Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

[lily]

Cocky........are you willing to say those three little words now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/


Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment

By Joel Seidman
Producer
NBC News
Updated: 4:24 p.m. ET May 29, 2007
WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's
employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in
a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame
was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court
supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President
Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing
the CIA leak investigation.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and
obstruction of justice trial.


Undercover travel
The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that
syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says,
"Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative
measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and
was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at
CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame,
"engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The
report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."
When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and
sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or
non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

Criminal prosecution beat national security
After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely
reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms
Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of
the leak.

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal
prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might
reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's
employment and cover status."

[Mr. P]

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal
prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might
reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's
employment and cover status."
That alone screams she wasn't covert. Hell, her husband even announced she was CIA at parties before all this started. Really a non-issue. IMO

[manu1959]

how covert can you be if the CIA doesn't care?

[Yurt]

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame,
"engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The
report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."
When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and
sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or
non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."


So not fully undercover. And how "covert" are you if you are sometimes covert and others "not?" How can this be "always" using cover?

[manu1959]

wait a minute gates was a clinton plant.....anyone checked the humidor for dna?

[nevadamedic]

wait a minute gates was a clinton plant.....anyone checked the humidor for dna?

Huh?

[DragonStryk72]

Regardless of what missions she is on, regardless of how often she was undercover, leaking it to the press was inexcusable, and as well, has most likely destroyed her career, all for some stupid political crap with her husband.

It would be the same as outing an undercover SEAL, or undercover cop. The undercover process only works because the agents involved know that the government is behind them on it. When that government betrays that trust, then it hurts all field agents, not just her. What cases might she have been attached to? Can she be linked to other undercover agents? none of these questions were asked by those who decided to do this, seeing only a way to hurt and enemy.

[nevadamedic]

Regardless of what missions she is on, regardless of how often she was undercover, leaking it to the press was inexcusable, and as well, has most likely destroyed her career, all for some stupid political crap with her husband.g publical there were no WMDly saying

It would be the same as outing an undercover SEAL, or undercover cop. The undercover process only works because the agents involved know that the government is behind them on it. When that government betrays that trust, then it hurts all field agents, not just her. What cases might she have been attached to? Can she be linked to other undercover agents? none of these questions were asked by those who decided to do this, seeing only a way to hurt and enemy.

I agree but ive also herd that she outed herself by talking nationally about no WMD in Iraq. Id she was under deep cover the President and Vice President wouldn't be privledged to that information let alone their staff members.

[DragonStryk72]

Save that the person in charge of the CIA is appointment by the president

[avatar4321]

She wasnt covert. Anyone who can read the law understands this. If she was Armitage would have been prosecuted for leaking the name.

[Birdzeye]

That alone screams she wasn't covert. Hell, her husband even announced she was CIA at parties before all this started. Really a non-issue. IMO

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.

[Dilloduck]

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.

Who cares?--Is her life in danger now?

[Birdzeye]

Who cares?--Is her life in danger now?

As far as I know, no. However, that's not the point. I can only surmise that you righties are taking such a casual attitude about the outing of a covert CIA agent, and trying to minimize the seriousness of such an act, because it looks suspiciously like it was willfully orchestrated by members of the Bush administration, for political reasons.

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, don't kneecap me for this one, but the reason that charges haven't been brought is because the Dems in office aren't taking it to court. Look, what ever you might think of the republican party, the dems haven't been stepping up, really. Well, they do, but then they print a retraction of it, hence why they haven't gone after Bush directly.

[Dilloduck]

As far as I know, no. However, that's not the point. I can only surmise that you righties are taking such a casual attitude about the outing of a covert CIA agent, and trying to minimize the seriousness of such an act, because it looks suspiciously like it was willfully orchestrated by members of the Bush administration, for political reasons.

That's the danger of hyper-partisan activities. When you try to make some big deal out of EVERYTHING, you credibilty goes all to hell. You are seen as another partisan hack instead someone who seems seriously interested resolving issues that are preventing America from coming together.

[Birdzeye]

That's the danger of hyper-partisan activities. When you try to make some big deal out of EVERYTHING, you credibilty goes all to hell. You are seen as another partisan hack instead someone who seems seriously interested resolving issues that are preventing America from coming together.

Then I have to surmise that you really don't give a rip about national security, since the outing of a covert CIA agent - one of the key components in keeping us secure - is no big deal to you.

As for the "coming together" part, are you that hyperpartisan that you can't abide the idea that Bush does not have 100% support from the public?

[theHawk]

Regardless of what missions she is on, regardless of how often she was undercover, leaking it to the press was inexcusable, and as well, has most likely destroyed her career, all for some stupid political crap with her husband.

It would be the same as outing an undercover SEAL, or undercover cop. The undercover process only works because the agents involved know that the government is behind them on it. When that government betrays that trust, then it hurts all field agents, not just her. What cases might she have been attached to? Can she be linked to other undercover agents? none of these questions were asked by those who decided to do this, seeing only a way to hurt and enemy.

If she wanted to remain "covert", then she should of told her husband not to write the op-ed piece for a newspaper accusing the President of lying. Or are we supposed to believe that these two very highly ranked government employees were both too stupid to realize that if you start a big controversy with the President reporters are going to dig and find out who you are. Part of being "covert" means being discret on your part. They did not hold up that end of there bargain.

This whole thing was completely manufactured by Plame and Wilson themselves. None of you libs who buy into this bullshit want to talk about other relevant facts about this case. Like the fact that Joe Wilson joined the John Kerry campaign before making his accusations. He also outright lied about the so called "report" that "debunked" the idea that Saddam tried to get Niger uranium. He was NEVER sent out there as a high level official much less wrote any report. Wilson NEVER worked for the CIA. He also inferred that Cheney sent him to do this investigation which was completely false. The facts in the case came out and it was soon found out that his bimbo wife, Plame, was the one that pushed for him to be sent there to talk to his contacts. The Senate's investigation into this whole matter come to the conclusion that the only thing that was true about this case was that Plame sent him there since they had her emails as proof. All that happened was an unemployed Wilson took a vacation to Niger and asked a few of his old contacts,'hey, did Saddam try to buy Uranium? No? OK I take your word for it.' This is a far stretch from being on an actual mission as a CIA employee investigating any connection Saddam may have had with Niger.

This whole thing was an attempt to discredit the President right before an election, and despite lacking any evidence to back up his claim, masses of Bush-hating liberals believed it.


Libs, try learning the facts of this case before you jump onto this burning wagon. Here is a timeline with all the facts-
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

[Dilloduck]

Then I have to surmise that you really don't give a rip about national security, since the outing of a covert CIA agent - one of the key components in keeping us secure - is no big deal to you.

As for the "coming together" part, are you that hyperpartisan that you can't abide the idea that Bush does not have 100% support from the public?

If the issue had anything to do with national security, I would care but the truth is that it is merely a partisan effort to discredit people. Liberals suddenly being concerned about the same CIA that they claim betrayed our country with contrived intelligence just cracks me up.

Since Bush has never even had 100% support from me, I see no reason to get all bent out of shape that the rest of the country doesn't back him 100%.
It's the people who are AGAINST him 100% that I have a whole lot of suspicions about.

[glockmail]

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.


Her hubby never denied what he is reported to have said at parties.

So if she was covert, that would not have been known by Libby. Any normal person would have assumed that she was not covert after hearing hubby's stories.

[lily]

If she wanted to remain "covert", then she should of told her husband not to write the op-ed piece for a newspaper accusing the President of lying. Or are we supposed to believe that these two very highly ranked government employees were both too stupid to realize that if you start a big controversy with the President reporters are going to dig and find out who you are. Part of being "covert" means being discret on your part. They did not hold up that end of there bargain.

You just admitted that this was done out of spite.

[Mr. P]

Would she be covert if she revealed herself as such to Wilson before they were married?

[lily]

Her hubby never denied what he is reported to have said at parties.

So if she was covert, that would not have been known by Libby. Any normal person would have assumed that she was not covert after hearing hubby's stories.

I'd like a credible link to this glock. I just can't imagine someone going up to a person at a cocktail party and saying "Hi, my name is Joe. I'd like you to meet my wife, she's a spy".

Plame testified under oath and this de-classified document now proves that she was indeed undercover. Now we can go back and forth about things that have been discussed forever, but this is really the proof......unless you now don't believe what your government is telling you?

[Birdzeye]

You just admitted that this was done out of spite.

Zing!

My oldest brother is a pretty conservative guy who has a high level security clearance for his job with a Navy contractor. He has been utterly appalled at the lackadasical way the outing of Valerie Plame has been handled.

He said that if he were even suspected of breaching classified information, his clearance would be suspended pending an investigation. If that investigation found that he had indeed breached classified information, his clearance would be revoked, he'd be fired, and he'd be criminally prosecuted.

[Birdzeye]

If the issue had anything to do with national security, I would care but the truth is that it is merely a partisan effort to discredit people. Liberals suddenly being concerned about the same CIA that they claim betrayed our country with contrived intelligence just cracks me up.

Since Bush has never even had 100% support from me, I see no reason to get all bent out of shape that the rest of the country doesn't back him 100%.
It's the people who are AGAINST him 100% that I have a whole lot of suspicions about.

The outing of a covert agent IS a matter of national security! It's funny how some conservatives all of a sudden want to dismiss this when it looks like people from the Bush administration are the likely culprits.

And we didn't blame the CIA for "betraying our country with contrived intelligence." We blamed the Bush administration.

[Mr. P]

The outing of a covert agent IS a matter of national security! It's funny how some conservatives all of a sudden want to dismiss this when it looks like people from the Bush administration are the likely culprits.

And we didn't blame the CIA for "betraying our country with contrived intelligence." We blamed the Bush administration.


Would she be covert if she revealed herself as such to Wilson before they were married?

??????

[lily]

Would she be covert if she revealed herself as such to Wilson before they were married?

.......and this has what to do with the time line and circumstances we are discussing now? I wasn't aware that you had some direct information on their pillow talk and how that would destroy her career and possibly put in danger any contact she might have made.

Focus.

[lily]

Zing!

My oldest brother is a pretty conservative guy who has a high level security clearance for his job with a Navy contractor. He has been utterly appalled at the lackadasical way the outing of Valerie Plame has been handled.

He said that if he were even suspected of breaching classified information, his clearance would be suspended pending an investigation. If that investigation found that he had indeed breached classified information, his clearance would be revoked, he'd be fired, and he'd be criminally prosecuted.


Why does that sound so familiar.........oh yeah, that's what this administration said they were going to do......damn my memory isn't as good as it used to be........do you remember how that turned out, Bird?

[Mr. P]

.......and this has what to do with the time line and circumstances we are discussing now? I wasn't aware that you had some direct information on their pillow talk and how that would destroy her career and possibly put in danger any contact she might have made.

Focus.

Please just answer the question. If she told Wilson she was undercover with the CIA before they were married, would she still be covert?

[manu1959]

Zing!

My oldest brother is a pretty conservative guy who has a high level security clearance for his job with a Navy contractor. He has been utterly appalled at the lackadasical way the outing of Valerie Plame has been handled.

He said that if he were even suspected of breaching classified information, his clearance would be suspended pending an investigation. If that investigation found that he had indeed breached classified information, his clearance would be revoked, he'd be fired, and he'd be criminally prosecuted.

makes you wonder how covert she was if the CIA doesn't care...

[lily]

Please just answer the question. If she told Wilson she was undercover with the CIA before they were married, would she still be covert?

Your question makes no sense. If she told Wilson that she was covert while they were dating, she still would be covert. Just as when she was outed she was covert. Her status doesn't change.

Now is this just a hypothetical or do you have something to bring to the table?

[lily]

makes you wonder how covert she was if the CIA doesn't care...

Um......if you read the article, the CIA did care.

[manu1959]

Um......if you read the article, the CIA did care.

if they really cared they would be going after novak......he published and "endangered her life"

[lily]

if they really cared they would be going after novak......he published and "endangered her life"

Actually, they would be going after Novak, Armetage and Rove.......but then I think that's what was promised by this administration when they said they were going to do an internal investigation.

Now I can only speak about Novak, but it seems he got his "punnishment". His career is shot. He's lost all credibility with the press.....but jail would also be fine by me.......now what about the other two?

[Mr. P]

Your question makes no sense. If she told Wilson that she was covert while they were dating, she still would be covert. Just as when she was outed she was covert. Her status doesn't change.

Now is this just a hypothetical or do you have something to bring to the table?

Fact: You know nothing about the world of intelligence.
If a CIA agent, that is in fact covert tells anyone so, it immediately changes the status of their cover, whether the CIA knows immediately or not. That cover goes away IMMEDIATELY.

Hypothetical...No, it's from his own mouth.

[theHawk]

You just admitted that this was done out of spite.

Nothing was done "out of spite", except for his attack on the President on behalf of the Kerry campaign. And you naturally ignored the facts and are now dreaming up statements never made. Get a grip, this charade has been proven wrong from every angle. Only delusional liberals such as yourself would continue this arguement.

[manu1959]

Actually, they would be going after Novak, Armetage and Rove.......but then I think that's what was promised by this administration when they said they were going to do an internal investigation.

Now I can only speak about Novak, but it seems he got his "punnishment". His career is shot. He's lost all credibility with the press.....but jail would also be fine by me.......now what about the other two?

who does novak say told him?

[lily]

Fact: You know nothing about the world of intelligence.
If a CIA agent, that is in fact covert tells anyone so, it immediately changes the status of their cover, whether the CIA knows immediately or not. That cover goes away IMMEDIATELY.

Hypothetical...No, it's from his own mouth.


Um.......don't you think he would have known that she was CIA when she left on her missions? She testified that of course her husband knew, but he didn't know what her missions were.

Now, I'd like a credible link that Wilson said his wife told him she was a covert agent before they were even married.

[lily]

Nothing was done "out of spite", except for his attack on the President on behalf of the Kerry campaign. And you naturally ignored the facts and are now dreaming up statements never made. Get a grip, this charade has been proven wrong from every angle. Only delusional liberals such as yourself would continue this arguement.

Well......I guess whn you have nothing to bring to the table you attack Liberals. I'm sorry your statement speaks for itself. You said that it was done out of spite by this administration.....now you want me to believe that somehow he was some sort of catalyst for Kerry? You come to this conslusion how? Because he spoke the truth?

[lily]

who does novak say told him?

Armatage........see I said it in post #33.

[Mr. P]

Um.......don't you think he would have known that she was CIA when she left on her missions? She testified that of course her husband knew, but he didn't know what her missions were.

Now, I'd like a credible link that Wilson said his wife told him she was a covert agent before they were even married.

"Double Exposure", Vanity Fair, January 2004


He had met Plame in February 1997 at a reception at the Washington home of the Turkish ambassador...

At the time, Wilson was based in Stuttgart, serving as the political adviser to George Joulwan, the U.S. general in charge of the European command; Plame was based in Brussels. Meeting in Paris, London, and Brussels, they got very serious very quickly. On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a "heavy make-out" session when she said she had something to tell him. She was very conflicted and very nervous, thinking of everything that had gone into getting her to that point, such as money and training.

She was, she explained, undercover in the C.I.A. "It did nothing to dampen my ardor," he says. "

Pretty much outed herself in 1997..Not to mention he was married to a foreigner at the time. BAD very BAD.

[manu1959]

Armatage........see I said it in post #33.

so you contend novak testifed to the grand jury that armitage told him and amitage testifed that rove told armitage?

[glockmail]

I'd like a credible link to this glock. I just can't imagine someone going up to a person at a cocktail party and saying "Hi, my name is Joe. I'd like you to meet my wife, she's a spy".

Plame testified under oath and this de-classified document now proves that she was indeed undercover. Now we can go back and forth about things that have been discussed forever, but this is really the proof......unless you now don't believe what your government is telling you?


On 3 November 2005, retired U.S. Army Major General Paul E. Vallely appeared on the John Batchelor Show on ABC Radio, claiming, according to Art Moore, in an "exclusive" posting on WorldNetDaily, that

the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist [Robert Novak]. Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts. . . . Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years."

If Plame were a covert agent at the time, Vallely said, "he would not have paraded her around as he did."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

[JohnDoe]

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.It's already been debunked, just another fabrication of the ''right''.

[Mr. P]

It's already been debunked, just another fabrication of the ''right''.

Show us where it has been debunked please, a credible link.

[JohnDoe]

"Double Exposure", Vanity Fair, January 2004



Pretty much outed herself in 1997..Not to mention he was married to a foreigner at the time. BAD very BAD.

what a pile of shit!

That's why the CIA refered the Plame case to the Justice Dept to investigate, because she was not undercover, and did not get outed. lol, yeah, righttttt.

the CIA said she was covert and undercover, don't you think they would know?

[glockmail]

what a pile of shit!

That's why the CIA refered the Plame case to the Justice Dept to investigate, because she was not undercover, and did not get outed. lol, yeah, righttttt.

the CIA said she was covert and undercover, don't you think they would know? Show us where it has been debunked as a pile of shit.

[Mr. P]

what a pile of shit!

That's why the CIA refered the Plame case to the Justice Dept to investigate, because she was not undercover, and did not get outed. lol, yeah, righttttt.

the CIA said she was covert and undercover, don't you think they would know?

