Fern
Elite Member
- Sep 30, 2003
- 26,907
- 173
- 106
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Fern said:
This post had nothing to do with Libby or perjury
This post was about Libby & perjury
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Fern said:
This post had nothing to do with Libby or perjury
This post was about Libby & perjury
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.
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.Originally posted by: Craig234
Armitage did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime. Libby committed a crime covering his and Cheny's role up.Originally posted by: FoBoT
you need to talk to Richard Armitage
Then how come Fitz has closed up shop and not charged ANYONE with the crime of releasing her name?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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.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?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.Originally posted by: Craig234
Armitage did wrong but did not apparently commit a crime. Libby committed a crime covering his and Cheny's role up.Originally posted by: FoBoT
you need to talk to Richard Armitage
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.
What are you talking about?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?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Then how come Fitz has closed up shop and not charged ANYONE with the crime of releasing her name?Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
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.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?
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.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What are you talking about?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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What are you talking about?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?
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.
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..
If it is a crime then how come no one has been charged with that crime?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.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.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If it is a crime then how come no one has been charged with that crime?
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?
Exactly which minions were sent after Wilson?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.
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.
Patrick Fitzgerald said it best, "We file charges, and then we're obliged to prove them, or we don't file charges."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.
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?
Yet the left wants Libby to go to jail
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.
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.![]()
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?
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.
