another Bush appointee going to prison

[Care4all]

Again, there is no evidence he outted anyone. That Plame was undercover is based on one person's testimony, not corroborated by law.

What Libby is "guilty" of is not having perfect recall.

You are wrong.

I DID NOT SAY, in my above message that he outed plame, I said that he repeatedly lied to the FBI investigators, investigating the outing of Plame, and that he lied under oath, before the grand jury investigating the outing of plame, 5 months after Plame was outed.

Overwhelming evidence was introduced in the trial of his guilt and the jury found him guilty based on such evidence.


ahhhhh, the ever so forgetful memory excuse.... Well, let's just say there is nothing to back you up on that...it could NOT be proven in court that he had amnesia 5 months after the event or he was "confused" regarding this issue with Plame, it shows through evidence that he was HIGHLY involved in the wilson/plame affair...acted daily with the vp regarding the Plame/wilson affair/ had penciled notes in his own handwriting about the Plame/wilson affair and how to handle it with the public etc...

READ THE TRIAL transcripts.

Care

YOU are wrong

 

[Care4all]

Care you have no intention of backing up your claim I see. Still waiting for the evidence that Libby told ANYONE she was Covert. Still waiting for one shrd of evidence Cheney is a traitor.

And your are absolutely wrong on how documents are marked. Further your wrong on the assumption that because some one handles classified material that somehow makes their identity classified also.

You insist Libby outed her when in fact anyone that called CIA headquarters was told by the switch board she worked there.

You have no intentions of reading the trial transcripts or the evidence introduced at the trial do you?

You do not have to tell someone, someone else is "covert" to out them. That would be only one of many ways to "out" a classified under CIA cover, agent.

The originating classifying dept that introduced the CLASSIFIED document to Libby and the vp etc to read, followed top secret/classified protocol and marked SECRET adjacent to Valerie Plame's name on this document, which is the protocol in noting an undercover agent.

Read the trial transcripts Sgt, look at the evidence introduced, or stop wasting my time, my patience is waining!

care

 

[CockySOB]

You have no intentions of reading the trial transcripts or the evidence introduced at the trial do you?

You do not have to tell someone, someone else is "covert" to out them. That would be only one of many ways to "out" a classified under CIA cover, agent.

The originating classifying dept that introduced the CLASSIFIED document to Libby and the vp etc to read, followed top secret/classified protocol and marked SECRET adjacent to Valerie Plame's name on this document, which is the protocol in noting an undercover agent.

Read the trial transcripts Sgt, look at the evidence introduced, or stop wasting my time, my patience is waining!

care

And you're wasting bandwidth with your incessant blathering about things you cannot support with legal facts. But that doesn't stop you now does it?

BTW, if you're this incensed about Plame, where's your outrage about the outing of the CIA "secret prisons?" Or is your outrage selective based on your own political biases? It certainly seems this is the case especially since you don't care about whether Plame was really a covert intelligence agent per the law.

Partisan hack, thy name is Care4All.

 

[mattskramer]

Yup. And don't be afraid to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights. Libby's actions more accurately reflect someone who actually DID misremember more than someone who was trying to hide something. Had Libby been intent on hiding something, he could have simply said, "I don't know," or "On advice of my attorney, I am invoking my Fifth Amendment right."

I do not think much of the 5th amendment. It is a crutch for suspects to hide behind. If you did something that you should not have done, you should confess it and suffer the penalty. If, in Libby’s testimony, it is found that he incriminated himself, he would have his own trial and could put a defense team together. I believe in simple honesty above practically all else. I stand behind my view that he should have said “I don’t know” if he does not know. Otherwise, he should answer the question. Practically everyone should be required to answer the freaking questions put to them and let the truth come out into the light.

 

[Care4all]

And you're wasting bandwidth with your incessant blathering about things you cannot support with legal facts. But that doesn't stop you now does it?

BTW, if you're this incensed about Plame, where's your outrage about the outing of the CIA "secret prisons?" Or is your outrage selective based on your own political biases? It certainly seems this is the case especially since you don't care about whether Plame was really a covert intelligence agent per the law.

Partisan hack, thy name is Care4All.

You JUST CAN'T help yourself, can you? I mean, with the name calling and personal attacks on your opponent instead of debating the issue at hand?

I have supplied, over and over and over again the link that backs up what I have stated and this is the link for the Libby trial transcript.

READ IT, or stop with your "blathering" of nonsense.

care

 

[Care4all]

And you're wasting bandwidth with your incessant blathering about things you cannot support with legal facts. But that doesn't stop you now does it?

BTW, if you're this incensed about Plame, where's your outrage about the outing of the CIA "secret prisons?" Or is your outrage selective based on your own political biases? It certainly seems this is the case especially since you don't care about whether Plame was really a covert intelligence agent per the law.

