Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[red states rule]

Here's an interesting article from Susan Estrich which follows the same theme. I find it interesting because I would NEVER have imagined Ms. Estrich taking the stance, especially when it would mean defending a Republican. I've snipped two of the more salient paragraphs from her article, but I recommend reading the entire article.

...
The only problem here is that there was no underlying crime. The answer to the question Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was initially appointed to investigate — had anyone violated the law in disclosing Ms. Plame's name in their effort to discredit her husband's criticism of the administration's war policy — was no. No one violated what we used to call the "Agents Law." Dick Armitage, the guy who admits he gave out her name in the first place, isn't facing time; nor are Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, or any of the reporters or news organizations who didn't hesitate to disclose her identity.
...​

...
There is something troubling about prosecutors using perjury and obstruction of justice to turn into criminals people who haven't committed any other crime. Instead of using the grand jury as a tool for investigating other criminal activity, it becomes the forum for creating criminal conduct. The role of the FBI and federal prosecutors becomes one of creating criminals instead of catching them. Technically, I know, it's not entrapment, but it's still different than the usual business of tracking down those who have violated the law and punishing them for their bad acts. The investigation doesn't solve the crime; it creates it.
...​

She even expressed her "disappointment" over Bill Clinton. She said she spent years defending him and she was hurt when she found out he lied

She will speak her mind every now and then

 

[maineman]

Plame was NOT covert and her "outing" was not a crime

Scooter was made a scapgoat to justify the time and money spent investagating a non crime

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

you say one thing....DCI says another.

who to believe? the Director of Central Intelligence, or a right wing internet chickenhawk hack?

 

[red states rule]

you say one thing....DCI says another.

who to believe? the Director of Central Intelligence, or a right wing internet chickenhawk hack?

The LAW says she was not covert - not that libs ever pay attention to such small details like that

Your hack was USA Today that pointed out the law

 

[maineman]

The LAW says she was not covert - not that libs ever pay attention to such small details like that

quote the law then....I'll wait.

 

[red states rule]

quote the law then....I'll wait.

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.

You must not have read the link - you just lashed out as usual

 

[maineman]

quote the law then....I'll wait.

did you MISS this?

 

[red states rule]

did you MISS this?

Keep ignoring the facts MM - they do keep going against you

 

[maineman]

I do not believe the LAW says anything about being "posted" overseas or "stationed" but merely "served" overseas.

Everytime my ships deployed, I served overseas, but I was always stationed in CONUS.

 

[maineman]

Keep ignoring the facts MM - they do keep going against you

look...you posted the following sentence:

The LAW says she was not covert

I said I didn't believe that was true and asked you to post the LAW that proved your assertion. And in response, you posted a news article that contained someone's opinion about the law. Post the LAW. I'll wait for you to back up your assertion with some actual facts and then we can proceed.

 

[red states rule]

look...you posted the following sentence:

The LAW says she was not covert

I said I didn't believe that was true and asked you to post the LAW that proved your assertion. And in response, you posted a news article that contained someone's opinion about the law. Post the LAW. I'll wait for you to back up your assertion with some actual facts and then we can proceed.

Victoria Toensing, who helped write the law, has said on many occassions, you have to be stationed out of the US within the past six years, to be considered covert

Minor detail to you MM, but that is in the law

 

[red states rule]

look...you posted the following sentence:

The LAW says she was not covert

I said I didn't believe that was true and asked you to post the LAW that proved your assertion. And in response, you posted a news article that contained someone's opinion about the law. Post the LAW. I'll wait for you to back up your assertion with some actual facts and then we can proceed.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html

 

[maineman]

again.... either get the LAW and quote it, or quit spinning.
what part of GET THE LAW did you not understand the first time I typed it?

 

[red states rule]

again.... either get the LAW and quote it, or quit spinning.
what part of GET THE LAW did you not understand the first time I typed it?

You do hate it when you get your ass handed to you, don't you?

You continue to duck the facts and keep trying to defend you lies in the face of reality

 

[CockySOB]

Actually Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford both helped draft the modern incarnation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and both have stated their opinion that "served" under 50 USC 426 was meant to cover long-term overseas assignment, and not the short-term assignments.

But their opinions, just as the opinions of others like the DCI are opinions. If anyone wants a fact, the issue needs to be taken up before the court where the contradictory opinions can be tested and evaluated under the law. And that is something Fitzgerald was either unwilling or unable to do. And in light of the fact that her didn't prosecute Armitage for violating the law, I tend to place more belief in the idea that Fitzgerald was unable to make the case that Plame was covert as a matter of law.

 

[red states rule]

Actually Victoria Toensing and Bruce Sanford both helped draft the modern incarnation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and both have stated their opinion that "served" under 50 USC 426 was meant to cover long-term overseas assignment, and not the short-term assignments.

But their opinions, just as the opinions of others like the DCI are opinions. If anyone wants a fact, the issue needs to be taken up before the court where the contradictory opinions can be tested and evaluated under the law. And that is something Fitzgerald was either unwilling or unable to do. And in light of the fact that her didn't prosecute Armitage for violating the law, I tend to place more belief in the idea that Fitzgerald was unable to make the case that Plame was covert as a matter of law.

Libs do ignore that NOBOBY was charged with her "outing"

They will not admit she was NOT covert

 

[CockySOB]

again.... either get the LAW and quote it, or quit spinning.
what part of GET THE LAW did you not understand the first time I typed it?

Not to fight RSR's fights for him, but by default NO ONE is considered covert. The law specifies what it takes for a person to become covert (as an agent of the government under law), and by exclusion, everyone else who does not meet those requirements is by default, not covert.

Basic set theory here since the conditions of "covert" and "not covert" are mutually exclusive and apply to the universal set of all persons.

 

[maineman]

Not to fight RSR's fights for him.

then don't. He made the claim that the law said something. Let him back up what he says.....

and quit tapdancing by posting all this news articles where people are giving their interpretations of what the law says. RSR did NOT say: Lot's of people smarter than me think the law says she wasn't covert" He said: "The LAW says she was not covert". I say prove it. put up or shut up.

 

[red states rule]

then don't. He made the claim that the law said something. Let him back up what he says.....

and quit tapdancing by posting all this news articles where people are giving their interpretations of what the law says. RSR did NOT say: Lot's of people smarter than me think the law says she wasn't covert" He said: "The LAW says she was not covert". I say prove it. put up or shut up.

To MM and his ilk, one of the authors of the law, explaining why Plame was not covert, is not good enough

 

[maineman]

To MM and his ilk, one of the authors of the law, explaining why Plame was not covert, is not good enough

if you say the law says something, I say prove it.

post the law or shut the **** up.

 

[red states rule]

if you say the law says something, I say prove it.

post the law or shut the **** up.

I have posted the author of the law expalining the law

But facts never have mattered to much to you in the past, why should they now

Funny, you said the same thing when you tried to lie about Dems not raising taxes