Your link is....?

[JohnDoe]

Show us where it has been debunked please, a credible link.
you spend the time and get the link that says Wilson outed her at a party before the article from Novak first....I believe it has already been asked of you by another poster on this thread, hasn't it?

When you can prove what you say, I will provide YOU with the article and statement from fitzgerald that says such, is simply NOT TRUE.

[Mr. P]

you spend the time and get the link that says Wilson outed her at a party before the article from Novak first....I believe it has already been asked of you by another poster on this thread, hasn't it?

When you can prove what you say, I will provide YOU with the article and statement from fitzgerald that says such, is simply NOT TRUE.

I have spent the time..prove my post you call "a pile of shit" wrong.

[glockmail]

you spend the time and get the link that says Wilson outed her at a party before the article from Novak first....I believe it has already been asked of you by another poster on this thread, hasn't it?

When you can prove what you say, I will provide YOU with the article and statement from fitzgerald that says such, is simply NOT TRUE.


Do you read any posts? This was already done in post 42. :slap:

[JohnDoe]

Your link is....?


Mr P,

I am sorry but I am not going to do your homework for you. This is common knowledge.

The CIA requested an investigation from the Justice Dept in to their agent's undercover status OUTING.

Ashcroft took on the case, but then recused himself and appointed Fitzgerald.

Tenet, is the one that asked the Justice Dept to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame's undercover identity.

This is all readily available for you to find in a minor google search.

I would suggest that you go to www.c-span.org and search for the Valerie Plame congressional hearing and listen to it all.

[theHawk]

Well......I guess whn you have nothing to bring to the table you attack Liberals. I'm sorry your statement speaks for itself. You said that it was done out of spite by this administration.....now you want me to believe that somehow he was some sort of catalyst for Kerry? You come to this conslusion how? Because he spoke the truth?


Quote me where I said "it was done out of spite by this administration". I never made any such statement, you are the one lying.

The facts speak for themselves. Joe Wilson joined the John Kerry campaign before writing his op-ed pieces. Thats how I came to that conclusion.

And exactly what truth has Joe Wilson spoke of? He lied about his role (because he had none). He lied about the "report"(because he never made one). He lied about who sent him there(the Senate verified this via Plame's own email to her boss).

All that happened was reporters were digging for the truth about who sent him to Niger. The truth led to Plame. Thats how she was outed. Not for any other reason.

And it wasn't because he told "the truth", it was because he lied and the truth came back to bite him and his wife in the ass.

[Mr. P]

Mr P,

I am sorry but I am not going to do your homework for you. This is common knowledge.

The CIA requested an investigation from the Justice Dept in to their agent's undercover status OUTING.

Ashcroft took on the case, but then recused himself and appointed Fitzgerald.

Tenet, is the one that asked the Justice Dept to investigate the outing of Valerie Plame's undercover identity.

This is all readily available for you to find in a minor google search.

I would suggest that you go to www.c-span.org and search for the Valerie Plame congressional hearing and listen to it all.

So you don't have one, ok. I didn't think so. My post referenced 1997. She outed herself then. In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspected that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994.

Partly...I like that..:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

So you don't have one, ok. I didn't think so. My post referenced 1997. She outed herself then. In 1997, Plame moved back to the Washington area, partly because (as was recently reported in The New York Times) the C.I.A. suspected that her name may have been on a list given to the Russians by the double agent Aldrich Ames in 1994.

Partly...I like that..:laugh2:


ok, ok, ya lazy bastard ;) here is your link:


Appointment of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald
On September 26, 2003, at the request of the CIA, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson’s CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft initially headed up the investigation. On 13 August 2005 journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall. In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, from whose prior campaigns Rove had been paid $746,000 in consulting fees, had been briefed on the contents of at least one of Rove's interviews with the FBI, raising concerns of a conflict of interest.[1] A 2 October 2003 New York Times article similarly connected Karl Rove to the matter and highlighted his prior employment in three previous political campaigns for Ashcroft. Ashcroft subsequently recused himself from the investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation


tell me again why the CIA would ask the justice dept to investigate their agent's undercover outing if she wasn't undercover?

[JohnDoe]

ok, in 1997, you say she outed herself, not at a party recently???

did Libby know that she had already outed herself back in 1997 when he chose to out her through the media, just to discredit her husband's trip, by calling it nepotism or something?

ummm, 1997 means what to being outed in 2003?

[Mr. P]

ok, ok, ya lazy bastard ;) here is your link:


tell me again why the CIA would ask the justice dept to investigate their agent's undercover outing if she wasn't undercover?

The link is not relevant to my post, sorry.

To answer your question, Politics..Like I said, she outed herself to Wilson in 1997 and he said so in 2004.

In addition I've heard several media folks report it was common knowledge inside the beltway she worked for the CIA. It was no secret, therefore she wasn't covert. Get it?

[glockmail]

ok, ok, ya lazy bastard ;) here is your link:


tell me again why the CIA would ask the justice dept to investigate their agent's undercover outing if she wasn't undercover?
That's a dumb question. Why would a Democrat accuse a Republican of doing something without evidence? Its done all the time.

You'll need to bone up on your debate skills a lot before we can take you seriously. :pee:

[JohnDoe]

On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.[55]



THAT, from the same link.

[Mr. P]

ok, in 1997, you say she outed herself, not at a party recently???

did Libby know that she had already outed herself back in 1997 when he chose to out her through the media, just to discredit her husband's trip, by calling it nepotism or something?

ummm, 1997 means what to being outed in 2003?

Read the thread man..even those on you side say it wasn't Libby. Had it been you can bet he'd have been charged.

Go fish.

[Abbey Marie]

If she outed herself in 1997, then she's out. You are either outed, or your not. It's like saying she's a little bit pregnant.

I doubt the covert communties in other countries would "forget" who she was because it happened in 1997.

[Birdzeye]

That's a dumb question. Why would a Democrat accuse a Republican of doing something without evidence? Its done all the time.

You'll need to bone up on your debate skills a lot before we can take you seriously. :pee:

Oh, man, that's quite a leap of "logic" there!

Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of all kinds of shit for political reasons. The question was a very legitimate one, which you blew off.

Maybe you need to brush up on YOUR debate skills, if you have any.

[glockmail]

On March 16, 2007, at these hearings about the disclosure, Chairman Henry Waxman read a statement about Plame's CIA career that had been cleared by CIA director Gen. Michael V. Hayden and the CIA:

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.

Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.

This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life.[55]



THAT, from the same link.

Are you thick? This does not negate the issue presented in post 42. She may have officially covert, but that didn't stop half the DC crowd from knowing about it. And unless Libby checked the CIA list of covert operatives, and there is no reason that he should have (and if such a list exists), he had a pefect excuse for "outing" her, that he wasn't aware thet she was covert. :slap:

[glockmail]

Oh, man, that's quite a leap of "logic" there!

Democrats and Republicans accuse each other of all kinds of shit for political reasons. The question was a very legitimate one, which you blew off.

Maybe you need to brush up on YOUR debate skills, if you have any. I think you're the one who needs the brush up. You just made my case for me. :D

[JohnDoe]

Read the thread man..even those on you side say it wasn't Libby. Had it been you can bet he'd have been charged.

Go fish.

huh? Are you saying that Scooter Libby did not confirm with Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? Novak had at least 2 sources, one was Armitage by "mistake" and the other was Libby.

Libby was TOLD to leak this information to the press, like Judith Miller and Tim Russert, by the Vice President.

Read the trial transcripts, the Dude was just following orders, so it appears.

[JohnDoe]

Are you thick? This does not negate the issue presented in post 42. She may have officially covert, but that didn't stop half the DC crowd from knowing about it. And unless Libby checked the CIA list of covert operatives, and there is no reason that he should have (and if such a list exists), he had a pefect excuse for "outing" her, that he wasn't aware thet she was covert. :slap:

IT WAS NOT COMMONLY KNOWN!


MR. FITZGERALD: Good afternoon. I'm Pat Fitzgerald. I'm the United States Attorney in Chicago, but I'm appearing before you today as the Department of Justice for Special Counsel in the CIA leak investigation. Joining me to my left is Jack Eckenrode, the Special Agency in Charge of the FBI Office in Chicago, who has led the team of investigators and prosecutors from day one in this investigation.

A few hours ago, a federal Grand jury, sitting in the District of Columbia, returned a five-count indictment against I. Lewis Libby, also known as Scooter Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff. The Grand jury's indictment charges that Mr. Libby committed five crimes. The indictment charges one count of obstruction of justice of the federal grand jury, two counts of perjury and two counts of false statements. Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation with a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, they be protected not just for the officer but for the nation's security.

Is that good enough for you buddy?

[Mr. P]

huh? Are you saying that Scooter Libby did not confirm with Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA? Novak had at least 2 sources, one was Armitage by "mistake" and the other was Libby.

Libby was TOLD to leak this information to the press, like Judith Miller and Tim Russert, by the Vice President.

Read the trial transcripts, the Dude was just following orders, so it appears.

No, I'm saying it's all a non-issue. Plame outed herself in 97, and if there was proof Libby did it he'd have been charged..was he? Fish more bud, you have no case.

[JohnDoe]

No, I'm saying it's all a non-issue. Plame outed herself in 97, and if there was proof Libby did it he'd have been charged..was he? Fish more bud, you have no case.

Let me tell you something Mr P, You are probably not the partisan idiot you make yourself out to be on this thread but for now you are.

If Plame outed herself, in 97 as YOU CLAIM she did to this "general guy" who also probably had top secret clearance at the time IF it did happen, which I highly doubt, then WHY would the CIA continue to use her in undercover status if they thought her identity was harmed? Use some logic bro, please!

Fitzgerald said he investigated the accusations that Valerie Plame's identity was not a secret and as I posted above, it simply was not true THAT HER IDENTITY WAS WELL KNOWN outside of the intelligence community.

Libby and Rove and Armitage and others that were involved in outing her were not charged because according to Fitzgerald, he could NOT get to the bottom of who and why she was outed because "libby threw sand in the umpire's (his) eyes" Libby obstructed the Justice of this case, he obstructed justice through the wild goose chase with his lies so it made it impossible for him to indict the actual outing.

During the trial, it became clear, at least to me and quite a few others, including Fitzgerald himself, that a "Dark Cloud hangs over the Vice-President's head" with this case.

[Mr. P]

Let me tell you something Mr P, You are probably not the partisan idiot you make yourself out to be on this thread but for now you are.

If Plame outed herself, in 97 as YOU CLAIM she did to this "general guy" who also probably had top secret clearance at the time IF it did happen, which I highly doubt, then WHY would the CIA continue to use her in undercover status if they thought her identity was harmed? Use some logic bro, please!

Fitzgerald said he investigated the accusations that Valerie Plame's identity was not a secret and as I posted above, it simply was not true THAT HER IDENTITY WAS WELL KNOWN outside of the intelligence community.

Libby and Rove and Armitage and others that were involved in outing her were not charged because according to Fitzgerald, he could NOT get to the bottom of who and why she was outed because "libby threw sand in the umpire's (his) eyes" Libby obstructed the Justice of this case, he obstructed justice through the wild goose chase with his lies so it made it impossible for him to indict the actual outing.

During the trial, it became clear, at least to me and quite a few others, including Fitzgerald himself, that a "Dark Cloud hangs over the Vice-President's head" with this case.

You're hopeless.

I'm not partisan, believe it.
She did out herself in 1997.
Wilson said so.
She was recalled to DC in 1997 by the CIA, because?
If she was covert and a wmd expert why didn't the CIA send her to Niger?
The CIA had political issues with Bush.
It was well known she worked at the CIA.
Fitzgerald didn't have evidence on Libby, so he wasn't charged with outing her.

[nevadamedic]

You're hopeless.

I'm not partisan, believe it.
She did out herself in 1997.
Wilson said so.
She was recalled to DC in 1997 by the CIA, because?
If she was covert and a wmd expert why didn't the CIA send her to Niger?
The CIA had political issues with Bush.
It was well known she worked at the CIA.
Fitzgerald didn't have evidence on Libby, so he wasn't charged with outing her.

:clap:

[JohnDoe]

You're hopeless.

I'm not partisan, believe it.
She did out herself in 1997.
Wilson said so.
She was recalled to DC in 1997 by the CIA, because?
If she was covert and a wmd expert why didn't the CIA send her to Niger?
The CIA had political issues with Bush.
It was well known she worked at the CIA.
Fitzgerald didn't have evidence on Libby, so he wasn't charged with outing her.

She changed jobs, while in europe she was a NOC, She chanced jobs when she married wilson and relocated back home

Mr P? I just posted you two different official government/Justice dept reports that SHOWED YOU that she was undercover and it was not commonly known that she worked for the CIA among her friends, among her neighbors and among her family.....

For you to say, that you are some unbiased bystander in this, you would THINK that you would finally stop repeating the same ol' garbage...

you ask for links to support what I have said, and I oblidged, and searched and got them for you to SUPPORT the truth, then after all of this you come back and repeat your illogical garbage that I refuted already...?

Why bother asking for links?

you are scaring me and making me believe that there actually might be something to the saying that you all are zombies and drinking koolaid!:laugh2:

[Birdzeye]

I think you're the one who needs the brush up. You just made my case for me. :D

Sayin' it don't make it so. I notice that you failed to provide any reasoned explanation to back up your declaration, which raises questions about its validity.

[Birdzeye]

No, I'm saying it's all a non-issue. Plame outed herself in 97, and if there was proof Libby did it he'd have been charged..was he? Fish more bud, you have no case.

And if she outed herself in '97, as alleged, why did the CIA contine to employ her as a covert agent? And why was her position classified after that?

[Yurt]

Bullshit. She was covert at the time she was outed; by the time of the "criminal proceeding," her cover had been blown.

As for what her husband may have said at parties, I'd like to see a reliable link.

How can you know?


The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame,"engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times."
When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and
sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or
non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."


Was she overseas?

[Birdzeye]

You're hopeless.

I'm not partisan, believe it.
She did out herself in 1997.
Wilson said so.
She was recalled to DC in 1997 by the CIA, because?
If she was covert and a wmd expert why didn't the CIA send her to Niger?
The CIA had political issues with Bush.
It was well known she worked at the CIA.
Fitzgerald didn't have evidence on Libby, so he wasn't charged with outing her.



:lol:

Not partisan, the '97 outing story that defies logic, etc. What a hoot.

[Yurt]

And if she outed herself in '97, as alleged, why did the CIA contine to employ her as a covert agent? And why was her position classified after that?

See post above... It is not clear at all she was exactly "covert"

[Yurt]

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

Compromised: Joseph Wilson and wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Vanity Fair

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

Covert?? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm)

[JohnDoe]

See post above... It is not clear at all she was exactly "covert"


Really now? Guess you did not read the trial or congressional hearings that were UNDER OATH, huh?

Stop it

stop it with the lies that have ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE....

you know?

Please if your mind is made up already, and you don't care to do any LEGITIMATE research on the subject, then why do all of you guys bother to post on this thread?

you are certainly not going to change MY MIND on this subject, because I have read the transcripts of both the trial and the Congressional hearing...


And something else, do YOU believe that General Hayden, the head of our CIA now, IS A LIAR? BEcAUSE he IS THE ONE that has said and agreed that she was an undercover agent.


Are you telling us all that you and the others claiming the same on this thread know better than General Hayden?

:laugh:

[Dilloduck]

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

Compromised: Joseph Wilson and wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Vanity Fair

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

Covert?? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm)

Don't confuse everyone with facts. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

No Hint Seen in Memo that Plame's Role Was Secret
By JOSH GERSTEIN
Staff Reporter of the Sun
April 17, 2006

Contrary to published reports, a State Department memorandum at the center of the investigation into the leak of the name of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, appears to offer no particular indication that Ms. Plame's role at the agency was classified or covert.

The memo, drafted by the then head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and addressed to the then secretary of state, Colin Powell, was carried aboard Air Force One as President Bush departed for Africa in July 2003. A declassified version of the document was obtained by The New York Sun on Saturday.

....

Not noted in the previous press reports was the fact that six of the seven paragraphs in the memo are marked "secret," while only one appears to mention Ms. Plame. In addition, virtually every paragraph in the attached supporting documents from the State Department about alleged Iraqi uranium procurement in Niger carries the "secret" designation.

With most, if not all, of the Niger-related documents marked "secret" in a host of places, there is no particular reason a reader would think the classification was derived from Ms. Plame's status or involvement.


http://www.nysun.com/article/31062?page_no=2

[Yurt]

Don't confuse everyone with facts. :laugh2:

*ashamed*

:laugh2:

[Yurt]

Really now? Guess you did not read the trial or congressional hearings that were UNDER OATH, huh?

Stop it

stop it with the lies that have ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE....

you know?

Please if your mind is made up already, and you don't care to do any LEGITIMATE research on the subject, then why do all of you guys bother to post on this thread?

you are certainly not going to change MY MIND on this subject, because I have read the transcripts of both the trial and the Congressional hearing...


And something else, do YOU believe that General Hayden, the head of our CIA now, IS A LIAR? BEcAUSE he IS THE ONE that has said and agreed that she was an undercover agent.


Are you telling us all that you and the others claiming the same on this thread know better than General Hayden?

