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

[CockySOB]

I'd call your opinion conjecture and not based on FACTS, but EMOTIONS, especially since neither of you are willing to support your own CONJECTURES regarding this...

Let's have some substance here

PLEASE show us why you THINK that Plame was not classified undercover according to the Law and Link YOU provided.


Please show us, how the law disqualifies Plame as a covert agent/classified undercover.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

pretty please.

Irrelevant. The burden is on the government and Plame to show that she was qualified under the statutes. If the government cannot present such evidence to a court and obtain an evidentiary ruling which says Plame was covert under the US Codes, then she cannot be considered as such.

Sorry Care4All, your attempt at deflection fails. Try again!

 

[Truthmatters]

watch the clip and you will never need to ask that again

 

[Care4all]

Here's the rub, Care4All, the burden is on the government and the agent to provide evidence that they DID take the requisite steps to conceal Plame's identity and relationship to the government. That means the burden is on the government (and you if you are supporting their assertion) to show that they took the required "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity and relationship to the CIA.

And what did the CIA tell Bob Novak when he called them up and asked if she worked there? YES. C'mon, you can say it. Either Plame was NOT a covert agent, or the CIA royally screwed the pooch and blew her cover way back then.

Frankly Care4All, your attempt at deflection is pathetic. The burden lies in showing the Plame WAS covert per the relevant statutes, not in proving she was not. The prosecution has to present a case before defense counsel has to consider any kind of argument. Remember the little legal issue called "reasonable doubt?" It is the prosecution who must show that Plame WAS covert per the statutes before it can require the defense to show she was not. Moreover, the prosecution chose NOT to present any information about Plame's status at the Libby trial, preferring to claim their research into her status was "not discoverable," something which Libby's defense team was denied access to. What does this tell you, clairvoyant one? That perhaps Fitzgerald's investigation into Plame's status showed she was NOT covert per the statutes and that his best course of action would be to avoid any charges against Libby which brought that into the official court record? Hmmm... sounds like the way things went down to me.

your wrong. Before Fitzy could continue with the investigation of the outing of an agent, he had to determine whether the agent met the criteria of undercover and other things writen in the statue.

He does not, according to the LAW, make this decision on his own, but follows the guideline of the Law at hand, and must according to the Law, have the OKAY of the usa government and their ACKNOWLEDMENT that the person outed is covered by the law.

Then and ONLY THEN, as an investigative prosecutor, can he continue with, tax payer's money, the investigation on whether she was "outed".

There is NO INVESTIGATION in to an outing of an agent UNTIL it is determined that an AGENT was outed.

Fitzy's Investigation was to find out WHO outed this agent.

Fitzy's investigation was to find out who, broke the law, if anyone.

----------------------------------------------------------

 

[Gunny]

watch the clip and you will never need to ask that again

Dude, you are obviously WAY over your head.

 

[CockySOB]

watch the clip and you will never need to ask that again

Are you dense? An opinion is an opinion, but not a legal fact. What part of this is too difficult for you to understand? A legal fact requires a ruling by a court of law. Everyone and their uncle has an opinion, but opinions are NOT fact.

Sheesh. You'll believe what you want to believe which is fine. But don't try hoisting your opinion up as fact unless you can support it. Which might even get Fitzgerald a minor chiding from the sentencing judge for his attempt to present facts not in evidence to the sentencing authority.

 

[Care4all]

Irrelevant. The burden is on the government and Plame to show that she was qualified under the statutes. If the government cannot present such evidence to a court and obtain an evidentiary ruling which says Plame was covert under the US Codes, then she cannot be considered as such.

Sorry Care4All, your attempt at deflection fails. Try again!

NO again, the LAW is very clear, it is not up to Plame at all, it is up to the usa gvt to acknowledge such to the Prosecutor BEFORE he can investigate an outing of such person.

The usa gvt, did this, thus Fitzy continued investigating the "outing", not investigating whether she was covert or not, that had to be extablished AHEAD OF TIME, according to the Law.

 

[CockySOB]

Dude, you are obviously WAY over your head.

