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

[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.

Excuse me, which law? Are you saying that there is a law which tells the special prosecutor that he could only prosecute process crimes IF the substantive crime he is investigating can be proven to have happened? Clarify your statement so that I can rip it to shreds.

Talk about being dumber than a box of rocks....

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/3aa56w

check out the CIAs crime report

 

[Gunny]

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.

What's even more ridiculous is you who keep claiming "Cheney outted Plame." If her name was compromised by being put on page one at all, it would be the direct result of her bigmouth husband tooting his own horn.

And IF there was any evidence AT ALL, the way this witch hunt has proceeded, that Cheney was guilty of so much as jaywalking, he'd have been charged for it.

But, since the facts don't seem to bother you insofar as the rest of the argument is concerned, please DO carry on.

 

[Truthmatters]

On March 16, 2007, at the 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

 

[Annie]

http://tinyurl.com/3aa56w

check out the CIAs crime report

Either you c & p the wrong link or think some blogger, without any bio even posted, is someone we should listen to?

 

[Gunny]

On March 16, 2007, at the 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

I feel sorry for the other liberals carrying you through this discussion like a ball and chain and doing their best to counter your nonsense and irrelevancies with at least a basic understanding of what's going on.

 

[Annie]

I feel sorry for the other liberals carrying you through this discussion like a ball and chain and doing their best to counter your nonsense and irrelevancies with at least a basic understanding of what's going on.

Heck he's their point doggie, Care4 just goes 'right tm' then says her own stuff. Sounds like he managed something useful.

 

[Gunny]

Heck he's their point doggie, Care4 just goes 'right tm' then says her own stuff. Sounds like he managed something useful.

I will give her credit where it's due ... obviously I don't agree with her argument, but at least she's making one and addressing the actual issue instead of being off in lalaland with no clue whatsoever.

 

[Care4all]

Excuse me, which law? Are you saying that there is a law which tells the special prosecutor that he could only prosecute process crimes IF the substantive crime he is investigating can be proven to have happened? Clarify your statement so that I can rip it to shreds.

Talk about being dumber than a box of rocks....

No Cocky SOB,

(I just love your id name btw, it allows me to vent without really cursing myself! hahaha!)

Before An investigation is requested or occurs in to WHO outed an agent and alledgedly broke the laws regarding outing an agent, the Investigator must know, upfront, that the agent alledgedly outed, qualified as an agent with covered protection under the law.

In other words, an alledged crime has to be in "place" to have the investigation begin.

and one of the pertinent facts that determines this is whether the usa gvt has acknowledged that the person outed, is actually "classified and covered" by the Law and Protected by the Law from outings.

Then, let the investigation BEGIN, in to the "Who did the outing", who broke the Law on the books.

It is possible that the investigation does not get to the bottom of the outing and does not find out the truth on who ordered or did the actual outing.

It is possible that at a later date, it comes out that someone haphazzardly, declassified this info.

It could be that someone is named and charged with the outing and then get an innocent verdict from a jury.

What I am saying is that BEFORE any of this happens, it must be determined or sanctioned by the usa government, that the person supposedly outed, was "covered" with the Protection of the Law... one does not go to court to prove such.... it takes the usa gvt acknowledging such.

Which they did.

Care

 

[CockySOB]

I will give her credit where it's due ... obviously I don't agree with her argument, but at least she's making one and addressing the actual issue instead of being off in lalaland with no clue whatsoever.

Um, that's not the way I read her posts. She's dead set on using some fictional prosecutorial process to claim that there HAD to be a violation of the IIPA or related statute or Fitzgerald wouldn't have prosecuted Libby for his perjury, etc. Until she can wrap her little noodle of a brain around the fact that Fitzgerald can and DID prosecute Libby for his process crime while still proceeding with his investigation of a possible substantive crime in good faith, she's just blowing smoke and hot air.

 

[Truthmatters]

If Plame wasnt covert to begin with there would have been nothing to investigate.

That is a fact.

Libby would not be caught lying if there was nothing to be caught lying about.

The tortured thought processes of those who continue to support an administration which would risk our own intelligence gathering is just unbelievable

 

[Truthmatters]

BTW early on Bush himself called it a crime.

Remember back when he said he would fire people for it?

 

[Care4all]

If Plame wasnt covert to begin with there would have been nothing to investigate.

That is a fact.

Libby would not be caught lying if there was nothing to be caught lying about.

The tortured thought processes of those who continue to support an administration which would risk our own intelligence gathering is just unbelievable

tm,

it is possible, that the veep did not understand or know the intricasies of Plame's job or status within the CIA.

It is possible that in the least, he is guilty of haphazardly handling the declassifying of classified information, of not following the procedures and protocols in place to do such, which indirectly outed an undercover officer of the CIA and put our country's intelligence gathering and the agent outed at risk.

And of course, it is possible that he didn't give two pennies about who he outed, he just wanted to try to discredit what Wilson said in his op ed, any way that he could.

We will NEVER know.

 

[Care4all]

Um, that's not the way I read her posts. She's dead set on using some fictional prosecutorial process to claim that there HAD to be a violation of the IIPA or related statute or Fitzgerald wouldn't have prosecuted Libby for his perjury, etc. Until she can wrap her little noodle of a brain around the fact that Fitzgerald can and DID prosecute Libby for his process crime while still proceeding with his investigation of a possible substantive crime in good faith, she's just blowing smoke and hot air.

I never said that CockySOB, and if I did say it, I reneged my initial thought on it. I am not even really talking about Libby at all!

and

you are not smart enough to understand me ...that's not my fault! lol


care

 

[Gunny]

Um, that's not the way I read her posts. She's dead set on using some fictional prosecutorial process to claim that there HAD to be a violation of the IIPA or related statute or Fitzgerald wouldn't have prosecuted Libby for his perjury, etc. Until she can wrap her little noodle of a brain around the fact that Fitzgerald can and DID prosecute Libby for his process crime while still proceeding with his investigation of a possible substantive crime in good faith, she's just blowing smoke and hot air.

My point is that she is at least on the same topic. I'm damned sure not going to defend her argument.

 

[Gunny]

tm,

it is possible, that the veep did not understand or know the intricasies of Plame's job or status within the CIA.

It is possible that in the least, he is guilty of haphazardly handling the declassifying of classified information, of not following the procedures and protocols in place to do such, which indirectly outed an undercover officer of the CIA and put our country's intelligence gathering and the agent outed at risk.

And of course, it is possible that he didn't give two pennies about who he outed, he just wanted to try to discredit what Wilson said in his op ed, any way that he could.

We will NEVER know.

You also don't know that the VP is responsible for Plame's name coming out. The only REAL evidence points at Joe Wilson's quest for notoriety, and th emedia asking all the basic questions. Y'know, like ...Who's his wife and what does she do?

 

[Bullypulpit]

You also don't know that the VP is responsible for Plame's name coming out. The only REAL evidence points at Joe Wilson's quest for notoriety, and th emedia asking all the basic questions. Y'know, like ...Who's his wife and what does she do?

And what evidence do you have to support THAT particular allegation...beyond the usual right wing talking points you get from FOX Noise?

 

[Truthmatters]

who was right about the yellow cake bullshit?

Do you think that going public about the President lying to the country on the verge of a war just seeking noteriety?

 

[Paulie]

Follow Brewster Jennings if you want to know exactly why Valerie Plame would be outed.

It's not about Joe Wilson, i'll tell you that much.

 

[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.

I have heard this said over and over and have never seen the veriviable fact to prove it happened can some one help me out?