Partisan hack, thy name is Care4All.

Oh, and one more thing, WHAT BANDWIDTH? I can only get STUPID dial up with at best a 50k connection in our new cottage! It stinks on internet connection in the middle of the woods!

 

[CockySOB]

You JUST CAN'T help yourself, can you? I mean, with the name calling and personal attacks on your opponent instead of debating the issue at hand?

I have supplied, over and over and over again the link that backs up what I have stated and this is the link for the Libby trial transcript.

READ IT, or stop with your "blathering" of nonsense.

care

What name-calling?

Did I use your proper moniker? Yes.
Did I state my belief that your posts are empty of substance and full of shit? Yes.
Have I backed up my position with citations from the Constitution of the United States of America? Yes.
Have I backed up my positions by citing specific sections of the US Codes? Yes.
Have I backed up my position by citing specific case law which is relevant? Yes.

Have you done any of this? Very, VERY little, and the few cites you provide have been demonstrably debunked as being irrelevant to the cases at hand.
Have you flat-out said you don't care about the legal issues here? YES.

So you have been blathering on and on ad nauseum while pretending you present something other than partisan opinion. That makes you a partisan hack by every popular definition I know of.

I stand by my assertion that you should never be in a position to judge others based on the law because you show such a blatant lack of respect for the law. Your only interest it seems, is finding some means of persecuting the GWB administration even when you have no sustainable legal facts to support you. Again, part and parcel of a partisan hack's repertoire.

Now please tell me the difference between Plame's alleged outing as a covert CIA intelligence operative, and the outing of the CIA "secret prisons?" You seem more than willing to go after one alleged breach of national security, but not the other. Again, this smacks of partisanship and intellectual dishonesty, both of which I have come to expect from you.

Have a nice day, hack.

 

[Care4all]

What name-calling?

Did I use your proper moniker? Yes.
Did I state my belief that your posts are empty of substance and full of shit? Yes.
Have I backed up my position with citations from the Constitution of the United States of America? Yes.
Have I backed up my positions by citing specific sections of the US Codes? Yes.
Have I backed up my position by citing specific case law which is relevant? Yes.

Have you done any of this? Very, VERY little, and the few cites you provide have been demonstrably debunked as being irrelevant to the cases at hand.
Have you flat-out said you don't care about the legal issues here? YES.

So you have been blathering on and on ad nauseum while pretending you present something other than partisan opinion. That makes you a partisan hack by every popular definition I know of.

I stand by my assertion that you should never be in a position to judge others based on the law because you show such a blatant lack of respect for the law. Your only interest it seems, is finding some means of persecuting the GWB administration even when you have no sustainable legal facts to support you. Again, part and parcel of a partisan hack's repertoire.

Now please tell me the difference between Plame's alleged outing as a covert CIA intelligence operative, and the outing of the CIA "secret prisons?" You seem more than willing to go after one alleged breach of national security, but not the other. Again, this smacks of partisanship and intellectual dishonesty, both of which I have come to expect from you.

Have a nice day, hack.

How about you answering your own question first. So far, it appears you don't give two shits about a Cia undercover agent being outed, but let me guess, informing the press on illegal prisons in foreign countries is not okay.

besides, you are TRYING to change the topic of the debate....which is off topic already I guess, so perhaps I can accept your challenge to voice my opinion on this subject.... but you first.

 

[Truthmatters]

How is it you can continue to claim she wasnt covert?

It is just insanity to do so.

It was the CIA who requested the investigation into the leak.
Documents show she had Secret by her name which they had seen.
The CIA has said she was covert.
The judge in the case has accepted she was covert.

I just dont see what you gain by denying the fact hat she was covert?

 

[CockySOB]

Oh, and one more thing, WHAT BANDWIDTH? I can only get STUPID dial up with at best a 50k connection in our new cottage! It stinks on internet connection in the middle of the woods!

When you post your tripe, other people download it. The internet doesn't revolve around your dial-up connection, honey. When you put content onto the site, you are affecting the bandwidth usage for that site. Try going for quality rather than quantity, and you'll be a good denizen of the world-wide web.

 

[Truthmatters]

Maybe you should remember that SOB?

 

[CockySOB]

How is it you can continue to claim she wasnt covert?

It is just insanity to do so.

It was the CIA who requested the investigation into the leak.
Documents show she had Secret by her name which they had seen.
The CIA has said she was covert.
The judge in the case has accepted she was covert.

I just dont see what you gain by denying the fact hat she was covert?

She has not been found to be covert under the law. I don't dispute that the CIA referred to her as covert, but again, the CIA definition and the statutory definition of "covert" are not the same thing. Moreover, if she WERE covert under teh law (or even if information about her was classified), Libby could have easily been charged with conspiracy to commit the substantive crime Fitzgerald was originally assigned to investigate. Libby was NOT so charged, which indicates to me that the substantive crime did not happen.