:laugh:



Any links?

[JohnDoe]

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

Compromised: Joseph Wilson and wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Vanity Fair

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

Covert?? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm)

your article is 2 YEARS OLD.

Please go to www.c-span.org and listen to the congressional hearing on this or do a google to read the transcript of it and of the Plame trial....

you actually MIGHT learn something...really.

And I didn't mean to offend you, but for a while there it was me trying to debate against 2 or 3 other dudes on here who insisted on links, I provided them and then they continue to say the same old shit agin and quite frankly it is pretty mind boggling to withness the "control" someone or something has over you all...

EVEN IF THE TRUTH is spelled out before you (not you, but you in general you), you stick to same old fabricated and misleading story.

Enough. I mean, you can post what ever you please and I believe in the first amendment with the best of us, but someday, you yourself just might see the truth andd say, "enough" yourself and start telling facts instead of purely partisan spin imo.

[glockmail]

IT WAS NOT COMMONLY KNOWN!



Is that good enough for you buddy?

Not widely known, but commonly known as stated previously, Buddy. :slap:

[glockmail]

Sayin' it don't make it so. I notice that you failed to provide any reasoned explanation to back up your declaration, which raises questions about its validity.
Anyone with an IQ over 90 wold have figured it out by themselves.

[Birdzeye]

Anyone with an IQ over 90 wold have figured it out by themselves.

Well, since you're unable, or unwilling, to defend your position, I guess all you have left is to hurl insults. Lame.

[Gunny]

Cocky........are you willing to say those three little words now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

Sure. Nobody could figure out her driving in and out of CIA Headquarters to and from work every day, and of course, NO ONE would have a reason to have who comes and goes from CIA Hqtrs under surveillance.

:lame2:

[JohnDoe]

Sure. Nobody could figure out her driving in and out of CIA Headquarters to and from work every day, and of course, NO ONE would have a reason to have who comes and goes from CIA Hqtrs under surveillance.

:lame2:

I wonder how everyone that works at the Cia in Washington that is classified gets to work every day too?

I guess you are implying that no one at the Cia is undercover?

Unless of course they parachutted in to work every day wearing a Zoro mask?

But they could never drive to work if they are undercover, is that what you are saying there Gun?

[Gunny]

I wonder how everyone that works at the Cia in Washington that is classified gets to work every day too?

I guess you are implying that no one at the Cia is undercover?

Unless of course they parachutted in to work every day wearing a Zoro mask?

But they could never drive to work if they are undercover, is that what you are saying there Gun?

They drive in and out the front gate in MacClean, VA.

I am not implying no one in the CIA is undercover. I'm implying that it's rather hard to explain to me how one can be "undercover" riding a desk at CIA Hqtrs, and driving in and out the gate on a daily basis for 3 years.

That would be one year more than the CIA normally maintains a cover for a field operative once they leave the field.

[Yurt]

JohnDoe;69902]your article is 2 YEARS OLD.

Uh, the alleged outing is almost four years old, your point? Do you actually dispute anything the article says or is it you just don't like it because it is two years old? If you have nothing other than the age of the article, which in this case is irrelevent, then you need to learn something...really


Please go to www.c-span.org and listen to the congressional hearing on this or do a google to read the transcript of it and of the Plame trial....

you actually MIGHT learn something...really.

You claim it, you provide it. I on the other hand have provided two links which prove she was not covert and no laws broken.



EVEN IF THE TRUTH is spelled out before you (not you, but you in general you), you stick to same old fabricated and misleading story.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.


I have, 2 or 3 times, mentioned the overseas part and yet you stick to the same old fabricated and misleading story. Why don't you address it?


Enough. I mean, you can post what ever you please and I believe in the first amendment with the best of us, but someday, you yourself just might see the truth andd say, "enough" yourself and start telling facts instead of purely partisan spin imo.

Come on, stop whining and answer the facts I posted. According to the lawyer who wrote the act in 1982 (previously posted by me) if she was not overseas, she was NOT undercover.

:)

[Mr. P]

They drive in and out the front gate in MacClean, VA.

I am not implying no one in the CIA is undercover. I'm implying that it's rather hard to explain to me how one can be "undercover" riding a desk at CIA Hqtrs, and driving in and out the gate on a daily basis for 3 years.

That would be one year more than the CIA normally maintains a cover for a field operative once they leave the field.

Three of these folks don't have a clue, Gunny.

[JohnDoe]

And if she outed herself in '97, as alleged, why did the CIA contine to employ her as a covert agent? And why was her position classified after that?

That question might require a tad of logic and just thinking.

Don't hold your breath for any answers from him. Looks like he is ducking it.

[JohnDoe]

Any links? Yes, I have ALREADY posted them in this very thread, along with quotes.

[Yurt]

Two irrelevent posts and yet you ducked this:

post (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=69944&postcount=89)

:poke:

[Mr. P]

And if she outed herself in '97, as alleged, why did the CIA contine to employ her as a covert agent? And why was her position classified after that?

Geeezzz it's not 'alleged'. Her husband said it in his interview for the article I linked. You don't believe he said it?

As far as why did the CIA continue to employ her as covert? They didn't, they called her back to DC. Then failed to update her status..typical of government to be slow with records.

[JohnDoe]

Uh, the alleged outing is almost four years old, your point? Do you actually dispute anything the article says or is it you just don't like it because it is two years old? If you have nothing other than the age of the article, which in this case is irrelevent, then you need to learn something...really



You claim it, you provide it. I on the other hand have provided two links which prove she was not covert and no laws broken.




"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.


I have, 2 or 3 times, mentioned the overseas part and yet you stick to the same old fabricated and misleading story. Why don't you address it?



Come on, stop whining and answer the facts I posted. According to the lawyer who wrote the act in 1982 (previously posted by me) if she was not overseas, she was NOT undercover.

:)

There were SEVERAL LAWS that could have been broken here.

NOT just the law that Victoria Tungsing helped write many moons ago o overseas covert operatives.

Victoria's ass was grass in the hearing before Congress and SHE, much to your dismay, was made a fool of....

That's what I have to say about it.

If you care to know more as I have mentioned several times on this thread, you need to go to the transcrips for the Plame congressional hearing that went on earlier this year, after the Libby trial was over. Go to www.c-span.org and watch it or google it, the testimony under oath should be available.

What's there to defend here?

Your leaders, leaked the position of a CIA undercover officer, in order to TRY to disparage Ambassador Joe Wilson, her husband, who was sent on this trip, NOT by Valerie Plame (which came out in the tiral and in the Congressional Hearing), but by the CIA to investigate whther saddam was actively and presently seeking yellowcake, enriched uranium for weapons of mass destruction, from Niger.

It was shown that Saddam was NOT actively seeking yellowcake from Niger as our president said British intelligence surmised, in his state of the union address to us.

Cheney, denies EVER receiving the briefing from the CIA on Wilson's trip. Most if not all people believe for various reason that Cheney could be lying on this in February of 2002.

Note that wilson's trip was in february of 2002, the twin towers were still burning and the fire not out yet.

None of us laymen knew the Administration was going to lead us in to a war with Iraq. This was over a year before we went to war with Iraq. Everyone was still 100% behind President Bush after 911, but before Iraq.

The partisan thing being said now is that Wilson and Plame were against the war in Iraq and that is why Wilson did not report the truth about the lack of a solid connection between saddam and Niger and his interest to posess yellowcake.

This was over a year before we ever went in to war with Iraq, so that is pure BS.

[Yurt]

There were SEVERAL LAWS that could have been broken here.

NOT just the law that Victoria Tungsing helped write many moons ago o overseas covert operatives.

Victoria's ass was grass in the hearing before Congress and SHE, much to your dismay, was made a fool of....

That's what I have to say about it.

If you care to know more as I have mentioned several times on this thread, you need to go to the transcrips for the Plame congressional hearing that went on earlier this year, after the Libby trial was over. Go to www.c-span.org and watch it or google it, the testimony under oath should be available.

What's there to defend here?

Your leaders, leaked the position of a CIA undercover officer, in order to TRY to disparage Ambassador Joe Wilson, her husband, who was sent on this trip, NOT by Valerie Plame (which came out in the tiral and in the Congressional Hearing), but by the CIA to investigate whther saddam was actively and presently seeking yellowcake, enriched uranium for weapons of mass destruction, from Niger.

It was shown that Saddam was NOT actively seeking yellowcake from Niger as our president said British intelligence surmised, in his state of the union address to us.

Cheney, denies EVER receiving the briefing from the CIA on Wilson's trip. Most if not all people believe for various reason that Cheney could be lying on this in February of 2002.

Note that wilson's trip was in february of 2002, the twin towers were still burning and the fire not out yet.

None of us laymen knew the Administration was going to lead us in to a war with Iraq. This was over a year before we went to war with Iraq. Everyone was still 100% behind President Bush after 911, but before Iraq.

The partisan thing being said now is that Wilson and Plame were against the war in Iraq and that is why Wilson did not report the truth about the lack of a solid connection between saddam and Niger and his interest to posess yellowcake.

This was over a year before we ever went in to war with Iraq, so that is pure BS.


Do you ever deal with facts? Or links? You answered nothing in my post...

[CockySOB]

Cocky........are you willing to say those three little words now?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/

"Armitage did it." OK, there... I said it.

Oh wait, you probably meant for me to say, "Wilson screwed Plame."

Then again, that might not be what you wanted either. (Not that I'd blame him, she IS a looker!) How about, "Libby committed perjury?" I can live with that even though it's not inclusive of his obstruction of justice conviction.

Fitzgerald was obviously unwilling to argue that Plame was 'covert' as relates to the 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act in any legal proceeding. Instead, he has done what any competent prosecutor would do and argued his case in court using only the facts which were necessary for him to secure a conviction on the defendant. And rightly so, I might add. Since Libby was convicted of the perjury and obstruction charges, he should do time, and I am all for Fitzgerald being aggressive with his sentencing recommendations.

As to the sentencing recommendation, it is expected of the prosecutor to aggressively seek the maximum penalty available under law, just as it is expected that the defense will argue for leniency. Here Fitzgerald asserts a point he never proved in court, specifically that Plame was 'covert' per Title 50 USC 421. Fitzgerald also argues that Libby is remorseless, etc. On the other hand, the defense has tried to argue that Libby is maintaining his innocence and that since Plame's status has never been validated as a matter of law, Libby should be treated with leniency.

And BTW, per Title 50 USC 422d, Plame could tell who she wanted of her covert status (if she was in fact, covert) without fear of prosecution.

Here are links to both the sentencing recommendation (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070525_Sentencing.pdf) and to Fitzgerald's exhibits (http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/Libby_070525_Sent_Covert.pdf) attached to the document.

[stephanie]

What's amazing to me......

Their still milking the Plame game.......

Where is their civil suit right now??????

I hope they press it......

Then Joe Wilson and the wifey........ Miss..Plame will get to be deposed.....

Waiting???????????

[CockySOB]

USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-29-plame-testimony_N.htm) on Plame's contradictory statements to Congress on her role in recruiting her husband to go to Niger.

Seems to me that she's had just as many contradictory statements as Libby. Should she be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice under the same statutes used to convict Libby? In my mind, it certainly seems so.

And just in case anyone wants to read the Press Release (http://bond.senate.gov/atwork/recordtopic.cfm?id=224436) from Sen. Kit Bond's website....

If she lied to Congress, she deserves the same scorn and punishment that Libby received. And remember kiddies, I don't have a problem with Libby's conviction or the possibility that he serves three years for his convictions.

[stephanie]

USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-29-plame-testimony_N.htm) on Plame's contradictory statements to Congress on her role in recruiting her husband to go to Niger.

Seems to me that she's had just as many contradictory statements as Libby. Should she be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice under the same statutes used to convict Libby? In my mind, it certainly seems so.

And just in case anyone wants to read the Press Release (http://bond.senate.gov/atwork/recordtopic.cfm?id=224436) from Sen. Kit Bond's website....

If she lied to Congress, she deserves the same scorn and punishment that Libby received. And remember kiddies, I don't have a problem with Libby's conviction or the possibility that he serves three years for his convictions.

You damn right.....she should be indicted for perjury.....

That's why we haven't heard anymore on their civil case...

Losers...

[musicman]

They drive in and out the front gate in MacClean, VA.

I am not implying no one in the CIA is undercover. I'm implying that it's rather hard to explain to me how one can be "undercover" riding a desk at CIA Hqtrs, and driving in and out the gate on a daily basis for 3 years.

That would be one year more than the CIA normally maintains a cover for a field operative once they leave the field.

You must spread some reputation around, etc. ...

Damn!

Good post, Gunny!

[glockmail]

Well, since you're unable, or unwilling, to defend your position, I guess all you have left is to hurl insults. Lame.
It was an apparent statement of fact, as the logic was clear and obvious to all except you, bird brain. :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Uh, the alleged outing is almost four years old, your point? Do you actually dispute anything the article says or is it you just don't like it because it is two years old? If you have nothing other than the age of the article, which in this case is irrelevent, then you need to learn something...really



You claim it, you provide it. I on the other hand have provided two links which prove she was not covert and no laws broken.




"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.


I have, 2 or 3 times, mentioned the overseas part and yet you stick to the same old fabricated and misleading story. Why don't you address it?



Come on, stop whining and answer the facts I posted. According to the lawyer who wrote the act in 1982 (previously posted by me) if she was not overseas, she was NOT undercover.

:)

YOu have provided NOTHING but hearsay and rumor mill product.

I provided This Board with sworn congressional Testimony, The Prosecutors pre indictment press conference, and a legal court case's transcripts as proof. Along with General Hayden of the CIA agreeing that this sworn testimony regarding Plames undercover classified status was absolutely correct... That is our CIA DIRECTOR....but no, that is not good enough.



And as the non thinking crowd that only lives and breaths by what they are told to think and say and post person that you apparently are a part of, I can understand how this may be difficult for you to come to terms with.:poke:

[stephanie]

We already know.........it was Ameritage, and not Libby....

Bring it on......I want to see the civil case of the Plame game....

I can't wait..........:dance:

[JohnDoe]

USA Today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-05-29-plame-testimony_N.htm) on Plame's contradictory statements to Congress on her role in recruiting her husband to go to Niger.

Seems to me that she's had just as many contradictory statements as Libby. Should she be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice under the same statutes used to convict Libby? In my mind, it certainly seems so.

And just in case anyone wants to read the Press Release (http://bond.senate.gov/atwork/recordtopic.cfm?id=224436) from Sen. Kit Bond's website....

If she lied to Congress, she deserves the same scorn and punishment that Libby received. And remember kiddies, I don't have a problem with Libby's conviction or the possibility that he serves three years for his convictions.

Sure, IF SHE LIED, under oath before her God and Congress then she should be charged just as Libby was charged.

But guess what, she didn't lie before and that is why she has not been charged with a felony.

And if she lied before congress about her own CIA classified Status, then General Hayden our CIA director LIED under oath, about it too.

Why is this so hard for all of you to come to terms with?

We have the newly appointed CIA Director backing up Valerie Plame's covert status but for some reason you all THINK you know more than him.

That's pretty ignorant, if you ask me.

So, I ask you why are you alll like this, wht is there to gain by avoiding facts and truth?

[glockmail]

Sure, IF SHE LIED, under oath before her God and Congress then she should be charged just as Libby was charged.... But she's a democrat and liberal, and therefore is expected to lie.

[CockySOB]

Sure, IF SHE LIED, under oath before her God and Congress then she should be charged just as Libby was charged.

Well, I'd say there's hope for you yet, except you follow one intelligent statement with so many ignorant ones that it boggles the mind.


But guess what, she didn't lie before and that is why she has not been charged with a felony.

And if she lied before congress about her own CIA classified Status, then General Hayden our CIA director LIED under oath, about it too.

Why is this so hard for all of you to come to terms with?
Ah. So now YOU'RE claiming that because Plame hasn't been charged with perjury, she is innocent? Strange. And what is really strange is that you somehow jumped track as pertains to Plame's own inconsistencies in her sworn testimony before Congress and its various committees. Where did you come up with the absurd notion that Plame lied about her status at the CIA. Hell, she's the one who flat-out said that SHE didn't know what her status was. And yes, I find it ironic that an alleged 'covert' agent would not know absolutely that they were 'covert.' But that's a curiosity, and NOT the issue I touched on. Perhaps had you bothered to READ my posts, you'd have better understood them. Your clairvoyancy is slipping....

The issue I touched on was Plame's conflicting testimony before Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee about her role in sending Joe Wilson to Niger. Plame has said under oath that she had nothing to do with Joe Wilson being selected to go to Niger, yet in prior sworn testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, she claims to have been the person who first proposed sending her husband to Niger. Are you seeing the similarity here between Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction, and the potential for such charges being filed against Plame? If not, then you must be wearing rose-colored lenses and sipping the spiked kool-aid.


We have the newly appointed CIA Director backing up Valerie Plame's covert status but for some reason you all THINK you know more than him.

Excuse me. We've heard Rep. Waxman claim that Gen. Hayden said she was covert. But guess what? Gen. Hayden has never testified before Congress or any other properly convened investigative body as to the legal status of Valerie Elise Plame while she was employed at the CIA. Not once. Please, show me where he did and I'll admit my error.

