if not tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money were flushed down the drain and the careers of a number of highly trained and experienced CIA agents, as covert operatives, were ended.

It's almost enough to make Bush look like a traitor.

I suspect that most Republicans will be very happy when the Bush Administration ends. Bush has damaged the Republican Party for decades.
 

dwcal

Senior member
Jul 21, 2004
765
0
0
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
If you bothered to read this thread or any other Libby thread, you would know by now that the mere leaking of a classified agent's identity is not a crime. Issues such as authorization to classified material, intent, and/or knowledge of that's agent's status are key legal issues written into that law.

Disclosure of a covert agent's identity has to meet certain specific conditions to be a crime under the IIPA, but *any* unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a violation of the Espionage Act. For Bush or Cheney to declassify it after the fact doesn't make it legal.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
What's silly is that the CIA officially stated that the outing HURT american intelligence. And they stated why. Apparently ms plame set up several networks and used certain resources which were left stranded after she was outed. Anybody she worked before her cover was blown would be investigated by every other intelligence agency in the world. How much more blatantly can you ****** up national security?
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You guys are so sure that the outing of Plame was a crime, but when asked why no one was ever charged with that crime all you can do is make excuses.
Patrick Fitzgerald said it best, "We file charges, and then we're obliged to prove them, or we don't file charges."
 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
What's silly is that the CIA officially stated that the outing HURT american intelligence. And they stated why. Apparently ms plame set up several networks and used certain resources which were left stranded after she was outed. Anybody she worked before her cover was blown would be investigated by every other intelligence agency in the world. How much more blatantly can you ****** up national security?

Do you really think the Chickenhawk NeoCon's care about anything except themselves? Getting what they want and when they want it? The ends justifies the means and the only "end" they care about is their self enrichment.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
ProfJohn said:
Yet the left wants Libby to go to jail

What fallacious boogyman "left" are you talking about. You forgot, the "libs", "commies", & "anti-war traitors".

Sounds like a "Republican Persecution Complex."

This was posted @ Andrew Sullivan's site the other day...



What makes the whole Libby thing different is that the Republicans did it to themselves. This is not the Democrats going after Nixon. This is not the Republicans going after Clinton.

No. The right hand man of the most powerful Republican Vice President in history was done in by a lot of other Republicans. The John Ashcroft Justice Dept agreed with the CIA request to investigate the Valerie Plame leak. Ashcroft?s Republican assistant, James Comey, appointed one of his own, Patrick Fitzgerald, perhaps the only Republican in Chicago. When Libby lied to Fitzgerald, and in so doing, made Fitzgerald's leak investigation meaningless, Fitzgerald sought to expand his investigation, probably by going to the same sort of Republican three-judge panel that agreed to expand Kenneth Starr's investigation some years earlier.

Then, after years of Republican complaints that the press had too much immunity under the First Amendment, Fitzgerald basically had the law completely reinterpreted, and forced a lot of very rich, very well-backed reporters to testify. In fact, the only person who saw, who is likely to see, jail time in this whole enterprise was a reporter for the Republican bete noir, the New York Times.

In the end, a Republican prosecutor got Republican judges to get Democratic reporters to testify against Republican politicians.

That just about gets it right. But, wait, there's more!

Similarly, just like all the leading players on both sides of the issue in the U.S. attorney firings are Republicans. Most of these U.S. attorneys were appointed by John Ashcroft, a former Republican elected official, with the support of Republican senators and congressmen. Just like a new Republican Secretary of Defense is forcing the generals feet to the fire in the Walter Reed scandal.

But to hear the right-wing media tell it, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorneys, and Secretary Gates are all bleeding heart liberals trying to bring good conservatives down. But that's not true. This is just another vast right-wing conspiracy. Only this time, they are purging themselves.

 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Pens1566
And yet she was "working" for a covert CIA front company, which exposed many other agents. I guess the CIA was incorrect then in asking DOJ for the investigation. Then again, what would they know about which agents were classified as what. :(



Not only that, but Plame was working on...wait for it...the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries. We in all likelihood will never see a clearer case of treason than this.

CIA hasn't yet, and will not ever, make public their damage assessment report of the Plame leak. BushCo, and in particular Cheney, compromised an entire CIA covering front. Every single asset that ever used Brewster Jennings at any time, had that cover flushed down the toilet by Dick Cheney. Spooks who used Brewster 10 years ago- whoosh - their cover was blown by Cheney as part of a political vendetta.

Dick Cheney is the most evil, petty and vindictive SOB that has ever held public office. He is a disgrace.
 

strummer

Senior member
Feb 1, 2006
208
0
0
Originally posted by: Wreckem
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: johnnobts
its not a big deal b/c this is all a MSM/liberal fairy tale. somehow the administration wanted to punish joe "liar" wilson for his report. they did so by "outing" his wife. the stupid thing is poor libby. he was convcted b/c of his testimony not matching up, not b/c he outed plame. we already know richard armitage did it, someone who was against the bush agenda for iraq. no mention of armitage at all in the coverage. tim russert had memory problems with his testimony too, but they didn't go after him.

i would also point out how funny it is how the MSM is reporting this, calling this the biggest deal for an administration official to be sentenced since REAGAN. Uh, more like since CLINTON. Remember Hubble? Remember Clinton himself was held in contempt for perjury by a federal judge and had his liscence to practice law revoked? Remember Clinton had a $90 thousand fine?

Remember Sandy Burglar? Classified documents been destroyed? Hello? Conveniently not reported by the liberal MSM>>

No, that was actually reported. Hate to break it to you.

And the difference between Libby lying and Clinton lying is quite large; one was about blowjobs, the other about obstructing the leak investigation of a CIA agent. Two different levels of implications. Both wrong of course. But if you're intellectually honest, one is far more significant than the other.

So when do you plan on stringing up Powell for covering up the leak on day one?



In a just world, Powell would be facing the music for conducting that charade at the UN before the start of Operation Iraqi Liberation. He knew the presentation material was BS, yet he went in there and sold a pack of Cheney lies.

Powell destroyed a lifetime of good work in the span of couple of hours at the UN, and his legacy will always be his part in delivering or contributing to the greatest strategic error in American history. Powell was a smart guy who didn't have the balls to stand up to Cheney's lies when his country needed him to, and history will judge him accordingly.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Just thought I'd bump this since the pro-Libby propaganda is making the rounds again.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
What's silly is that the CIA officially stated that the outing HURT american intelligence. And they stated why. Apparently ms plame set up several networks and used certain resources which were left stranded after she was outed. Anybody she worked before her cover was blown would be investigated by every other intelligence agency in the world. How much more blatantly can you ****** up national security?

Do you really think the Chickenhawk NeoCon's care about anything except themselves? Getting what they want and when they want it? The ends justifies the means and the only "end" they care about is their self enrichment.

Can someone please tell me what exactly their agenda is?