(sarcasm)
Naw! You really think so? Well, I guess you have an opinion and since TruthMatters is fine with the idea of accepting unproven opinion as fact, then I guess it is a fact that TruthMatters is WAY over his head.
(/sarcasm)

I wonder if TruthMatters will understand the sarcasm here....

 

[Gunny]

(sarcasm)
Naw! You really think so? Well, I guess you have an opinion and since TruthMatters is fine with the idea of accepting unproven opinion as fact, then I guess it is a fact that TruthMatters is WAY over his head.
(/sarcasm)

I wonder if TruthMatters will understand the sarcasm here....

I wouldn't put any of MY money on that one.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is no talking facts to you people.

In congessional testimony under oath she says shes covert.

In the congressional testimony a congressman refers to Hayden of the CIA testitified to Waxman that she wa scovert.

Her covert status was what prompted the investigation resulting in Libby going to prison.

Her covert status is now included in a civil case.

Her covert status is also involved in her attempt to get clearance for her pending book.

Yet these guys have no grasp on how truth matters.

 

[CockySOB]

NO again, the LAW is very clear, it is not up to Plame at all, it is up to the usa gvt to acknowledge such to the Prosecutor BEFORE he can investigate an outing of such person.

The usa gvt, did this, thus Fitzy continued investigating the "outing", not investigating whether she was covert or not, that had to be extablished AHEAD OF TIME, according to the Law.

Son, do you try to be this obtuse or does it come naturally? The Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the POSSIBLE criminal activity. That means that no crime was determined to have occurred at the start of his tenure. Moreover, the prosecutor can continue investigating in good faith while awaiting clarification on the statutory facts related to his investigation. Once he determined that Libby's statements were contradictory, he could proceed to investigate the process crimes of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice independent of his original investigation, which is what happened. Notice too, how Fitzgerald NEVER brought any other indictments nor presented any evidence indicating that a substantive crime had been committed. He voiced his opinions on a couple of topics, including Plame's status with the CIA, but he never presented such to a court for a legal finding of fact.

Have you even bothered researching the process for investigating and prosecuting criminal charges? Have you ever looked into the issue of how and why independent/special prosecutors are appointed and the scope of their authority? It sure doesn't seem like it.

 

[Truthmatters]

If she was NOT covert there would be NO possible crime would there?

If she was NOT covert there would have BEEN NO INVESTIGATION!

 

[CockySOB]

There is no talking facts to you people.

In congessional testimony under oath she says shes covert.

In the congressional testimony a congressman refers to Hayden of the CIA testitified to Waxman that she wa scovert.

Her covert status was what prompted the investigation resulting in Libby going to prison.

Her covert status is now included in a civil case.

Her covert status is also involved in her attempt to get clearance for her pending book.

Yet these guys have no grasp on how truth matters.

OK nugget, one last time....

The CIA defines "covert" differently than do the US Codes. The US Codes covering the protection of covert intelligence identities requires use of the legal definitions of "covert" rather than the definition used within the CIA.

You have no grasp on... well... damned near anything.

 

[Gunny]

There is no talking facts to you people.

In congessional testimony under oath she says shes covert.

In the congressional testimony a congressman refers to Hayden of the CIA testitified to Waxman that she wa scovert.

Her covert status was what prompted the investigation resulting in Libby going to prison.

Her covert status is now included in a civil case.

Her covert status is also involved in her attempt to get clearance for her pending book.

Yet these guys have no grasp on how truth matters.

When you start presenting facts instead of opinions, THEN you can talk shit about it. Until then, your statement is a joke.

Your attempt to deflect the argument as to whether or not Plame was EVER undercover is rejected. That is not at issue here, nor is whether or not she can get clearance from having been undercover to release a book.

Libby was convicted for not having perfect recall, not compromising anyone's alleged cover.

Let's try the common sense approach here (wasted air, I'm sure) ... How "undercover" are you when you drive in and out of CIA headquarters, daily, for 3+ years? Like anyone but you couldn't figure that one out.

Of course, we all KNOW no foreign intelligence agency would think of watching the gate at CIA hqtrs to see who comes and goes, don't we?

She was undercover like I was undercover in the Marines. Don't be fooled by the fact I wear a Marine uniform and drive in and out of base every day. I'm not one.