And while you're at it, nugget, please show some kind of evidence that Exhibit A of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation is an official CIA document which carries the weight of the CIA General Counsel. Without such proof of authorship, it is irrelevant as hearsay. (That'd be an example of a legal term. You might want to look it up on one of the law-related websites like say, Cornell's Law School.)


That's pretty ignorant, if you ask me.

So, I ask you why are you alll like this, wht is there to gain by avoiding facts and truth?
What is ignorant is some idiot (like yourself) not bothering to read the posts, but still daining himself intelligent enough to comment on them.

[JohnDoe]

Well, I'd say there's hope for you yet, except you follow one intelligent statement with so many ignorant ones that it boggles the mind.

Thank you!:salute:

Ah. So now YOU'RE claiming that because Plame hasn't been charged with perjury, she is innocent?

YES, I am claiming this because she is innocent of perjury until charged and proven guilty...

and because she swore under oath of such,

and because the director of Central Intelligence General Hayden who was recently picked by President Bush, has given the clearance to now say that Valerie plame was undercover and covert officer for the CIA, he did this by okaying Waxman's statement to be read during this hearing , he limited waxman as to what he could say about Valerie and this case,

and that the CIA was actively keeping her status classified and filed a complaint with the Justice Dept over the outing,

and because Patrick Fitzgerald the special investigator and prosecutor in this case PICKED by Republicans for the investigation of the outing has stated that through his investigation in to the allegations of the CIA that Valerie Plame was outed and fits the description of an agent being outed according to the law. If he could not have determined her undercover status then the investigation would have ended there.

And last but not least, because with NO DOUBT, the republicans and representatives of the President would request a Justice dept investigation in to her lying and committing perjury if she did.

Strange. And what is really strange is that you somehow jumped track as pertains to Plame's own inconsistencies in her sworn testimony before Congress and its various committees. Where did you come up with the absurd notion that Plame lied about her status at the CIA. Hell, she's the one who flat-out said that SHE didn't know what her status was. And yes, I find it ironic that an alleged 'covert' agent would not know absolutely that they were 'covert.' But that's a curiosity, and NOT the issue I touched on. Perhaps had you bothered to READ my posts, you'd have better understood them. Your clairvoyancy is slipping....

Maybe I jumped over it because you all continue to jump over listening to the ACTUAL CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS on this on c-span's archive of it.

In this testimony it was very clear that Valerie Plame did not send her husband to Iraq, that the vice president's office inquired about the yellowcake from Niger rumor and asked the Cia Briefer what the Cia knew about it, this person stopped valerie in the hall and told her of the vp office's inquirey. Another co-worker also got involved in the conversation and suggested Wilson, because of his past experience with Iraq and his experience in Africa and because they had used him fairly recently for another mission and thought he would be good for this one.... this person and the other 2 went to see the boss about it and the boss asked Valerie if she could ask her husband if he was willing to come in next week and talk to them about it, which she did.

The reason there is a difference is because of Republican political POSTURING in the intelligence committee and ONLY a couple of republicans got together and put out info that valerie sent her husband JUST to support the president, no democratic intelligence committe members agreed to what these repubs ADDED to the report about it... yes, THIS HAS BEEN reported on, but ignored by the right.

The person that these R committe members interviewed and got this supposed opinion from said in the senate testimony that he called these senators and even sent a report to them that they miscstued his comments and wanted them corrected for the record, but was ignored by these repubs.

Under Oath it came out that she had "NO POWER" to be able to pick and choose and fund the trip of her husband to Niger and never has had that kind of power working for the CIA.



The issue I touched on was Plame's conflicting testimony before Congress and the Senate Intelligence Committee about her role in sending Joe Wilson to Niger. Plame has said under oath that she had nothing to do with Joe Wilson being selected to go to Niger, yet in prior sworn testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, she claims to have been the person who first proposed sending her husband to Niger.

She never told the Senate Intelligence committee such. She has always claimed that she NEVER sent him.

It is how I explained above with the couple of Repubs on the senate intteligence committee being rogues on their own just for political gain, much to my dismay.... not a very pretty situation imo

Are you seeing the similarity here between Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction, and the potential for such charges being filed against Plame? If not, then you must be wearing rose-colored lenses and sipping the spiked kool-aid.

I am sorry, but the answer is NO, I do not see the similarity in the least, and my reasons are listed above and also because I am well informed on this issue, have read about both the trial and the house hearing and all of the Fitzpatrick comments that were pertinate to the case



Excuse me. We've heard Rep. Waxman claim that Gen. Hayden said she was covert. But guess what? Gen. Hayden has never testified before Congress or any other properly convened investigative body as to the legal status of Valerie Elise Plame while she was employed at the CIA. Not once. Please, show me where he did and I'll admit my error.

In the beginning of the Congressional Hearing, Waxman read a statement regarding the facts involved in this case, including the covert status of Valerie Plame and a STATEMENT from General Hayden that agreed with Waxman's statement and summary of the incident.

IF you would go to c-span and listen to the hearing in full, this came out of it.

And while you're at it, nugget, please show some kind of evidence that Exhibit A of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation is an official CIA document which carries the weight of the CIA General Counsel. Without such proof of authorship, it is irrelevant as hearsay. (That'd be an example of a legal term. You might want to look it up on one of the law-related websites like say, Cornell's Law School.)

I don't know what you mean or are talking about?

What is ignorant is some idiot (like yourself) not bothering to read the posts, but still daining himself intelligent enough to comment on them.

If you have noticed it is me against about 5 of you now and it is impossible to keep up on a timely manner and most of you seem to be saying the EXACT SAME MANTRA you were told to say or told to think by your beloved party.... sorry, but that is how it appears.

I am not claiming to be intelligent, only well informed on this subject.

[JohnDoe]

also


Fitzgerald made the following points in addition:


1. Valerie Wilson was an operations officer working in the Counter Proliferation Division (CPD) of the Directorate of Operations and headed a unit that covered weapons proliferation issues concerning Iraq.
2. While in CPD Valerie traveled overseas seven times to more than ten countries always, repeat always, undercover.
3. Valerie was a covert officer on 14 July 2003, when Novak identified her as a CIA employee.
4. The CIA was taking "affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States

[JohnDoe]

And now that ALL OF THAT is settled.

Do YOU support an administration that "outs" a CIA agent for ONLY political gain in hurting her husband's statement, and for covering up some of the fabricated reasons for going to war with Iraq is something ethical or good for our Country?

I don't, I agree with Bush 1 on this issue, he said it best.

[Samantha]

I can't believe there are still knuckleheads out there that don't believe Plame was a covert agent!

Those GOP lies sure are loved by the liar lovers. Damn!

[CockySOB]

If you have noticed it is me against about 5 of you now and it is impossible to keep up on a timely manner and most of you seem to be saying the EXACT SAME MANTRA you were told to say or told to think by your beloved party.... sorry, but that is how it appears.

I am not claiming to be intelligent, only well informed on this subject.

Sorry Chucklehead, but lumping me in with anyone else is a major mistake on your part. Again, had you bothered to actually READ my post, you would have seen me lay out a statutory defense for Plame in the case that she might have told someone else of her alleged 'covert' status. But hey, if I'm not lock-stepping with you then I must be lockstepping with them, eh? Chowderhead....

Moreover, I guess you never bothered to read any of the information I posted about Plame's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Here, let me do some of hte leg-work for you since you are either incapable of performing it yourself, or unwilling to venture into an area where YOUR party-line can be thrashed to pieces.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kit Bond today for the first time revealed that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's assertion that his wife, Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his selection to lead a fact-finding trip on Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from Niger is in direct conflict with what his wife told Senate Intelligence Committee investigators earlier this year.
Whoops! Guess Ms. Plame couldn't keep her stories straight while testifying under oath JUST LIKE LIBBY! Can you guess what that means? C'mon, take a wild guess... you know you wanna....

As to the legalese, you need to go read a book or a hundred - you obviously don't want to consider your "proof" to be what it truly is which is "hearsay." Proof would require proper legal documentation verifying the document's authenticity and authorship. Let me take a wild guess here and say that you believed the forged AFNG memos slandering GWB were "faked but true?" That kind of mentality is what you're exhibiting.

And as to Gen. Hayden's ALLEGED statement proffered by Waxman, I also say - let the General make such a statement in front of the investigating committee. If the information WAS declassified, then he should have no problem presenting that same information IN PERSON thus providing the necessary authentication to validate the statement. Again, YOU show you own bias by being willing to take what Waxman said as absolute truth WITHOUT any corroboration from the General himself. Don't you see how flimsy this makes your argument? You are willing to fudge the rules for someone whose position you support, yet you seem Hell-bent to condemn those whose positions you disagree with no matter how founded in legal fact they are.

While we're at it CHILD, Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation is NOT a statement of fact, but of opinion. His assertions in the sentencing recommendation are meant to offset any argument the defense is likely to put forth requesting leniency. This is standard operating procedure. The prosecutor's arguments do NOT have to be factual, and in fact most often rely on emotional pleas to convince the sentencing judge to follow the appropriate sentencing guidelines and equations. By the way, this is where the three years comes into play in case you didn't bother to actually read the 18-page recommendation yourself (which I consider highly likely). Fitzgerald also repeatedly indicates that Libby was NOT convicted for a violation of the IIPA 1982, but for the charges of perjury and obstruction. Fitzgerald's argument (which by the way is all a sentencing recommendation is) is simply that the normal statutory sentencing guidelines should be adhered to and that Libby should be sentenced to up to three years for his crime.

Now, perhaps you and other small-minded, rush-to-judgment individuals want to read other stuff into Fitzgerald's statement - it is your right to make an ass of yourself if you want. But you can bet your shiny posterior that I'm going to call you on it.

"Settled" my ass. You may have one or two active brain cells, but that's about it. Your research skills, as well as your logic and reading comprehension skills, are sorely laking. Try putting the kool-aid down, stepping away from the keyboard, and thinking for yourself for a change. You might still have time to make a full recovery. Maybe.

[glockmail]

If you have noticed it is me against about 5 of you now and it is impossible to keep up on a timely manner and most of you seem to be saying the EXACT SAME MANTRA you were told to say or told to think by your beloved party.... sorry, but that is how it appears.

.... .


LOL typical liberal. Loses an argument and now suddendly he's a victim. And of course we're all mindless robots. :laugh2:

[Samantha]

glockmail and cockysob, you don't believe Plame was covert?

cock - you keep saying allegedly.

glock - you claim the argument is lost.

But do either of you realize it's a fact that Plame was covert? Do you understand that the GOP and FOX lied to you when they said she was not covert?

[glockmail]

glockmail and cockysob, you don't believe Plame was covert?

cock - you keep saying allegedly.

glock - you claim the argument is lost.

But do either of you realize it's a fact that Plame was covert? Do you understand that the GOP and FOX lied to you when they said she was not covert?

Post 42. :slap:

[JohnDoe]

LOL typical liberal. Loses an argument and now suddendly he's a victim. And of course we're all mindless robots. :laugh2:

You know Glock

This is the second time you have negative repped me on this thread.

You know, they say "patience is a virtue" and I happen to agree with this, and it is something you just might consider as a virtue yourself.

I will get to you and your posts and answer them one by one if you wish or if you do not get your answers from the post I am getting ready to respond to in a few minutes, of which I am in the process of doing legitimate research on.

Patience Grasshopper, I will get to you, but know that I can not spend as much time as I would like responding to all of you. I could be called away any second now, and if I do, I may not get back to your posts until tomorrow, or maybe tonight if I have the time.

I am not in here to score some kind of Democratic "touchdown" of any sort, and then to run off claiming to be a "WINNER", I am in this because I think it is important to know all the facts and to figure out "what the heck is going on here?"

And several posters here have brought up some things that I need to double check and get information on before I can respond, it takes time to do this, unless you expect me to just know all of these responses of mine and be able to spout them at the tip of my tongue?

Well surprise, surprise, as I have said once before, I just "ain't that smart" to be able to do this.

Google is my best friend. And HE is who will have my attention for probably the next 30 minutes to an hour, researching my answers and trying to provide all of you with the links that you all so desperately are calling for.

Okay?

JD

[JohnDoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

and as the source, the link that YOU GAVE... why didn't you read further down, you would have had YOUR ANSWER, huh and I wouldn't have had to spend 20 minutes researching my response to your bogus allegation.


[edit] Wilson's response to the claims

According to another "exclusive" posted on the blog WorldNetDaily––which appears as a featured link on the John Batchelor Show website––Wilson demanded through his lawyer that Vallely retract these allegations, calling them "patently false":

Ambassador Joseph Wilson's attorney is demanding Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely retract a statement he made to WND that the man at the center of the CIA leak case "outed" his own wife as a CIA employee in conversations more than a year before her identity was revealed in a syndicated column.

A demand letter was sent by Christopher Wolf, partner at Proskauer Rose LLP and counsel for Wilson, to both Vallely and WND tonight.

It disputes Vallely's claim that Wilson mentioned Valerie Plame's status with the CIA in conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington as they waited to appear as analysts.

"As you know, that assertion and the claim that Ambassador Wilson revealed to you or to anyone that his wife worked for the CIA is patently false, and subjects you and anyone publishing your statements to legal liability," states the letter.

It continues: "We are writing to demand that you immediately retract the assertion attributed to you and to insist that you stop making the false allegation. In addition, we request that you identify all persons or entitites (sic) to whom you made any claim that Ambassador Wilson revealed his wife's employment at the CIA to you."[59]

According to Farah and Moore, "The e-mail received by WND included earlier comments by Wilson to his attorney":

"This is slanderous," Wilson wrote. "I never appeared on TV before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX. Vallely is a retired general and this is a bald faced lie. Can we sue? This is not he said/he said, since I never laid eyes on him till several months after he alleges I spoke to him about my wife."[59]

Subsequently, in media appearances and via online posts by Art Moore in WorldNetDaily, General Vallely revised the number of times that he claimed to have met and spoken with Wilson specifically about his wife's "employment" for the CIA (yet still not her specific status as a NOC) to only "one occasion." Wilson vigorously disputed the General's claims regarding any such conversation touching on his wife's "employment".[60]

According to John Batchelor's own post on the blog RedState on November 6, 2005, Lt. General Tom McInerney (USAF Retired) said that Joe Wilson also "boasted" about his wife's job with the CIA to him while they were waiting in the green room at FOX News.[61] Wilson has also labeled these further claims "slanderous," while serving notice of possible legal repercussions on Vallely, McInerney, and WorldNetDaily. Again following Vallely's lead, after being threatened with legal action by Wilson's lawyer, in his own various later media appearances, McInerney has also backed away from initial impressions that he gave that he himself also had experiences in conversations with Wilson that supported his friend Vallely's claims. According to the investigation by Media Matters for America, contradicting such allegations by Batchelor on his radio show, it has become clear that he did not have any such firsthand experience of his own pertaining to Wilson's wife's "employment".[60]

[CockySOB]

glockmail and cockysob, you don't believe Plame was covert?

cock - you keep saying allegedly.

glock - you claim the argument is lost.

But do either of you realize it's a fact that Plame was covert? Do you understand that the GOP and FOX lied to you when they said she was not covert?

I can only speak for myself, but no, I don't think she was 'covert' as per the statute. What should be interesting as well is that the CIA never referred the case to the DOJ based on the IIPA statutes, but under the more general statutes covering the dissemination of classified information - and yes, there is a major difference. This tells me that at the time, the CIA did not consider Plame 'covert' per the IIPA, and this belief is reinforced by the fact that we have NO official CIA statement (with proper documentation supporting authenticity and authorship) which states that Plame was considered 'covert' by the CIA as pertains to the IIPA. Reading the transcripts of the Congressional hearings we can see that the CIA was fairly loose in its application of the terms "covert, classified and undercover." We can also see that this leads to the problem of a legal definition of Plame's status which the CIA apparently has not YET been able or willing to clarify definitively.

I also question why Fitzgerald never moved for ANY charges related to the IIPA 1982 during his office. If he had ANY legal proof that Plame WAS a covert agent per the statute, he would have presented it as part of his case against Libby, specifically as evidence going to motive and intent. Heck, he could have easily incorporated charges along the lines of "accessory after the fact" or the like. But no, not a single charge related to the dissemination of classified information, nor breaching the cover of a covert intelligence agent.

I also question why we haven't heard Gen. Hayden or a designated official for the CIA (like say the CIA General Counsel) make a formal statement about Plame's status, especially since via hearsay we are supposed to believe that a summary of her employment is now declassified. This would qualify as an authoritative answer on how the CIA viewed Plame's employment, although it would still leave the question of whether the CIA used "affirmative measures" to conceal Plame's identity. And if her 'covert identity' was Valerie Plame or Valerie Wilson, then the CIA has a lot to answer for as regards extremely shoddy spycraft.

If you have any definitive, legal proof that Plame was a covert agent per the IIPA 1982, please present it. Leave the opinions at home, child, and bring only your proof. Make certain your proof is corroborated. Until then, it is YOU and other irrational personalities who are the ones refusing to "face reality."

Samantha, with due deference, call me Cocky or CSOB or the like - I don't appreciate being called "cock." I'd also suggest you take the time to read my posts as well, because you might find some enlightenment in them. You'll also soon learn that I don't cite Fox News nor the Republican Party as a source - another fallacy you seem intent on propagating.