That you and others choose to ignore the rule of law is just astounding for me. Let me guess, you think Nifong did no wrong either, huh?

 

[CockySOB]

Maybe you should remember that SOB?

*ding* Try making a positive contribution yourself troll-boy. As I pointed out, I have contributed more hard, LEGAL facts than anyone else in this thread. It's the partisan hacks like yourself and Care4Herself (that's an actual name-calling for your edification) that fail to produce any substantive infromation in your posts.

 

[Care4all]

Maybe you should remember that SOB?

 

[Truthmatters]

Their does not need to be some fucking court case to determine her a covert agent.

This is utter fantasy on your part.

There are guidlines to what makes an agent covert.

The CIA has provided the information to the nessesary court representatives LIKE THE JUDGE!

The CIA holds the documentation of her covert status, they have shown the court the nessesary documentation and they have continued with the case accepting the documentation.

What you want is to pretend a judge isnt good enough which is utter bullshit!

 

[CockySOB]

How about you answering your own question first. So far, it appears you don't give two shits about a Cia undercover agent being outed, but let me guess, informing the press on illegal prisons in foreign countries is not okay.

besides, you are TRYING to change the topic of the debate....which is off topic already I guess, so perhaps I can accept your challenge to voice my opinion on this subject.... but you first.

No, I don't think there was any outing of a covert CIA agent as there has not been any legal finding of fact to support the notion that Plame was anything more than a standard CIA employee per the law.

This is not changing the topic, fool. I am asking for you to compare/contrast what you claim is classified information (Plame's identity) versus REAL classified information regarding CIA operations overseas. You seem to find one to be morally objectionable, but not the other. Why is this?

 

[Truthmatters]

*ding* Try making a positive contribution yourself troll-boy. As I pointed out, I have contributed more hard, LEGAL facts than anyone else in this thread. It's the partisan hacks like yourself and Care4Herself (that's an actual name-calling for your edification) that fail to produce any substantive infromation in your posts.

Just saying you have does not mean you have!

You are not even looking at the facts others are providing and pretending they dont exsist.

Your little red squares are so precious to you arent they?

They do not make your arguement correct and they do not make you anything but a vindictive little man who uses them instead of logic to make your arguement.

It just cracks me up how much the people on the right here use those little red squares when they know they have been trumped.

I have never used one and never will, I use facts and words instead.

 

[Care4all]

*ding* Try making a positive contribution yourself troll-boy. As I pointed out, I have contributed more hard, LEGAL facts than anyone else in this thread. It's the partisan hacks like yourself and Care4Herself (that's an actual name-calling for your edification) that fail to produce any substantive infromation in your posts.

You have produced NOTHING to support your argument that she was NOT covert, and you have produced nothing to support or show any law that states the covert operative being protected by the law is required to prove this in a separate court of law case, that she or he is covert.

This is the garbage you have spouted, with absolutely no back up support of such. If you have a link to such law, then give me the darn link for it...put up or shut up... let's have this law that says a covert operative of the Cia or the FBI MUST prove in a court of law that they are covert, THAT THE JUDGE makes this decision on an agent's status, and the burden of proof for her covert identity is not her government employer, who has to verify such.

Put up, or you are nothing but a Cocky SOB and Right Wing Partisan Hack! So there! I can call you names too!



care

 

[Care4all]

No, I don't think there was any outing of a covert CIA agent as there has not been any legal finding of fact to support the notion that Plame was anything more than a standard CIA employee per the law.

This is not changing the topic, fool. I am asking for you to compare/contrast what you claim is classified information (Plame's identity) versus REAL classified information regarding CIA operations overseas. You seem to find one to be morally objectionable, but not the other. Why is this?

Don't know much about the secret prisons where torture must occur and how they got "outed"?

Are you saying that someone in the administration "outed" this classified information? If so, who? And if so, was an investigation in to such done?

What precisely are you trying to compare this situation, with Plame's situation?

 

[Care4all]

She has not been found to be covert under the law. I don't dispute that the CIA referred to her as covert, but again, the CIA definition and the statutory definition of "covert" are not the same thing. Moreover, if she WERE covert under teh law (or even if information about her was classified), Libby could have easily been charged with conspiracy to commit the substantive crime Fitzgerald was originally assigned to investigate. Libby was NOT so charged, which indicates to me that the substantive crime did not happen.

That you and others choose to ignore the rule of law is just astounding for me. Let me guess, you think Nifong did no wrong either, huh?

He would NOT have been charged with such if the VP really did declassify the document before Libby and especially Rove and Armitage, leaked the supposedly classified information about valerie's employment.... Libby and Rove and Armitage and Fleicher would be cleared and the burden of proof would be on the VP as to whether he declassified the document, legally, by following the proper protocols.

care