 

[Truthmatters]

Every one of those things I said are fact.

are you going to deny she testified under oath that she was covert?

 

[Truthmatters]

Let's try the common sense approach here (wasted air, I'm sure) ... How "undercover" are you when you drive in and out of CIA headquarters, daily, for 3+ years? Like anyone but you couldn't figure that one out.


Lets start with you Prooving this is true?

You have not yet prooved this as a verifiable fact.

 

[CockySOB]

If she was NOT covert there would be NO possible crime would there?

If she was NOT covert there would have BEEN NO INVESTIGATION!

Again, your ignorance of the legal process is staggering. Investigations are begun in order to determine IF a crime was committed. If in the process of that investigation another crime is discovered, it can and should be pursued as well. While Fitzgerald was investigating whether or not Plame was a covert agent whose covert identity was illegally disseminated, he happened upon a process crime committed by Libby: perjury and making false statements. Accordingly, Fitzgerald began prosecuting Libby for those process crimes while continuing his original investigation.

You are using almost the same logic (albeit in reverse direction) as those who mistakenly claim that Libby should NOT be prosecuted since there has been now ruling that Plame was a covert agent whose identity he illegally disseminated. And just like those people who make that claim trying to defend Libby, you are in error. A process crime is still a crime which should be prosecuted, but such crimes must be considered separate from the original investigation until such time as there is sufficient legal proof that the two are related. As Jillian pointed out, usually a criminal will plea bargain with the prosecutor in such instances, providing the requisite linkages. It is interesting though that in this case, Libby did not seek a plea bargain and to this day maintains his innocence.

 

[Gunny]

Every one of those things I said are fact.

are you going to deny she testified under oath that she was covert?

Her testifying is fact. Her testimony is not necessarily fact.

 

[Gunny]

Let's try the common sense approach here (wasted air, I'm sure) ... How "undercover" are you when you drive in and out of CIA headquarters, daily, for 3+ years? Like anyone but you couldn't figure that one out.


Lets start with you Prooving this is true?

You have not yet prooved this as a verifiable fact.

You can't possibly be THIS dumb.

 

[Care4all]

If she was NOT covert there would be NO possible crime would there?

If she was NOT covert there would have BEEN NO INVESTIGATION!

Yes Tm, that is the point. There would be no investigation if an agent had NOT been exposed.

Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation was authorized by the Justice Dept to ascertain WHO, exposed an undercover agent's identity to the public.

It was not Fitzgerald's job to determine Plames's undercover status, according to the Law, the USA gvt makes that determination and then notifies the prosecution of such. Then the investigating Prosecutor can continue to persue what happened.

Fitzgerald was told she met the criteria for such, by the usa gvt, according to the LAW. Thus, when Fitzgerald states "such" he is stating such, because the usa gvt has already determined such (that she met the criteria under the law that Fitzy is pursuing the outing on)....this is not his opinion.

---------------------------------------------

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.

(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply
(A) in the case of a person who acted 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, or
(B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.
(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.
(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.

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.
-----------------------------------------

I believe what they are saying here... is before a prosecutor can charge a person with outing an agent, the usa gvt must acknowledge that she was an agent.

And this makes sense to me.

Why?

Because why waste the tax payer's dollars and the Prosecutor's dime and time on an investigation and then indictment and then prosecution of someone aledged to have broken the law by outing classified information or an undercover agent of the CIA, if the agent they supposedly outed was not undercover by law in the first place?

In this particular case, Libby obstructed justice, preventing the prosecutor from getting to the bottom of this investigation of who outed Plame.

The investigation was in to WHO OUTED PLAME, not an investigation in to whether plame was covered by the law. As I said, this was determined by the usa gvt, before they requested an investigation in to the leaking of this classified information, and Fitzgerald worked his investigation in to such, from there.... and this is what the law implies should be the progression of an outing case, imo.

Oh, and the CIA has publicly told us that she was a classified undercover officer.

 

[Care4all]

And besides, what is the argument of the other side?

She was an undercover agent but not according to the law undercover agent that Cheney outed?

Does this make it any better or more ethical of Cheney?

lol ridiculous that this is even being argued.