[Samantha]

If you fellas want to keep pretending she wasn't covert when she has been officially designated as covert at the time of her outting, there's nothing I can say to get you to see the truth.

It's sad that so many people want to keep believing the lies. I understand a lot of people have been spreading the lies about Plame to try to cover for the treason committed. But now the truth is out, and some of you refuse to stop believing the lies. I don't get that.

From 2006

This is written by Larry Johnson, ex CIA and anti terrorism instructor for the State Dept - here is his bio (http://www.tpmcafe.com/user/ljohnson)


The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.
For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.
The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage. http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

From 2005


Why was protecting Plame’s identity important?

“The fact that she had been undercover for many years,” says former CIA General Counsel Jeffrey Smith, “means that all of the operations she worked on over the years, all of the people she dealt with, were also at risk if it were to become known that she were a CIA covert agent.”

The law protecting Plame and other operatives was passed in 1982 — a response to the assassination of CIA station chief Richard Welch in Athens in 1975, shortly after he'd been exposed in a magazine.

In her 1994 memoir, former first lady Barbara Bush railed against the way Welch's cover had been blown. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8619749/

Those of us who have been paying attention have known she was covert for years now.

[Doniston]

But she's a democrat and liberal, and therefore is expected to lie. That is plain garbage. the ones to realy count on lying are the Bushites.

[Doniston]

[QUOTE=JohnDoe;70896]You know Glock

This is the second time you have negative repped me on this thread.

You know, they say "patience is a virtue" and I happen to agree with this, and it is something you just might consider as a virtue yourself.

I will get to you and your posts and answer them one by one if you wish or if you do not get your answers from the post I am getting ready to respond to in a few minutes, of which I am in the process of doing legitimate research on.

Patience Grasshopper, I will get to you, but know that I can not spend as much time as I would like responding to all of you. I could be called away any second now, and if I do, I may not get back to your posts until tomorrow, or maybe tonight if I have the time. x

I am not in here to score some kind of Democratic "touchdown" of any sort, and then to run off claiming to be a "WINNER", I am in this because I think it is important to know all the facts and to figure out "what the heck is going on here?"

And several posters here have brought up some things that I need to double check and get information on before I can respond, it takes time to do this, unless you expect me to just know all of these responses of mine and be able to spout them at the tip of my tongue?

Well surprise, surprise, as I have said once before, I just "ain't that smart" to be able to do this.

Google is my best friend. And HE is who will have my attention for probably the next 30 minutes to an hour, researching my answers and trying to provide all of you with the links that you all so desperately are calling for.

Okay? So those reps area intergal part of your position? not me, I couldn't care less about Reps, whether Neg, or Pos, or even exist. and I don't issue them.

[Doniston]

You know Glock

This is the second time you have negative repped me on this thread.

You know, they say "patience is a virtue" and I happen to agree with this, and it is something you just might consider as a virtue yourself.

I will get to you and your posts and answer them one by one if you wish or if you do not get your answers from the post I am getting ready to respond to in a few minutes, of which I am in the process of doing legitimate research on.

Patience Grasshopper, I will get to you, but know that I can not spend as much time as I would like responding to all of you. I could be called away any second now, and if I do, I may not get back to your posts until tomorrow, or maybe tonight if I have the time. x

I am not in here to score some kind of Democratic "touchdown" of any sort, and then to run off claiming to be a "WINNER", I am in this because I think it is important to know all the facts and to figure out "what the heck is going on here?"

And several posters here have brought up some things that I need to double check and get information on before I can respond, it takes time to do this, unless you expect me to just know all of these responses of mine and be able to spout them at the tip of my tongue?

Well surprise, surprise, as I have said once before, I just "ain't that smart" to be able to do this.

Google is my best friend. And HE is who will have my attention for probably the next 30 minutes to an hour, researching my answers and trying to provide all of you with the links that you all so desperately are calling for.

Okay? So those reps are an intergal part of your position? not me, I couldn't care less about Reps, whether Neg, or Pos, or even exist. and I don't issue them.

[glockmail]

You know Glock

This is the second time you have negative repped me on this thread......

When you claim yourself the victor having obviously lost an argument, claim to be a victim then insult your opponents, I'd say you qualify for several more dings.

[glockmail]

and as the source, the link that YOU GAVE... why didn't you read further down, you would have had YOUR ANSWER, huh and I wouldn't have had to spend 20 minutes researching my response to your bogus allegation.


What's your point?

[CockySOB]

Samantha, this is the last time I'm going to address this issue with you: opinions are NOT the same as legal facts. Unless you can provide some legal FACT which states Plame was a covert intelligence agent per the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982, don't bother arguing with me.

Sheesh, you sound like the people who said that Libby shouldn't have been charged with perjury since no charges were ever proffered. Idiocy and moral relativism supersede rational thought and legal fact yet again - this time from the OTHER side of the aisle.

[Gunny]

Samantha, this is the last time I'm going to address this issue with you: opinions are NOT the same as legal facts. Unless you can provide some legal FACT which states Plame was a covert intelligence agent per the Intelligence Identity Protection Act of 1982, don't bother arguing with me.

Sheesh, you sound like the people who said that Libby shouldn't have been charged with perjury since no charges were ever proffered. Idiocy and moral relativism supersede rational thought and legal fact yet again - this time from the OTHER side of the aisle.

You're arguing with a fence post, Cocky. You've pretty-much CRUSHED this argument. It's "Black Knight Syndrome" (from Monty Python):laugh2:!

[Samantha]

Jesus, KNOCK KNOCK gunny cocky glocky. Do you think Patrick Fitzgerald is lying? Do you think the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate the leak for no reason? Do you think Valerie Plame perjured herself when she testified that she was covert? Do you guys have any braincells left that aren't brainwashed by the lying Bush admin?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/30/world/17testify.533.jpg


Ms. Wilson “was a covert employee,” Mr. Fitzgerald wrote, according to Newsweek. “The CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.” More detail:

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

Those statements emerged in a court filing concerning the pending sentencing of Lewis I. Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was convicted on five felony counts of obstruction of justice and perjury in the matter, but was not charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982.

So if Ms. Wilson was indeed covert, why wasn’t Mr. Libby, or anyone else who spread her name and affiliation around, charged with breaking that law? Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly brings up another prerequisite under the law: intent.

“The leakers had to know that leaking Plame’s name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn’t think he had the evidence to make that case,” he surmised. NY Times (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/valerie-plame-covert-indeed/)

A NOC is the most classified of all the covert agents. It means she's on her own and cannot even call for help if she needs it while in Non Official Cover. She worked in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries on tracking WMD. The cover company Brewster Jennings was also outed which put ALL THE AGENTS who used that company in jeopardy. Some may have been killed when the bad guys found out they were CIA when Novak wrote the story.

And you knuckleheads are trying to deny all this FACT. These facts are not my opinion, they are actual facts. Facts we shouldn't even know, but Cheney wanted to discredit Wilson, so now we know about a secret CIA agent and the cover Energy company the CIA used to track weapons of mass destruction. Feel safer now?

I would have thought you guys were paying attention, due to the fact that you post on a political discussion board. But obviously you only pay attention to the lies.

[Yurt]

I have been waiting for someone to answer this. One can argue ad nausem about the legal definition of covert, but IMO this post makes a good point that has not been answered. She courted a very high profile figure, Wilson, told him while they were dating she was "covert" and the question is, if she outed herself to him while not married, doesn't this destroy plame's flame? She goes ahead and gets with a high profile figure, yeah, does wonders for her "covert" work.



"Double Exposure", Vanity Fair, January 2004


He had met Plame in February 1997 at a reception at the Washington home of the Turkish ambassador...

At the time, Wilson was based in Stuttgart, serving as the political adviser to George Joulwan, the U.S. general in charge of the European command; Plame was based in Brussels. Meeting in Paris, London, and Brussels, they got very serious very quickly. On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a "heavy make-out" session when she said she had something to tell him. She was very conflicted and very nervous, thinking of everything that had gone into getting her to that point, such as money and training.

She was, she explained, undercover in the C.I.A. "It did nothing to dampen my ardor," he says. "

Pretty much outed herself in 1997..Not to mention he was married to a foreigner at the time. BAD very BAD.

[CockySOB]

And now I'll ask you to go back and read my post detailing Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation. Fitzgerald proceeded as any good prosecutor would after achieving a conviction - he pushes for his sentence recommendation to be as persuasive as possible so as to offset the myriad of sentence recommendations coming from the defense team directly, and from amicus curiae briefs. These recommendations are most usually the emotional plea either for leniency (from the defense) or for harshness (from the prosecution) unless a pre-trial plea bargain was entered into wherein the prosecutor may bargain with the defense for a more lenient sentence in exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty on one or more charges.

I'll say it for you again, Samantha. These recommendations do NOT carry the force of law, nor are they required to consist of legal fact. Fitzgerald is doing his job properly, and I have never said otherwise. But you and others who want to turn this perjury case into some kind of political statement are grasping at straws trying to read new meaning into Libby's conviction. You do not seem interested in justice nor the law, or at least you have demonstrated an inability to be objective about the Libby case.

Fitzgerald's beliefs are irrelevant. Yes, you heard that right. Fitzgerald has conducted a thorough and professional investigation into a matter which might have had serious National Security consequences. The only thing he found was that Libby made contradictory statements to Congress and Federal investigators which earned him his charges and then conviction of perjury and obstruction of justice. Perhaps you would like to re-read the 18 page sentencing recommendation again and COUNT the number of times Fitzgerald returns to the FACT that Libby is only guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice as per his conviction. (A conviction, by the way, creates a legal fact.) The other intimations about scandal and 'covert operatives' are meant to lend emotional weight to the prosecutor's recommendation that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines be followed and the circumstances surrounding the crime should mitigate any defense recommendations for leniency.

Again, Libby was convicted (rightly IMHO) of perjury and obstruction of justice. But as I have also said, Ms. Plame has made contradictory statements to Congress and specifically the Senate Intelligence Committee about her role in her husband being asked to go to Niger for the CIA. I would expect that she be held to the same exacting standards of accuracy that we have placed on Lewis Libby. (And yeah, WJC should have done some time for his perjury as well, but that's water long since passed under the bridge.)

BTW Samantha, you still haven't provided any legally-valid FACTS for me yet. You proffer "obvious facts" (to borrow from Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation) yet like Fitzgerald, you haven't proven those facts as a matter of law. I could say "it's obvious that bass prefer nightcrawlers to artificial lures." That doesn't make my statement a fact, merely an opinion.

[CockySOB]

I have been waiting for someone to answer this. One can argue ad nausem about the legal definition of covert, but IMO this post makes a good point that has not been answered. She courted a very high profile figure, Wilson, told him while they were dating she was "covert" and the question is, if she outed herself to him while not married, doesn't this destroy plame's flame? She goes ahead and gets with a high profile figure, yeah, does wonders for her "covert" work.

Not necessarily. I mention towards the bottom of one of my earlier posts in this thread that under the IIPA 1982, a covert agent may identify themselves to anyone as such without fear of legal reprisal. This would mean that Valerie could tell Joe all about her clandestine life (probably requires some paperwork acknowledging what information she passed on to him) without any legal repercussions.

Now if Joe then disseminated that information to others, he would most likely have violated the IIPA 1982 or other related statutes covering the dissemination of classified materials.

What is truly curious to me is this: the only names I have heard cited for Valerie are Valerie Plame and Valerie Wilson. Plame is her maiden name, which means her name is next to zero cover. Unless she worked under some other alias, I would contend that the CIA was NOT taking the required "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity. Moreover, Brewster Jennings & Co. was such a flimsy front that it took the Boston Globe less than a day to figure out that there was no such company in existence, and that it was most likely a CIA front operation. This is what I call shoddy spycraft, almost to the point of being criminally negligent. Just because the CIA claims that it was taking "affirmative measures to conceal her identity" does not mean that the measures they took were even marginally effective, let alone rising to meet the legal requirements of statute.

[Yurt]

CockySOB;71082]Not necessarily. I mention towards the bottom of one of my earlier posts in this thread that under the IIPA 1982, a covert agent may identify themselves to anyone as such without fear of legal reprisal. This would mean that Valerie could tell Joe all about her clandestine life (probably requires some paperwork acknowledging what information she passed on to him) without any legal repercussions.


Ah, that is what I wanted to know. I thought the act read that way, thanks for the info.


Now if Joe then disseminated that information to others, he would most likely have violated the IIPA 1982 or other related statutes covering the dissemination of classified materials.

What is truly curious to me is this: the only names I have heard cited for Valerie are Valerie Plame and Valerie Wilson. Plame is her maiden name, which means her name is next to zero cover. Unless she worked under some other alias, I would contend that the CIA was NOT taking the required "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity. Moreover, Brewster Jennings & Co. was such a flimsy front that it took the Boston Globe less than a day to figure out that there was no such company in existence, and that it was most likely a CIA front operation. This is what I call shoddy spycraft, almost to the point of being criminally negligent. Just because the CIA claims that it was taking "affirmative measures to conceal her identity" does not mean that the measures they took were even marginally effective, let alone rising to meet the legal requirements of statute


I think the broader question though raised by Mr. P is what her revelation to this high profile ambassador did to her "covert" status? As people have pointed out, she drove in and out of CIA headquarters almost daily. She had parties where it was introduced that she worked at the CIA. I am interested in Mr. P's assertion because it goes to the heart of whether she was actually covert.

[JohnDoe]

Let me start with you cocky and this post, I am looking forward to seeing if you are the reasonable, putting on your own pants man, that you claim you are.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry Chucklehead, but lumping me in with anyone else is a major mistake on your part. Again, had you bothered to actually READ my post, you would have seen me lay out a statutory defense for Plame in the case that she might have told someone else of her alleged 'covert' status. But hey, if I'm not lock-stepping with you then I must be lockstepping with them, eh? Chowderhead....

It doesn't matter if Plame outed herself or not, it is not against the law to "out oneself".

In addition to this it is highly unlikely that Plame would out herself and there is NO ACTUAL LEGITIMATE PROOF OF SUCH, only rumors and he said/she said type political inuendos, or is there some proof to this that I missed?

Regardless it is not against the law to out oneself, see below.


(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity

It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

Moreover, I guess you never bothered to read any of the information I posted about Plame's testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. Here, let me do some of hte leg-work for you since you are either incapable of performing it yourself, or unwilling to venture into an area where YOUR party-line can be thrashed to pieces.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Office of Sen. Kit Bond
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kit Bond today for the first time revealed that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's assertion that his wife, Valerie Plame, had nothing to do with his selection to lead a fact-finding trip on Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from Niger is in direct conflict with what his wife told Senate Intelligence Committee investigators earlier this year.

Simply not true, what she told them was that she could not remember precisely how it went down.

And note, that kit is comparing what she has said to what her husband has said but NOT to any of her own statements regarding this.

In addition to this, this article that you are quoting from is 3 YEARS OLD!

And Kit Bond went NO FURTHER WITH IT and let his partisan statement add to the confusion of this issue for 3 YEARS NOW....kit bond's partisan allegations were never proved to be true. (Where does logic come in to play with you Corky? Do you ever try to research some of the things you have posted here?)

Whoops! Guess Ms. Plame couldn't keep her stories straight while testifying under oath JUST LIKE LIBBY! Can you guess what that means? C'mon, take a wild guess... you know you wanna....

Get your facts straight Corky, the statement clearly says that 3 years ago, Kit bond's office issued this inflamatory statement about Valerie Plame's testimony verses HER HUSBANDS STATEMENTS, NOT her own statements, she had only testified once at this point.

In addition to this, there has been a trial and a congressional oversight committee hearing SINCE this article that negates Kit's non provable partisan accusations.

No wild guesses here, but it appears that you have a reading comprehension problem and a lack of curiosity to want to get the answers and truth to your own statements and questions.


As to the legalese, you need to go read a book or a hundred - you obviously don't want to consider your "proof" to be what it truly is which is "hearsay." Proof would require proper legal documentation verifying the document's authenticity and authorship. Let me take a wild guess here and say that you believed the forged AFNG memos slandering GWB were "faked but true?" That kind of mentality is what you're exhibiting.

Just useless garbage that is not pertinent to the case and does not deserve a response other than this one.

And as to Gen. Hayden's ALLEGED statement proffered by Waxman, I also say - let the General make such a statement in front of the investigating committee. If the information WAS declassified, then he should have no problem presenting that same information IN PERSON thus providing the necessary authentication to validate the statement. Again, YOU show you own bias by being willing to take what Waxman said as absolute truth WITHOUT any corroboration from the General himself. Don't you see how flimsy this makes your argument? You are willing to fudge the rules for someone whose position you support, yet you seem Hell-bent to condemn those whose positions you disagree with no matter how founded in legal fact they are.

What bogus bullshit do we have here? Are you just intentionally being obtuse?

The statement by Waxman before the congressional hearing explains what part Hayden had in Waxman's statement and vetted EVERY SINGLE WORD that Waxman said regarding the issue before it was said because only a PORTION of Valerie Plame's work history could be released for National Security Reasons.... the rest stays classified and could harm national security if released.

Now, are you telling me that General Hayden has sat silent regarding this issue, knowing what Waxman had said General Hayden Agreed to and "cleared for security"?

Where is your head? Are you certain you are not just one of those partisan people mentioned above? you say you are not and I will take your word for it but...man!

Here is the statement read before the hearing involving what Hayden allowed to be said:


http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA
CHAIRMAN
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform l{earing on Disclosure of CIA

Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's ldentify and White House Procedures for Safeguarding
Classified Information
March 16,2007

Today, the Committee is holding a hearing to examine how the White House handles highly classified information.

In June and July 2003, one of the nation's most carefully guarded secrets - the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame V/ilson - was repeatedly revealed by White House officials to members of the media....
-------------------------------------

We begin this process today.
This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging.

Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met with General Hayden, the head of the ClA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. V/ilson's service.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope, and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.
Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work of other CIA employees, and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6 under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms.'Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of her country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequences for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with CIA.
Second, it placed her professional contacts at gteater risk.
And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms.'Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. IVilson's work was so sensitive that even now, she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risk to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a life-long oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended' As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any charactenzation that minimizes the personal risk Ms.Wilson accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong'
There should be no confusion on this point.

Ms. 'Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably.

We are confident that she will uphold it again today.

That concludes the characteizations that the CLA is permitting us to make today.

[JohnDoe]

Now let's begin with what the Law about this actually says: And determine based on what we know, whether Fitgerald was correct in stating that this statute was broken:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 421 Prev | Next

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources


How Current is This?

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.



Tell me what you think?

I think it is clear that she was covered by the statute.

[JohnDoe]

oh and here are the legal definitions:


426. Definitions

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html
How Current is This?

For the purposes of this subchapter:
(1) The term “classified information” means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(2) The term “authorized”, when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.
(3) The term “disclose” means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.
(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; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
(5) The term “intelligence agency” means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(6) The term “informant” means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.
(7) The terms “officer” and “employee” have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.
(8) The term “Armed Forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term “pattern of activities” requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective.

[CockySOB]

It doesn't matter if Plame outed herself or not, it is not against the law to "out oneself".

In addition to this it is highly unlikely that Plame would out herself and there is NO ACTUAL LEGITIMATE PROOF OF SUCH, only rumors and he said/she said type political inuendos, or is there some proof to this that I missed?

Regardless it is not against the law to out oneself, see below.

I believe I already addressed this by stating EXACTLY what you did. Good God boy! Didn't you realize that?


And Kit Bond went NO FURTHER WITH IT and let his partisan statement add to the confusion of this issue for 3 YEARS NOW....kit bond's partisan allegations were never proved to be true.
Oh really? Kinda like Fitzgerald not filing any changes for violations of the IIPA 1982 or related Acts means that no crime was committed, huh? Dufus.


Get your facts straight Corky, the statement clearly says that 3 years ago, Kit bond's office issued this inflamatory statement about Valerie Plame's testimony verses HER HUSBANDS STATEMENTS, NOT her own statements, she had only testified once at this point.

In addition to this, there has been a trial and a congressional oversight committee hearing SINCE this article that negates Kit's non provable partisan accusations.

No wild guesses here, but it appears that you have a reading comprehension problem and a lack of curiosity to want to get the answers and truth to your own statements and questions.
Nice ad hominem. I must've touched a nerve to get you making childish plays on my moniker.

As to the fact that Kit Bond brought this up first back in 2004, so what? Libby was tried and convicted for his perjury well after the fact, too. And if I remember correctly, there were people saying that he wouldn't be convicted either, so you're in good company of deniers. And if you HAD bothered to read up on the topic, you'd have known that a February 2002 CIA memo on the pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Valerie specifically DID recommend her husband for the trip to Niger directly contradicting her prior sworn statements. Whoops! You mean she got caught in an on-going lie? Oh my! And a lie in front of Congress and made to Federal investigators... well... that is what Libby was convicted of, no? Fair is fair....


Just useless garbage that is not pertinent to the case and does not deserve a response other than this one.
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen! This "JohnDoe" is obviously so intelligent and well-learned that he doesn't HAVE to prove anything! His mere words should be worshipped as if they were hallowed. "Useless garbage?" Thanks for showing your true colors. This is a very simple matter for anyone who actually thinks for themselves to figure out. When in a criminal proceeding, know all the steps involved, and this is the relevant "sentencing phase." But hey, you shit marble, right?


What bogus bullshit do we have here? Are you just intentionally being obtuse?

The statement by Waxman before the congressional hearing explains what part Hayden had in Waxman's statement and vetted EVERY SINGLE WORD that Waxman said regarding the issue before it was said because only a PORTION of Valerie Plame's work history could be released for National Security Reasons.... the rest stays classified and could harm national security if released.

Now, are you telling me that General Hayden has sat silent regarding this issue, knowing what Waxman had said General Hayden Agreed to and "cleared for security"?

Where is your head? Are you certain you are not just one of those partisan people mentioned above? you say you are not and I will take your word for it but...man!

Here is the statement read before the hearing involving what Hayden allowed to be said:
And yet we have nothing on record FROM Gen. Hayden (whom I happen to like BTW) making this statement official. Again, all we have is hearsay. But I forget, Almighty JohnDoe doesn't require any proof when he can simply think, and make it so!

Kid, go back to school and get and education. And for Pete's sake, learn how to use the quote tags correctly. Fixing your response was a freaking chore, and I'm already doing the leg-work when discussing this case as it is.

One last tip, kiddo: Rosie O'Donnell is NOT a valid news source. Please try to use sources which have some validity, like say, the actual court documents themselves? I do approve that you are starting to use a valid law library for some of your research though. You've got a leg up on a lot of people around here.

[CockySOB]

Now let's begin with what the Law about this actually says: And determine based on what we know, whether Fitgerald was correct in stating that this statute was broken:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html


Tell me what you think?

I think it is clear that she was covered by the statute.

Irrelevant. Opinion is NOT the same as a legal fact. How is this that difficult to understand? A conviction for a violation of the statutes would constitute legal fact, but all you are offering (same as Fitzgerald) is a legal argument (opinion).

Sheesh. Stick with the case at hand, please. We are talking about the conviction and sentencing of Lewis Libby for his crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, nothing more. If you cannot stay on topic, that'syour problem.

[CockySOB]

oh and here are the legal definitions:

While I commend you for doing your homework, I must reiterate that you are still voicing a legal argument (opinion) and not any statement of fact. The fact is that Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction, and in doing so the legal fact of his guilt for those particular crimes is established.

But the rest of it is all speculation....

[JohnDoe]

Some more facts regarding Valerie's covert status...The prosecutor would not have contininued with this investigation if he had found out that Plame was not covert, but he states the opposite below


Office of the Special Counsel
Friday, October 28, 2005; 1:38 PM



WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL I. LEWIS LIBBY INDICTED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FALSE STATEMENT AND PERJURY CHARGES RELATING TO LEAK OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION REVEALING CIA OFFICER'S IDENTITY

WASHINGTON -- Senior White House official I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency. Libby was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in a five-count

indictment returned today by a federal grand jury as its term expired, announced Justice Department Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

The defendant, also known as "Scooter" Libby, has served since January 20, 2001, as Assistant to the President, Chief of Staff to the Vice President, and Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs. Libby, 55, will be arraigned at a later date in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The charges allege that Libby lied to FBI agents who interviewed him on October 14 and November 26, 2003; committed perjury while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24, 2004; and engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury's investigation into the unauthorized disclosure -- or "leaking" -- of Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003.

Beginning in late May 2003, Libby allegedly began acquiring information about a 2002 trip to the African country of Niger by Joseph Wilson, a former United States Ambassador and career State Department official, to investigate allegations concerning efforts by the former government of Iraq to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. The CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to Niger after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return. Subsequently, Libby allegedly lied about information he discussed about the CIA employment of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, in conversations Libby had in June and July 2003 with three news reporters -- Tim Russert of NBC News, Matt Cooper of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times.

Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. Disclosure of classified information about an individual's employment by the CIA has the potential to damage the national security in ways that range from preventing that individual's future use in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who deal with them, the indictment states.

"When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth," Mr. Fitzgerald said. "Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government.

In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson," he added. Mr. Fitzgerald announced the charges with John C. Eckenrode, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and the lead agent in the investigation. The Washington Field Office and the Inspection Division of the FBI assisted in the investigation.

The indictment alleges that Libby had frequent access to classified information and frequently spoke with officials of the U.S. intelligence community and other government officials regarding sensitive national security matters. With his responsibilities for national security matters, Libby held security clearances giving him access to classified information. Libby was obligated by federal criminal statute, regulations, executive orders, and a written non-disclosure agreement not to disclose classified information to unauthorized persons, and to properly safeguard classified information against unauthorized disclosure.

According to the indictment, on September 26, 2003, the Department of Justice and the FBI began a criminal investigation into the possible unauthorized disclosure of classified information regarding Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation to various reporters in the spring of 2003. In January 2004, the grand jury investigation began examining possible violations of criminal laws prohibiting disclosing the identity of covert intelligence personnel (The Intelligence Identities Protection Act), improperly disclosing national defense information, making false statements to government agents, and perjury. A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information.

The over-arching obstruction of justice count alleges that while testifying under oath before the grand jury on March 5 and March 24 2004, Libby knowingly and corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct and impede the grand jury's investigation by misleading and deceiving the grand jury as to when, and the manner and means by which, he acquired, and subsequently disclosed to the media, information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA. The obstruction count alleges that Libby made the following materially false and intentionally misleading statements:

continued at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801056_pf.html

[glockmail]

You're arguing with a fence post, Cocky. You've pretty-much CRUSHED this argument. It's "Black Knight Syndrome" (from Monty Python):laugh2:!


[B]Let me start with you cocky and this post...


Now let's begin with what the Law ....


oh and here are the legal definitions:...


Some more facts regarding Valerie's covert status....

It's worse than that gunny, he's got diarrhea of the keyboard.:lol:

[JohnDoe]

Sheesh. Stick with the case at hand, please. We are talking about the conviction and sentencing of Lewis Libby for his crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, nothing more. If you cannot stay on topic, that'syour problem.


I beg to differ with you, this thread was NOT about Scooter Libby, I believe it was about whether Valerie Plame was a Covert undercover officer or not.

It was not whether the law was broken regarding outing a covert operative either.

But yes, we did get in to various things related to the issue of whether Valerie Plame was considered covert, under the Law.

[Dilloduck]

I beg to differ with you, this thread was NOT about Scooter Libby, I believe it was about whether Valerie Plame was a Covert undercover officer or not.

It was not whether the law was broken regarding outing a covert operative either.

But yes, we did get in to various things related to the issue of whether Valerie Plame was considered covert, under the Law.

Who cares----the libs thought they were gonna catch some big fish with this "much ado about nothing" gossip and Libbys in the Crossbar Hilton.

[CockySOB]

I beg to differ with you, this thread was NOT about Scooter Libby, I believe it was about whether Valerie Plame was a Covert undercover officer or not.

It was not whether the law was broken regarding outing a covert operative either.

But yes, we did get in to various things related to the issue of whether Valerie Plame was considered covert, under the Law.

My mistake, after all, the information presented was from the Lewis Libby conviction and Fitzgerald's sentencing recommendation for Libby. Silly me thinking that there was anything factual about Plame's alleged covert status.

Now where'd I put that sarcasm smilie.... :-)

[JohnDoe]

While I commend you for doing your homework, I must reiterate that you are still voicing a legal argument (opinion) and not any statement of fact. The fact is that Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction, and in doing so the legal fact of his guilt for those particular crimes is established.

But the rest of it is all speculation....

Thank you.

Yes it is speculation based on facts that have been put before us.

But we do know that Valerie Plame was a covert operative, that is not speculation that is fact.

Fitzgerald according to the Law had to first determine whether Valerie Plame was undercover first, before he could even persue the investigation any further is how I read the Law.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 422 Prev | Next

§ 422. Defenses and exceptions

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent
It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

Now I could be wrong, but this is the way the above reads to me.

So, based on this, and the statement that Fitzgerald had to say on Libby's indictment, which kida fits in with what I think, that he had to state that the usa determined that the agent was really a undercover agent, before persuing the investigation and then later indictment, although the charges ended up being for obstruction of Justice and Perjury, and lying under oath to FBI Investigators.

May I ask, What Justice was Libby "OBSTRUCTING'?

This should tell you whether a crime had been committed or not.

I believe that a CRIME must have been committed in order for Libby to be able to obstruct the justice due for that crime.

But here is what Mr. Fitgerald specifically mentioned before naming the indictment counts for Scooter Libby, I have already posted the special council's link for this earlier but here is His quote:


Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's employment status was classified. Prior to that date, her affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

[CockySOB]

Thank you.

Yes it is speculation based on facts that have been put before us.

But we do know that Valerie Plame was a covert operative, that is not speculation that is fact.

Fitzgerald according to the Law had to first determine whether Valerie Plame was undercover first, before he could even persue the investigation any further is how I read the Law.

Now I could be wrong, but this is the way the above reads to me.

Actually you are incorrect. The investigation continued on the good faith efforts to discern exactly what had transpired. This is again, a standard operating procedure. Moreover, once there was a prosecutable case of perjury and obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald was well-justified to initiate that criminal case while he continued his investigation into the alleged "outing" of an alleged covert intelligence operative.


So, based on this, and the statement that Fitzgerald had to say on Libby's indictment, which kida fits in with what I think, that he had to state that the usa determined that the agent was really a undercover agent, before persuing the investigation and then later indictment, although the charges ended up being for obstruction of Justice and Perjury, and lying under oath to FBI Investigators.
I can understand that opinion even though I disagree both with your opinion AND how you arrived at it. Again, the opinions voiced in sentence recommendations do not have to meet the same requirements of legal factuality as the arguments and evidence put forth during trial. Fitzgerald never presented ANYTHING in court regarding Plame's status as a covert intelligence agent, most likely because he had no sustainable proof that she was in fact, covert. If he had ANYTHING at all, the charges against Libby would have been much more severe.


May I ask, What Justice was Libby "OBSTRUCTING'?

This should tell you whether a crime had been committed or not.
Um, incorrect again. Obstruction of justice (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html) covers a wide range of offenses. With his perjury, Libby effectively violated 18 USC 1510 by impeding a criminal investigation. Again, remember that this is in regards to an investigation which had not even gone to indictment of any persons. So Libby CAN and DID obstruct justice with his perjury, despite the fact that the primary investigation was ongoing. At this point all that could be said is that Libby was guilty of perjury and that his perjury obstructed justice. We cannot draw any other conclusions based on this because Fitzgerald was still investigating the possibility that a crime had been committed.


I believe that a CRIME must have been committed in order for Libby to be able to obstruct the justice due for that crime.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I'd encourage you to keep an open mind though, and continue researching everything that is brought up by any interested party. Just as in any "he said - she said" situation, there's three sides: his side, her side, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.


But here is what Mr. Fitgerald specifically mentioned before naming the indictment counts for Scooter Libby, I have already posted the special council's link for this earlier but here is His quote:
Again, without having a properly authenticated document confirming this, all we have is Fitzgerald's opinion. It's good that you are poring over Fitzgerald's documents and filings with the court, but I've been doing that since Fitzgerald was appointed to the Special Prosecutor's office.

Tell ya what, I'll share a couple of other links to resources I use to understand the legalese involved.
http://patterico.com/
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/

And from JustOneMinute is a link to TheNextHurrah and the PDF of Libby's defense statement to the sentencing judge (http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_defense_presentencing.pdf). This would be the defense argument for leniency I mentioned prior in this thread.

[JohnDoe]

Actually you are incorrect. The investigation continued on the good faith efforts to discern exactly what had transpired. This is again, a standard operating procedure. Moreover, once there was a prosecutable case of perjury and obstruction of justice, Fitzgerald was well-justified to initiate that criminal case while he continued his investigation into the alleged "outing" of an alleged covert intelligence operative.

Okay, I can buy in to all that you have said up there but one part I believe you need to reconsider your thinking on.

Here is where I differ with you, I believe under the Statute that I have listed a blip from above, under the Defense section of this law regarding the outing of a classified undercover officer, it instructs the prosecutor that he can not pursue an indictment for an "outing" UNTIL he gets the backing of the usa gvt that verifies the person in question of being outed meets the status of classified or covert.

I really, believe I am CORRECT on this point.

The reason this is important is because it is possible that a "law" was not broken even though exposing classified information is also against the law, along with an outing of an agent, because Vice President Cheney is now claiming that President Bush had given him permission to declassify the document that identified Plame and was classified.

Of course, being the "good Dem" that I am, I don't believe for one nano-second that in 2003 President Bush gave Cheney permission to declassify this information so to be able to connect Plame with Wilso and to try to discredit him! :D

It is possible that Cheney did this on his own and is back tracking now, and I have several reasons of why I believe this, starting with the President telling us that he would get to the bottom of this, the way he did at that Press conference. I think he was sincere at that moment. Anyway I don't want this to get too off point.

My whole contention is that it is possible that a crime was not committed yet she was still "outed", without following the proper protocol to declassify information, her outing was a surprise to her.

There is more law and procedures you should look in to also on this subject, and this is the rules and regs on declassifying and one requirement to do such, is that the head of the original classifier of a document, MUST be notified when someone like the president or anyone else in intelligence outside of the "originator" of the classification is notified. This came out in the hearing, it was quite interesting.

And I must add that my whole issue with this case initially was whether she was covert or not, and I would say as General Hayden vetted Waxman saying, she was a covert, undercover officer, at the time of her outing.

Fitzy had a more difinitive way of saying it and I will look for the quote and paste it when I find it.


I can understand that opinion even though I disagree both with your opinion AND how you arrived at it. Again, the opinions voiced in sentence recommendations do not have to meet the same requirements of legal factuality as the arguments and evidence put forth during trial. Fitzgerald never presented ANYTHING in court regarding Plame's status as a covert intelligence agent, most likely because he had no sustainable proof that she was in fact, covert. If he had ANYTHING at all, the charges against Libby would have been much more severe.

And as I have said, he could not continue with the grand jury investigation on whether an agent was outed until he got the backing of the usa gvt that this agent was indeed covert.

Fitgerald was investigating whther an undercover agent was outed, not whther she was undercover or not, that had to be determined and verified by the usa gvt agency, like the CIA, before he could even pursue the case of the outing.

Um, incorrect again. Obstruction of justice (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_73.html) covers a wide range of offenses. With his perjury, Libby effectively violated 18 USC 1510 by impeding a criminal investigation. Again, remember that this is in regards to an investigation which had not even gone to indictment of any persons. So Libby CAN and DID obstruct justice with his perjury, despite the fact that the primary investigation was ongoing. At this point all that could be said is that Libby was guilty of perjury and that his perjury obstructed justice. We cannot draw any other conclusions based on this because Fitzgerald was still investigating the possibility that a crime had been committed.

ok, you are right on this also, so I agree with you.

And why, as one of the very best lawyers out there, do you think he decided to put Fitzpatrick on a wild goose chase with his lies and fabricated stories regarding this, IF Cheney had truely declassified the documents before having Libby and Rove leak information about Valerie to the press? :

lol I know, speculation! ;)

You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I'd encourage you to keep an open mind though, and continue researching everything that is brought up by any interested party. Just as in any "he said - she said" situation, there's three sides: his side, her side, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.


Again, without having a properly authenticated document confirming this, all we have is Fitzgerald's opinion. It's good that you are poring over Fitzgerald's documents and filings with the court, but I've been doing that since Fitzgerald was appointed to the Special Prosecutor's office.

Tell ya what, I'll share a couple of other links to resources I use to understand the legalese involved.
http://patterico.com/
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/

And from JustOneMinute is a link to TheNextHurrah and the PDF of Libby's defense statement to the sentencing judge (http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_defense_presentencing.pdf). This would be the defense argument for leniency I mentioned prior in this thread.

Thank you for the links, I will look them over when I get the time.

[JohnDoe]

She was covert, I truely do not believe that this is in question anymore. And I do not believe you should either. It is out there, in govt form and vetting by the Cia, that Plame/wilson was a classified undercover officer for the CIA.

As far as the law being broken on her outing, that, we will never know at this point.

[Samantha]

She was covert, I truely do not believe that this is in question anymore. And I do not believe you should either. It is out there, in govt form and vetting by the Cia, that Plame/wilson was a classified undercover officer for the CIA.

As far as the law being broken on her outing, that, we will never know at this point.You're right JohnDoe. She was covert. No question.

For anyone who is interested, here is a timeline of the facts.

http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html

[avatar4321]

She was covert, I truely do not believe that this is in question anymore. And I do not believe you should either. It is out there, in govt form and vetting by the Cia, that Plame/wilson was a classified undercover officer for the CIA.

As far as the law being broken on her outing, that, we will never know at this point.

Sure... ignore the law. She wasn't covert. The law spells out what it takes to be so. You can try to claim otherwise all you want, but the law is clear.

And no law was broken. If there was a law broken Armitage would have been prosecuted within the first two weeks. Instead, A witchhunt commenced trying to prosecute others who did absolutely nothing. the travesty is it actually succeeded.

[nevadamedic]

Who ares he will just get pardoned anyways.

[JohnDoe]

Sure... ignore the law. She wasn't covert. The law spells out what it takes to be so. You can try to claim otherwise all you want, but the law is clear.

And no law was broken. If there was a law broken Armitage would have been prosecuted within the first two weeks. Instead, A witchhunt commenced trying to prosecute others who did absolutely nothing. the travesty is it actually succeeded.
The Law is clear and

I respectfully Disagree with you and evidence has been posted to this board that shows otherwise.

how about a link that says she was not covert from her bosses, the CIA would be good as support of your statement.

Or are you still believing that lying bitch Victoria that got slapped up side of the head in the hearing regarding her arrogance and out right conjecture and lies regarding Plame's status?

Read up, I know you have the ability to discern truth from fiction.

But please to just pop up and say the stupid, ignorant lie that your side has been spouting after I show you and this board the evidense that shows otherwise, that she was an undercover officer when she was outed, gives meaning to "koolaid drinker".

Avatar, how did you come to the conclusion by reading the law that she was not covert, please show me where in the Law you actually get this from?.

How do you feel about your vice president outing an agent and putting her life at risk, and our country at risk just to deflect from the lies he told regarding the yellowcake from Niger and the wmds that saddam was "actively" seeking and making?

I think it is impeachable.

it won't be done, the Dems are too weak and chickenshit to impeach the both of them for all of their crimes and misdemeanors, so you can hold your head high.

[CockySOB]

Who ares he will just get pardoned anyways.

I seriously hope not. I'm tired of seeing politicians getting pardoned as a POTUS leaves office.

But I would expect an appeal to come from the Libby camp before long.

[Samantha]

Sure... ignore the law. She wasn't covert. The law spells out what it takes to be so. You can try to claim otherwise all you want, but the law is clear.

And no law was broken. If there was a law broken Armitage would have been prosecuted within the first two weeks. Instead, A witchhunt commenced trying to prosecute others who did absolutely nothing. the travesty is it actually succeeded.Which law shows that she was not covert? You obviously don't have all the facts. The law is clear and Plame was covert.

I'm shocked that so many of my fellow Americans are so blindly believing the Karl Rove, FOX, GOP lies about this.

Don't you realize that our undercover agents are the ones protecting us from terrorist attacks in the USA? Plame was an American heroine, tracking WMD so it doesn't get into the hands of the terrorists.

This most recent terrorist plan at JFK airport was foiled by our USA undercover covert agents. And people like you, avatar, are completely dissing the heros of the USA by continuously bashing and lying about one of their own covert agents.


I seriously hope not. I'm tired of seeing politicians getting pardoned as a POTUS leaves office.

But I would expect an appeal to come from the Libby camp before long.

Of course Bush will pardon Libby. There's no question in my mind. He violates the constitution, he lets his admin out a covert agent, he sends our troops to a war of his choice through lies to the American people about an Iraq threat. Of course he will pardon Libby the liar. His whole admin is a bunch of lying bastards.

[CockySOB]

Again, the law is clear on what is legally considered to be the definition of a covert intelligence agent. The CIA on the other hand, has been much more loose in using the term "covert" which muddies the transition from CIA daily jargon into legalese. This is what is most likely the reason that Fitzgerald was unable to bring any substantive charges in his investigation. In the end, only a process charge was brought against Libby for his perjury and making false statements, both of which contributed to the obstruction of justice charge.

There has NEVER been a finding of fact regarding Plame's status as being "covert" per the US Codes. Until there is, all anyone has is opinion or speculation, and perhaps a few have formed legal arguments based on those opinions and speculations, but that is all.

Oh and one other thing, the burden lies with the government to show that it had declared Plame to be a covert intelligence agent under the statutes, and that it had met the statutory requirements to protect her allegedly covert identity. Remember the language in the IIPA which requires the government and the covert intelligence agent to provide for "affirmative measures to conceal...?"

[Samantha]

The CIA says she's covert, she's covert. You're making an irrational argument.

The reason no one was charged because it's hard to prove they knew she was covert and that they did it on purpose.

The law that determines if she was covert says she had to have been undercover out of the country in the previous 5 years. She had been. Therefore, there's no question any longer.

[JohnDoe]

Anyone wonder why the Cia won't let Valerie publish her book about her years working for the CIA without redacting a great deal of it?

Anyone wonder why the Cia will only OFFICIALLY say that she has worked for them only a couple of years?

Sure seems as though, much more is going oon here than meets the eye with Valerie Plame, and that she WAS a very valuable agent for the CIA, problaby a NOC, in her past for them.

[JohnDoe]

Again, the law is clear on what is legally considered to be the definition of a covert intelligence agent. The CIA on the other hand, has been much more loose in using the term "covert" which muddies the transition from CIA daily jargon into legalese. This is what is most likely the reason that Fitzgerald was unable to bring any substantive charges in his investigation. In the end, only a process charge was brought against Libby for his perjury and making false statements, both of which contributed to the obstruction of justice charge.

There has NEVER been a finding of fact regarding Plame's status as being "covert" per the US Codes. Until there is, all anyone has is opinion or speculation, and perhaps a few have formed legal arguments based on those opinions and speculations, but that is all.

Oh and one other thing, the burden lies with the government to show that it had declared Plame to be a covert intelligence agent under the statutes, and that it had met the statutory requirements to protect her allegedly covert identity. Remember the language in the IIPA which requires the government and the covert intelligence agent to provide for "affirmative measures to conceal...?"

Bull.

You can't just waste tax payers money and investigate a classified undercover agent being outed, unless there is an agent undercover. That was determined before the investigation of the outing began.

And do you really EXPECT the CIA to tell us all about Valerie Plame? One of their undercover Officers, or NOCs from the past?

That is QUITE naive of you, I am wondering if it is intentional, to spin the situation, or if you really have not thought this through?

[Psychoblues]

And clearly much more was going on when she was "outted" for whatever reason.



Anyone wonder why the Cia won't let Valerie publish her book about her years working for the CIA without redacting a great deal of it?

CIA agents are not normally outted for any reason? Covert or not?!?!?!!?!?Why Valerie Plame and why did it happen when it did? These are the questions that MOST Americans want to know.

Anyone wonder why the Cia will only OFFICIALLY say that she has worked for them only a couple of years?

Sure seems as though, much more is going oon here than meets the eye with Valerie Plame, and that she WAS a very valuable agent for the CIA, problaby a NOC, in her past for them.

[CockySOB]

The CIA says she's covert, she's covert. You're making an irrational argument.

The reason no one was charged because it's hard to prove they knew she was covert and that they did it on purpose.

The law that determines if she was covert says she had to have been undercover out of the country in the previous 5 years. She had been. Therefore, there's no question any longer.

No. The CIA can say whatever it wants, but without a finding of fact in a court of law, that is just their opinion. Let me put it this way, the NSA says the tIA program is legal. Does that automatically make it so? No. How about when the GWB administration says that the war on terror in Iraq is lawful and justified? Well, I think we all know where you stand on THAT issue. So why are you giving the CIA carte blanche to make a claim of legality without question? My guess is because you WANT to believe anything that might damage the GWB administration.

The irrational argument here is coming from you, Samantha.

[Psychoblues]

Not at all, CSOB. The irrational argument is from you.



No. The CIA can say whatever it wants, but without a finding of fact in a court of law, that is just their opinion. Let me put it this way, the NSA says the tIA program is legal. Does that automatically make it so? No. How about when the GWB administration says that the war on terror in Iraq is lawful and justified? Well, I think we all know where you stand on THAT issue. So why are you giving the CIA carte blanche to make a claim of legality without question? My guess is because you WANT to believe anything that might damage the GWB administration.

The irrational argument here is coming from you, Samantha.

Have you read the thread? Do you actually know what the argument is about? Is your foundation built upon inclination or evidense? Your guess's indicate your inclination so please admit it and consider yourself out of legal bounds.

I'm not trying to be some shithouse lawyer here, but your provocations and further accusations are simply BULLSHIT.

[CockySOB]

Bull.

You can't just waste tax payers money and investigate a classified undercover agent being outed, unless there is an agent undercover. That was determined before the investigation of the outing began.

And do you really EXPECT the CIA to tell us all about Valerie Plame? One of their undercover Officers, or NOCs from the past?

That is QUITE naive of you, I am wondering if it is intentional, to spin the situation, or if you really have not thought this through?

Then I guess you really don't understand how the legal process works. The special prosecutor is allowed to investigate anything which he deems appropriate. Remember how Ken Starr indicted WJC for perjury? His original appointment as independent prosecutor was to investigate the death of Vince Foster and Whitewater. Yet he ended up indicting WJC for perjury regarding an unrelated matter. Same process.

Again, the only people who are naive (or just obtuse) are those who are trying to claim that the Fitzgerald sentence recommendation for Libby somehow "finally" proves that Plame was a covert intelligence agent per the IIPA. You accept opinions as fact when it suits your personal views. This is rather pathetic since you do seem willing to read a bit on the matter.

[CockySOB]

Not at all, CSOB. The irrational argument is from you.

Have you read the thread? Do you actually know what the argument is about? Is your foundation built upon inclination or evidense? Your guess's indicate your inclination so please admit it and consider yourself out of legal bounds.

I'm not trying to be some shithouse lawyer here, but your provocations and further accusations are simply BULLSHIT.

Go back to your room child, the grow-ups are talking.

[Psychoblues]

That's what I'm talking about, CSOB.


the grow-ups are talking.

Please don't interfere with your childish remarks and opinions. Please "grow-up".

[CockySOB]

That's what I'm talking about, CSOB.



Please don't interfere with your childish remarks and opinions. Please "grow-up".

Rather than posting your crap, why not go back and actually read the posts? I mean, I know I didn't provide any pictures to help you understand, but sooner or later you have to step up and start reading the big-boy books.

[Samantha]

Cocky no one but right wing spin meisters are claiming Plame was not covert anymore. The CIA says she was covert. The CIA asked the DOJ for an investigation on her outing. The special prosecutor says she was covert. Plame, under oath says she was covert.

Do you need a message from god to believe she was covert?

Why do you insist on spreading the right wing Karl Rove lie about her?

The people that are catching the terrorists in the USA, are undercover covert agents just like Valerie Plame, although she worked in the much more dangerous middle east, tracking WMD. These people are American heros. Yet you show no respect for what they do by your inaccurate and ignorant lies you tell on this board.

Why do you make excuses for the treason that Rove, Libby, Cheney and Armistad have committed?



:salute:

[CockySOB]

Cocky no one but right wing spin meisters are claiming Plame was not covert anymore. The CIA says she was covert. The CIA asked the DOJ for an investigation on her outing. The special prosecutor says she was covert. Plame, under oath says she was covert.

Do you need a message from god to believe she was covert?

Why do you insist on spreading the right wing Karl Rove lie about her?

The people that are catching the terrorists in the USA, are undercover covert agents just like Valerie Plame, although she worked in the much more dangerous middle east, tracking WMD. These people are American heros. Yet you show no respect for what they do by your inaccurate and ignorant lies you tell on this board.

Why do you make excuses for the treason that Rove, Libby, Cheney and Armistad have committed?

:salute:

And yet again...

Where is your legal fact which shows Plame's status under the law?

Why are you trying to lynch a man for a crime which he is neither convicted nor even indicted for?

Why do you persist in claiming that treason was committed when a lengthy investigation into said allegations produced NO substantive indictments?

Why do you despise the rule of law?

Why do you hate America?

[lily]

And as to Gen. Hayden's ALLEGED statement proffered by Waxman, I also say - let the General make such a statement in front of the investigating committee. If the information WAS declassified, then he should have no problem presenting that same information IN PERSON thus providing the necessary authentication to validate the statement. Again, YOU show you own bias by being willing to take what Waxman said as absolute truth WITHOUT any corroboration from the General himself. Don't you see how flimsy this makes your argument? You are willing to fudge the rules for someone whose position you support, yet you seem Hell-bent to condemn those whose positions you disagree with no matter how founded in legal fact they are.
.

Am I understandg this correctly, Cocky.......you are saying that Hayden's statement by Waxman is a lie? You are calling it an alleged statement means that you think Hayden didn't say it and you're waiting for him to come in front of the camera and say that "Yes, Plame was covert", and until then you won't believe it???

I'm stunned. I would think that if Waxman or anyone else for that matter was making statments that were lies and attributing it to him, he would deny it.

This has been something that we have been debating for years now and I thought it would finally come to a close. You've got the CIA, Hayden and forgive me, I'm only on page 8 and I see tons of others links saying that yes she was covert by many credible sources............but if you now want to hold out until Hayden says Waxman is a liar and the CIA doesn't know shit, then I guess I'll have to live by your standards and believe that she was like I've said from the begining that she was covert........until Hayden comes out and says what you want him to say.

I admit, my memory is bad.......but I remember from the begining that the "bet" was if credibile sources say she was covert...........

[CockySOB]

Am I understandg this correctly, Cocky.......you are saying that Hayden's statement by Waxman is a lie? You are calling it an alleged statement means that you think Hayden didn't say it and you're waiting for him to come in front of the camera and say that "Yes, Plame was covert", and until then you won't believe it???

I'm stunned. I would think that if Waxman or anyone else for that matter was making statments that were lies and attributing it to him, he would deny it.

This has been something that we have been debating for years now and I thought it would finally come to a close. You've got the CIA, Hayden and forgive me, I'm only on page 8 and I see tons of others links saying that yes she was covert by many credible sources............but if you now want to hold out until Hayden says Waxman is a liar and the CIA doesn't know shit, then I guess I'll have to live by your standards and believe that she was like I've said from the begining that she was covert........until Hayden comes out and says what you want him to say.

I admit, my memory is bad.......but I remember from the begining that the "bet" was if credibile sources say she was covert...........

I'm not saying Gen. Hayden's alleged statement to Waxman is a lie, but it certainly failed to address the legal issue of whether Plame was covert according the the US Codes. Keep reading, I've covered it in depth. I'm saying that the CIA and other parties who are trying to say she WAS covert are conveniently dancing around the fact that there has never been a legal finding of fact regarding her status. The CIA uses the term "covert" much more loosely than the relevant statutes allow. This causes confusion especially when the government (Fitzgerald and the CIA) refused to address the issue in a court of law where such a finding of fact would be made.

This is not some willy-nilly argument, Lily. It's a matter of a legal determination of Plame's status as regards the CIA and the government. Simply saying someone is covert is legally insufficient, there MUST be a finding of fact as a matter of law. We all know that the CIA referred to her as "covert," but that does NOT mean the CIA's definition adhered to the definition in 50 USC 421 which is the relevant law. That is what requires a ruling by a Federal court.

Or are you afraid now that a court ruling would show that Plame most definitively was NOT a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes and that the whole thing was a waste of time which COULD have been avoided had the finding of fact been done properly early in the investigation?

ADDED: "Credible" sources indicate that the CIA definition and the definition of law for "covert" are two different creatures, which is exactly why a court ruling for a finding of fact is so important.

[lily]

I'm not saying Gen. Hayden's alleged statement to Waxman is a lie, but it certainly failed to address the legal issue of whether Plame was covert according the the US Codes. Keep reading, I've covered it in depth. I'm saying that the CIA and other parties who are trying to say she WAS covert are conveniently dancing around the fact that there has never been a legal finding of fact regarding her status. The CIA uses the term "covert" much more loosely than the relevant statutes allow. This causes confusion especially when the government (Fitzgerald and the CIA) refused to address the issue in a court of law where such a finding of fact would be made.

Cocky......I would assume that Hayden would be the defining factor. As for the rest, one would think that erring on the side of silence might have been the way to go. Fine, you dont like what the man said, but his wife should not be fair game.......but then this isn't what our "bet" was based on a long time ago. It was her status and now you keep chaning the bar.



Or are you afraid now that a court ruling would show that Plame most definitively was NOT a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes and that the whole thing was a waste of time which COULD have been avoided had the finding of fact been done properly early in the investigation?

Oh........it could have been avoided........on that I think we both agree.


ADDED: "Credible" sources indicate that the CIA definition and the definition of law for "covert" are two different creatures, which is exactly why a court ruling for a finding of fact is so important.

Good luck getting that crowd into a court of law! Besides if my memory serves me correctly Bush was going to take care of all of this himself.

[ViolaLee]

The definition by law of covert is having been overseas, undercover in the past five years. At the time of her testimony, she had been overseas, undercover in the past five years.

[JohnDoe]

The traitors that did this to Plame should "pay" for their crime, but this will never happen.

I hope she wins her suit for them ruining her long time career... it's too bad it can not be taken out of their pockets directly, but more than likely it will be us tax payers compensating the wrong, instead of the veep.

[CockySOB]

Lily, one other question before I head off to work this morning. If Plame WAS covert, why wasn't Richard Armitage indicted? He did admit to being Novak's source, did he not? (Hell, he was also Woodward's source too, wasn't he?) Why weren't charges levied against him? The only reason I can think of (since no one mentioned any kind of plea arrangement with Fitzgerald to my knowledge) is that Plame was NOT a covert agent as covered by the statutes. I mean Fitzgerald is handed a slam-dunk case via confession against Armitage IF Plame was covert, right? So why no charges?

Or are you going to claim that Fitzgerald was less that thorough and/or ethical in his investigation?

[CockySOB]

The traitors that did this to Plame should "pay" for their crime, but this will never happen.

I hope she wins her suit for them ruining her long time career... it's too bad it can not be taken out of their pockets directly, but more than likely it will be us tax payers compensating the wrong, instead of the veep.

And just which "traitors" would that be, hmmm? Armitage? He's certainly more culpable in any potential criminal action than anyone at the Whitehouse. But I guess your partisan self doesn't really care while you're on your lynching....

[ViolaLee]

*snip If Plame WAS covert, why wasn't Richard Armitage indicted? *snip Because the prosecution can't prove it was intentional.

[JohnDoe]

And just which "traitors" would that be, hmmm? Armitage? He's certainly more culpable in any potential criminal action than anyone at the Whitehouse. But I guess your partisan self doesn't really care while you're on your lynching....
I think Armitage should be put in the pile with the rest of them personally.

What Armitage did, according to Fitzgerald was by accident and not intentional

And does NOT in anyway negate Libby and Rove also "outing" Plame to the Press on more than 10 occaisions before the actual article from Novak was in print, even if Armitage intentionally leaked it, as I believe he did.

[JohnDoe]

Lily, one other question before I head off to work this morning. If Plame WAS covert, why wasn't Richard Armitage indicted? He did admit to being Novak's source, did he not? (Hell, he was also Woodward's source too, wasn't he?) Why weren't charges levied against him? The only reason I can think of (since no one mentioned any kind of plea arrangement with Fitzgerald to my knowledge) is that Plame was NOT a covert agent as covered by the statutes. I mean Fitzgerald is handed a slam-dunk case via confession against Armitage IF Plame was covert, right? So why no charges?

Or are you going to claim that Fitzgerald was less that thorough and/or ethical in his investigation?

Once again, there is no reason to investigate, us code 50 section 421, a possible outing of a covert agent's identity, if there was not an agent outed.

There has to be "someone covert" that was determined as outed, before an investigation in to an outing.

simple as that.

[CockySOB]

Because the prosecution can't prove it was intentional.

How about they couldn't prove ANYTHING related to the allegations? That's the correct statement, unless of course you like assuming facts not in evidence.

[CockySOB]

Once again, there is no reason to investigate, us code 50 section 421, a possible outing of a covert agent's identity, if there was not an agent outed.

There has to be "someone covert" that was determined as outed, before an investigation in to an outing.

simple as that.

And still you fail to recognize that in investigation is based on the idea that some event MIGHT have occurred, not that it HAD occurred. Investigations are undertaken to resolve allegations.

I don't say this to many people, but you are a fucking idiot. If you ever decide to pull your head out of your ass, do so. Then take some deep breaths and TRY to get some oxygen to those poor, starved brain cells which might still be functional.

[ViolaLee]

How about they couldn't prove ANYTHING related to the allegations? That's the correct statement, unless of course you like assuming facts not in evidence.They proved Cheney told Libby, then Rove and Libby and Armitage told journalists that Plame worked for the CIA. They just can't prove they did it intentionally, knowing she was covert.

[Mr. P]

And still you fail to recognize that in investigation is based on the idea that some event MIGHT have occurred, not that it HAD occurred. Investigations are undertaken to resolve allegations.

I don't say this to many people, but you are a fucking idiot. If you ever decide to pull your head out of your ass, do so. Then take some deep breaths and TRY to get some oxygen to those poor, starved brain cells which might still be functional.

:laugh2: I must spread it around...ya know.

[manu1959]

They proved Cheney told Libby, then Rove and Libby and Armitage told journalists that Plame worked for the CIA. They just can't prove they did it intentionally, knowing she was covert.

so there was no crime............NEXT!

[JohnDoe]

And still you fail to recognize that in investigation is based on the idea that some event MIGHT have occurred, not that it HAD occurred. Investigations are undertaken to resolve allegations.

I don't say this to many people, but you are a fucking idiot. If you ever decide to pull your head out of your ass, do so. Then take some deep breaths and TRY to get some oxygen to those poor, starved brain cells which might still be functional.

hahahahaha! Calm down cocky sob!

Life's a bitch and then you die.

There's much worse that can be done, then someone differing politically!

But damn, you are easily excitable, so what's at stake in this for you?

[CockySOB]

hahahahaha! Calm down cocky sob!

Life's a bitch and then you die.

There's much worse that can be done, then someone differing politically!

But damn, you are easily excitable, so what's at stake in this for you?

So are you saying that you really aren't arguing for any reason other than to troll? I wouldn't be surprised if you confirmed this.

[Yurt]

The definition by law of covert is having been overseas, undercover in the past five years. At the time of her testimony, she had been overseas, undercover in the past five years.

Are you sure about that? Just because she thinks she was undercover, doesn't mean she was "covert." If it was common knowledge, as it was, she was not covert. The only cover she is under is stupidity and greed...

[JohnDoe]

So are you saying that you really aren't arguing for any reason other than to troll? I wouldn't be surprised if you confirmed this.

Well, ummmm, with a name like JohnDoe, I guess you could say that I am most certainly a kind of troll. :)


I have no real patience left on this subject either, is what I am saying, and before I get to the point that you have gotten to, with cursing me out and all the other immature insults, I say, it's not worth it....other than a good chuckle to laugh it off....and accept that there is no changin' your opponents stubborn ass, so, laugh.... and chalk it up to ignorance or intentional ignorance? :poke:

I'll be a better judge on this by your actions on the next subject we differ on.

good evening

[CockySOB]

Are you sure about that? Just because she thinks she was undercover, doesn't mean she was "covert." If it was common knowledge, as it was, she was not covert. The only cover she is under is stupidity and greed...

The possibility does exist that she might be covered by the US Codes. But it will take a ruling in Federal court to make that determination. Without such a determination, she would be (by default) not covert per the law.

[CockySOB]

Well, ummmm, with a name like JohnDoe, I guess you could say that I am most certainly a kind of troll. :)


I have no real patience left on this subject either, is what I am saying, and before I get to the point that you have gotten to, with cursing me out and all the other immature insults, I say, it's not worth it....other than a good chuckle to laugh it off....and accept that there is no changin' your opponents stubborn ass, so, laugh.... and chalk it up to ignorance or intentional ignorance? :poke:

I'll be a better judge on this by your actions on the next subject we differ on.

good evening

Coward. You got your ass handed to you, and now you're going run away. Kudos. Troll.

Welcome to the ignore list.

[JohnDoe]

Coward. You got your ass handed to you, and now you're going run away. Kudos. Troll.

Welcome to the ignore list.Please.

I could give two hoots about whose ass has been handed to whom.

We are talking and debating something that I never thought I would see my government officials do in my lifetime.

Call this naive, but I once believed in the honesty of my political figures and the trust, that once elected, politics would not lead them in to making wrong decisions that could end up hurting our country, even if done in just a neglegent manner and not with the intention to truely harm our country....I never thought I'd see the day where something like this is acceptable and the American people arguing over it as though there is any side but 1, that is right, regarding this...outing an undercover officer by several administration figures and perhaps even ordered to do such, by the vice president, for purely political gain, is not acceptable to me, EVEN if it was not evident that plame was covert, they should have taken the precaution to persue it further.

So, we end it where we started. You think you are right, and I KNOW I am! :laugh2:

Politics is still fairly new to me, just a few years in to paying real close attention to what's going on.

[glockmail]

Please.

I could give two hoots about whose ass has been handed to whom.
.....


Pul-ezze. You were owned on this thread a week ago, yet you're still at it. Don't make me your god. :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Pul-ezze. You were owned on this thread a week ago, yet you're still at it. Don't make me your god. :laugh2:

there is only one God that is before me! (and you aren't HIM!):lol:

[nevadamedic]

Coward. You got your ass handed to you, and now you're going run away. Kudos. Troll.

Welcome to the ignore list.

:laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

The possibility does exist that she might be covered by the US Codes. But it will take a ruling in Federal court to make that determination. Without such a determination, she would be (by default) not covert per the law.


PUT your money where your mouth is and please SUPPLY A LINK for support on this comment of yours:

But it will take a ruling in Federal court to make that determination. Without such a determination, she would be (by default) not covert per the law.[/

Let's see you be the MAN and show some FACTS for a change instead of your boyish inuendo....and calling me a coward...

so,

put up!

link to support your supposed facts. show me the law that says such.

[nevadamedic]

PUT your money where your mouth is and please SUPPLY A LINK for support on this comment of yours:

But it will take a ruling in Federal court to make that determination. Without such a determination, she would be (by default) not covert per the law.[/

Let's see you be the MAN and show some FACTS for a change instead of your boyish inuendo....and calling me a coward...

so,

put up!

link to support your supposed facts. show me the law that says such.

People use y ouor head, she was outed in 97 and went back in, it wasn't a major secret that she was involved in the CIA and im sure the other countries knew about it.

[JohnDoe]

People use y ouor head, she was outed in 97 and went back in, it wasn't a major secret that she was involved in the CIA and im sure the other countries knew about it.


I am certain YOU are wrong on this Nevada, and not because I say so.

Perhaps you have not read this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/plame/plame_transcript_031607.html

FYI


WAXMAN: And we begin that process today.

This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session.

I have met, personally, with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information.

I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing.

During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.

Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, Step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly secretive matters handled by the CIA.

Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.

WAXMAN: Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States.

In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country.

Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues, and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice.

As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

WAXMAN: Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however, that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point.

Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably. And we're confident she will uphold it again today.

Well, that concludes the characterizations that the CIA is permitting us to make today.


WHY demean her in the manner that you all have?

[Lightning Waltz]

WHY demean her in the manner that you all have?

Because her husband dared to point out that Bush's claims of Saddam trying to get yellow cake from Africa were false?

[theHawk]

Because her husband dared to point out that Bush's claims of Saddam trying to get yellow cake from Africa were false?

He didn't "dare" to point out anything. He was never in a postion to do any investigating on behalf of the U.S., much less submit a "report" that disputed what Bush said. And Wilson wasn't all that upset after Bush's State-of-the-Union address, he only got upset about it after joining the John Kerry campaign.

Or do you just prefer to ignore these facts?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Because her husband dared to point out that Bush's claims of Saddam trying to get yellow cake from Africa were false?

And because the neocons (and VP Cheney) were pissed that someone with authority challenged their worldview. So, according to the Book of The Politics of Personal Destruction (co-written by Karl Rove and Lee Atwater), they took out after his wife. Neocons don't need proof or facts to claim something is true. The fact that they said it is proof enough for them. 75% of Americans aren't buying their load of crap but the 25% that is carries them a long way.

[JohnDoe]

He didn't "dare" to point out anything. He was never in a postion to do any investigating on behalf of the U.S., much less submit a "report" that disputed what Bush said. And Wilson wasn't all that upset after Bush's State-of-the-Union address, he only got upset about it after joining the John Kerry campaign.

Or do you just prefer to ignore these facts?

Ambassador Wilson was MORE than qualified to be sent by the Cia on this fact finding mission.

Please justify your sentiment on his qualifications with a link and explanation, if possible, perhaps I have missed something?



Joseph Charles Wilson IV (born November 6, 1949) is a retired diplomat of the United States Foreign Service, who was posted to African nations and Iraq during the George H. W. Bush administration.

[theHawk]

Ambassador Wilson was MORE than qualified to be sent by the Cia on this fact finding mission.

Please justify your sentiment on his qualifications with a link and explanation, if possible, perhaps I have missed something?

We all know he was a former Ambassador, a low level one at that. He was a well known bafoon who was never taken seriously in the government. The man's highlight in his career was being Ambassador of Gabon for Pete's sake. My question to you libs is this - Was he employed and by whom when he was sent to Niger to do this "investigation"? How can I possibly supply links to events that never happened?

Can you supply links that show he was employed by the CIA at the time?
Can you supply any links to the "report" he says he filed that disputed what Bush said in his State-of-the-Union address?

As I have stated many times before, the only thing that the Congressional hearings unconvered was that both Plame and Joe Wilson lied about how he was sent. She claimed she did not suggest to her boss that he use his contacts to investigate, but they encovered this email she sent Feb 12th:


The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former minister of mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUyMzgyZmVjZDUzYWRjYTU2YmM1MWEwZDYzNTI3OGQ=

Will she be thrown in jail for perjury like Libby?

Its quite clear from the above email that Plame pushed for her husband to talk to his 'contacts' about stuff. And even if her CIA boss said it was OK, its a far cry from being an official investigation, which would require a written and documented report. A report, that no one has ever seen, because it never existed. But according to Wilson, Bush and Cheney not only read this non-existant report that he didn't file while not doing an official investigation for the CIA whom he didn't work for, but they went forward with making statements in the SOTUA about Saddam and Africa based on intelligence from allies like France. How outrageous of Bush!

This was all a farce cooked up after he joined the Kerry campaign to smear Bush before the election, and of course to make himself famous. Wilson is an attention whore who's life goal is to get a T.V. movie made about himself. And it was all topped off by his appearance in Vanity Fair with his wife. Don't look too closely at her though, she is trying to keep her identity a secret with her oversized sunglasses and scarf pulled over her head, while posing for a picture for a national magazine.

[glockmail]

there is only one God that is before me! (and you aren't HIM!):lol: As the quality of your argument falls below sub-basement level it is becoming clear that you are bowing to multiple gods here. :laugh2: