From the New York Sun:

If Ms. Plame didn't want her identity out, she shouldn't have gotten her husband a secret mission and then allowed him to wage a public campaign against the president's foreign policy. The leading prevaricator in this case is Mr. Wilson himself. He has accused Mr. Bush of falsely leading America to war. Mr. Bush had claimed "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Mr. Wilson drank tea in Niger for a week and said that Mr. Bush's claim was not true. But even after Mr. Wilson's objection, the July 2004 report by the British government's Butler Commission found that Mr. Bush's comment was "well-founded." In a July 2004 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senators Roberts, Hatch, and Bond said of Mr. Wilson, "The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading."



I'm going with the "Wilson is a stooge" angle. But, give the guy his due....he's probably selling a ton of books.

T.

This debate is starting to remind me of the Clinton/Lewinsky debate. At the time, all the liberals claimed that it was "just about sex". Now the liberals are all claiming that it's all about "outing a CIA operative" when in reality both indictments were for perjury and obstruction of justice. Don't get me wrong. The charges are serious, and if Libby lied to congress he should be punished. I just think that the Bush bashers are ignoring the fact that Libby was NOT indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's name and are using the situation to advance a political agenda regardless of the facts.

Sid that is perfect. It is simple and right on the mark.

It is simple and right on the mark.

Really? I have a feeling it's not. You can tell, because in there amidst all the bs about how the liberals didn't care about Clinton lying, and how that goes to show this is only political and all, Sid says that if Libby lied to Congress, that would be bad, too. That's a pretty good indicator that though Sid's analysis might be simple, it's pretty far off the mark.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

it's pretty far off the mark.



How so? I interpreted it to mean that in both cases it was about lying. It does not matter what the lying was about its still wrong. Your thoughts?

How so?

Well, like I said, Libby wasn't indicted for lying to Congress, as Sid suggests. So right there, basic fact of the situation all screwed up.

But then there's also this:

I just think that the Bush bashers are ignoring the fact that Libby was NOT indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's name and are using the situation to advance a political agenda regardless of the facts.

Which is just bs. "Yeah, I guess perjury is wrong and all, and he should pay for it, but they didn't get him for the real crime."

My thoughts are that someone illegally revealed the classified identity of a CIA agent, which is outrageous. And Libby lied about it under oath during a grand jury investigation into the matter, which is a serious crime, and should not be minimized by those on the right, which is exactly what seems to be going on. How come none of you Bush supporters are pissed at Libby?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

That's akin to saying the rape victim was "asking for it".

If her name was classified, it is 100% irrelevant whether she recommended her husband for the trip and what he subsequently did with the "information" he learned. Doesn't matter if 100,000 reporters were clamoring for the name of Wilson's wife. It shouldn't have been leaked.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Well, like I said, Libby wasn't indicted for lying to Congress, as Sid suggests. So right there, basic fact of the situation all screwed up. Again what am I missing here? Are you saying its worse to lie to a grand jury than to Congress? I don't think thats what you mean but I don't understand.

My thoughts are that someone illegally revealed the classified identity of a CIA agent, which is outrageous. Well I think we have to agree to disagree on this. Nothing I have read or heard convinces me a "crime" was committed. Fitzgerald himself has said as much.

And Libby lied about it under oath during a grand jury investigation into the matter, which is a serious crime, and should not be minimized by those on the right, which is exactly what seems to be going on. How come none of you Bush supporters are pissed at Libby? I am not sure what being pissed at Libby would do. Am I dissapointed this all happened? Of course. Do I think he should be punished if found guilty? Again of course.

Libby never testified before Congress. The indictment is for lying to investigators (FBI) and perjury (Grand Jury testimony).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Are you saying its worse to lie to a grand jury than to Congress? I don't think thats what you mean but I don't understand.

No, I'm saying that Sid's apprehension of the most basic facts of the case is dubious.

Nothing I have read or heard convinces me a "crime" was committed. Fitzgerald himself has said as much.

Fitzgerald said no such thing. He explicitly said that her identity was classified, and was leaked, and that leak does constitute a crime. Which is, it seems to me, obvious.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Just this little bit shows you to be the [partisan] hack that you are. What you meant to say (if you had the balls to admit what happened) is that certain personnel in the White House deliberately disclosed the fact that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA to members of the media. Independent of whether that was a crime or not, that's what happened.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Bob, Fitzgerald said no such thing. What he did say (note the bold text):

"Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.



It's critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.



Agent Eckenrode doesn't send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, Just come back if you find wire fraud. If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.



That's the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer's identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it."

Whether a crime occurred, if Fitzgerald doesn't think that it can be proven in a court of law, he wouldn't indict for that crime. That is not the same as saying a crime was not committed. He, being the professional that he is (unlike Ken Starr), flatly refuses to comment on charges that he is not bringing. Whether he thinks a crime was committed you will never know, unless and until he indicts on that charge.

Here's the whole transcript: http://www.nytimes.com/....html?pagewanted=all. I suggest you read it in it's entirety; you'll learn everything that Fitzgerald believes is relevant to the indictments brought against Libby.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You hold Bob down, I'll kick him.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"My thoughts are that someone illegally revealed the classified identity of a CIA agent, which is outrageous."


My point exactly. Your "thoughts" are that someone leaked classified information. Obviously the facts of the case don't say so or Libby would have been indicted for that crime. You seem to be ignoring that.

And you are right, Libby didn't testify before congress. It was a grand jury. My bad. But it really doesn't effect the discussion.

Again, you are wrong. Fitzgerald said the following:

1. "In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."
2. "Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
   
   
   
   But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.
   
   
   
   In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

Again, Fitzgerald is not and will not say if a crime was committed. All we can tell is that he does not believe at this time that he could convict for that crime. Maybe it's because he could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Libby knew about Plame's classified status, maybe it is something else.

Go read the transcript and the indictment itself, and you'll learn some things. I hope.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"How come none of you Bush supporters are pissed at Libby?"

Good question. For me the answer is that I am not yet sure he did anything wrong other than have a non perfect memory, which is probably still way better than mine.

If it turns out that he actually did purposefully tell stupid lies like Martha Stewart, then I guess I will be pissed at him for reflecting badly on the Administration.

Of course, we still need to reserve some outrage for the Henry Cisneros investigation. It must be 10 years since he got caught lying to investigators about cash payments to his mistress, and that investigation is still going on.

That was probably a $100,000,000 investigation about a $10,000 payment. Are you still sure you want all lies investigated and prosecuted to the fullest?

Some comments:

1) You seem to be operating under the idea that "classified" is something that is dictated by the facts of the situation, when it is up to the CIA or other relevant body to affix that label to a given piece of information. Thus, vitus was quite correct in saying that if the CIA said a janitor's name or connection to the organization was classified, it's classified.

2) A question for you: if there was no problem with revealing her name, why was it "leaked"? And why, when people started asking questions, didn't Rove or Libby simply say "I told him"? In other words, why are they acting as if they are hiding something? (And I am leaving aside the perjury allegations against Libby or at least accepting his defense that he was busy and forgot his previous testimony).

---

f/k/a mclamb6

For my part, I am still not convinced her name was leaked at all. I think it was fairly well known in Beltway circles and just became prominent and publicized when Wilson started his crusade. I also don't have any evidence that either Rove or Libby did anything but pass information from nonclassified sources.

I could be wrong about all of this. That is what is so dissatisfying about these charges. There is no underlying crime, so Fitzgerald is quite properly not talking about the results of his investigations into noncrimes.

The only thing we know is that Fitzgerald believes that Libby gave him bad information repeatedly and deliberately. Any talk about this person "leaking" this or that is just conjecture, so why does the discussion keep coming back to that?

Well, I've read in a couple locations that Libby testified to hearing the name from Cheney himself.

Additionally, Rove's attorney said that he was one of the sources for Cooper. I guess it might be an open question as to where Rove got the information from before that, but still...

In any event, both Rove and Libby seemed to shy away from any connection with Plame. Whether they were passing on info from a classified source or not, it's clear they were in the grapevine in some fashion. Why did they not step up immediately and say that?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I can't answer that well, but it seems like they didn't think they were part of the story since they didn't think they were a sources of classified information just people who passed rumors.

That explanation would explain all the fact, including why Libby wasn't careful about his testimony.

Is that explanation true? I have no idea. Fitzgerald probably does, but he isn't talking.

You have to admit, the guy knows how to run a leak free investigation.

Oh, I have no problems with how Fitzgerald is running the investigation. There have been references made to him being a political hack, but his conduct nor his track record gives much credence to that statement.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I keep on seeing references to "references to his being a political hack."

I read way too much, and I have yet to see anything approaching such a comment. Are there such comments outside of lunnyville?

We are not talking Ronnie Earle here.

You also have to note that the point of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to FBI agents is to cover up a crime. These specific crimes obviously make it extremely difficult to prove the underlying crime. Hence, why those offenses are also crimes. It seems simple, but for some reason people (or hacks) seem to think that if somebody's lies can prevent a prosecution, then the important fact is that the crime can't be proven, not the obstruction.

Talk about selective vision.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

A perfect analogy is why masking agents are just as illegal as performance-enhancing drugs. If we can't tell if you took PFDs because of these other things you took to obscure your medical profile, then you are just as guilty.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I was referring to this board and comments made herein....[cough] Elwood [cough]....

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"Your "thoughts" are that someone leaked classified information. Obviously the facts of the case don't say so or Libby would have been indicted for that crime. You seem to be ignoring that. "

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is a difference between saying "someone" leaked that info, and saying that "Libby" leaked that info and we can prove it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

If "someone" leaked information,then the tone of the debate will take a turn when "someone" is indicted for leaking that information. Until that point it's still about perjury.

"That's akin to saying the rape victim was "asking for it". "

Uh, no... It's akin to saying that the guy who started the barfight deserved the concussion he got when the waitress beaned him with a beer bottle.

The "it's like being raped" analogy is way, way, way, way, way over the top.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Just this little bit shows you to be the [partisan] hack that you are. What you meant to say (if you had the balls to admit what happened) is that certain personnel in the White House deliberately disclosed the fact that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA to members of the media. Independent of whether that was a crime or not, that's what happened."

What I've said repeatedly is that the fact that Plame worked for the CIA wasn't a secret. It's been written up that way in several papers and others in these threads are aware of that bit if info. What I've also said is that with the Wilsons playing politics, her affiliation was bound to come out, and I must be right about that, because it did. What I've also said is that Plame isn't James Bond, she's Miss Moneypenny, and no one really gives a shit that her name was "revealed," except hacks like you and mclamb who want to throw mud at the President, even though the President isn't in this. You enjoyed the moment last Friday, and you're probably really pissed that the Alito confirmation has taken Scooter off the radar screen.

I've also said that this is just politics, it has nothing to do with anyone revealing national secrets. Fitz isn't prosecuting anyone for violating the Identies Act, because no one did. He's also not prosecuting for the revelation of classified info, because Plame's affiliation with the CIA wasn't classified, although her work may have been. No national secrets were revealed, only the fact that the hack who was attacking the WH (with lies, as we've all seen) is married to a CIA analyst. Big hairy deal.

I believe that (Art?) was pretty much right on when he said that this nonsense will drag out and then Bush will pardon Libby shortly after the elections in '08. So this is all much ado about nothing

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Whether a crime occurred, if Fitzgerald doesn't think that it can be proven in a court of law, he wouldn't indict for that crime. That is not the same as saying a crime was not committed."
- - Actually, while Fitz might like to say something else, this IS the same as saying no crime was committed.

"Whether he thinks a crime was committed you will never know, unless and until he indicts on that charge."
- - Correct me if I'm wrong here, Ken, but don't you and a couple of the other partisan hacks here claim the clairvoyance to know that a crime was committed, even though Fitzgerald, being the professional that he is (unlike you hacks) is NOT saying that?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

1) You seem to be operating under the idea that "classified" is something that is dictated by the facts of the situation, when it is up to the CIA or other relevant body to affix that label to a given piece of information. Thus, vitus was quite correct in saying that if the CIA said a janitor's name or connection to the organization was classified, it's classified.
- - ROTFL!! No, janitors names are not classified. Not today, not yesterday and not tomorrow. Like I said, if you called the CIA personell office to confirm Plame's employment for a mortgage loan, I'm sure they'd tell you that she works there.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

cousin elwood lets this little gem fall out of his gaping maw -
"What I've said repeatedly is that the fact that Plame worked for the CIA wasn't a secret."

hey bright boy let me quote the article linked above and already quoted.

these are the words of patrick fitzgerald at the very goddamned beginning of his speech

"Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into 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 us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."


there, is that english plain enough for you?
i don't know if fitzgerald has a staffer who could translate it to 'drooling partisan mongoloid' for you so i think you'll have to struggle through the native white american tongue for now


this oughta be good we get to watch the rabid party hack flip and flop his way around the 10 ton mack truck that just drove itself right up his argument's ass and left it exploded into a million pieces on the roadside

[reply]
"Whether he thinks a crime was committed you will never know, unless and until he indicts on that charge."
- - Correct me if I'm wrong here, Ken, but don't you and a couple of the other partisan hacks here claim the clairvoyance to know that a crime was committed, even though Fitzgerald, being the professional that he is (unlike you hacks) is NOT saying that?[/reply]

Okay, you are wrong (yet again). I don't know a crime was committed, as I can't read Libby's mind and know what he was or was not thinking when he gave Plame's name to the press; that's part of what goes into determining if a crime was committed, as Fitzgerald stated.

What I know, and what most reasonable people (that appears to exclude you) know, is that Libby gave up Plame's identity to multiple members of the press.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Read carefully: the bold text above says that classified status is whatever the CIA determines it to be. Fact. Your "response" is irrelevant to that statement.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Again, you still seem to be under the misapprehension that it's you or me or ken or armytriguy that gets to determine what piece of information, in context(i.e. relationship to an organization), is classified or not. Yes, names, in and of themselves, are not classified. A specific relationship can be. Thus, the fact that someone, anyone, works for the CIA could be a classified piece of information.

And lest you think otherwise, I don't necessarily think revealing Plame's name was a crime. I think there is evidence of a guilty conscious with how Libby has allegedly perjured himself and with the fact that Rove and Libby didn't come straight out with their involvement as a source or conduit of the information. I also think that revealing her name was done with some malicious intent as the fact that Plame helped Wilson get the trip, on its face, doesn't present a credibility issue(it's not like Plame was a high ranking Democrat). Those two factors lead me to believe that something unethical occurred. Not sure whether it was criminal.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Yes, it has been repeatedly stated by those making the charges that Plame was some sort of covert operative. It has also been repeatedly stated by numerous sources that she was not and that many people knew that she worked for the CIA, and also that she had not held a covert position within the last five years (and maybe never) thus taking The Identities Act out of play. This is why no one has been charged with outing an "agent."

There has also been no indictment on charges of disseminating classified information, although Fitzgerald made much ado about that very subject. I find it humorous that someone above noted that Fitzgerald (in contrast to Starr) did not accuse people of things for which he wasn't issuing indictments, when in fact that is just what he did in his tedious press conference.

Scooter Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, but not in connection with any crime. I've read all the passionate hacks who say he should be shot at sunrise for making a mockery of our legal system and lying to a grand jury. All I can say to that, in 2005, is: Give me a freakin' break.

BTW, I also believe that it was a crime to indict Martha without and underlying crime, as Fitzgeralds close body did.

In short, if Plame's name was classified, then why is no one charged with leaking it? Fitz says it's because he doesn't think he can prove the case. Well, he seems to have pretty good proof that Libby talked about her, so the only reason he's not indicting for the release of classified information must be that the information won't stand up in court as classified.

And as I've also said many times (and which has been well supported) Plame's own husband was as responsible as anyone for her name coming to the attention of the general public.

You partisans just aren't interested in the truth. Meanwhile, I STILL did not vote for Bush. So you can call me a partisan if that makes it easier for you to dismiss my point of view, but that would just be one more instance where you're wrong.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Your "response" is irrelevant to that statement."

My response is simply restating what you defended from another of your partisan hack brothers, which is that if the CIA chooses to say so, the janitor's name could be considered classified information.

Sorry, Ken, but when the shit hits the fan, you have to demonstrate that what you say is classified is actually classified. Plame's identity was not a closely guarded government secret. It was apparently bandied about to a great enough degree to give Fitzgerald pause about indicting for it's release.

Now maybe the CIA didn't want anyone to know who she was, but if that's true then they did a very stupid thing by utilizing her husband for their Niger investigation, and he did a very stupid thing by a) doing a sloppy job of it and b) writing that bogus op ed.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"you still seem to be under the misapprehension that it's you or me or ken or armytriguy that gets to determine what piece of information, in context(i.e. relationship to an organization), is classified or not."
- - No, that's YOUR misconception, not mine.

"Yes, names, in and of themselves, are not classified."
- - Thanks for FINALLY admitting that. So the janitor is outed now?

"Thus, the fact that someone, anyone, works for the CIA could be a classified piece of information."
- - I'll allow that that's possible, although it wouldn't apply to someone who flaunts her status outside of "the company" by involving her husband in political games sponsored by the CIA.

"And lest you think otherwise, I don't necessarily think revealing Plame's name was a crime."
- - It sure sounded like that was the stand you have been taking. Thanks for coming clean on that one, too.

"I also think that revealing her name was done with some malicious intent as the fact that Plame helped Wilson get the trip, on its face, doesn't present a credibility issue(it's not like Plame was a high ranking Democrat). Those two factors lead me to believe that something unethical occurred. Not sure whether it was criminal."
- - You're damn right it was malicious. Wilson (and perhaps the CIA) picked a fight with the administration over WMDs (about which they are demonstrably incorrect) and the administration and/or people working on their behalf struck back.

ONCE AGAIN: THIS IS POLITICS, NOT JUSTICE (did I say that before?)

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"You partisans just aren't interested in the truth."

Get over yourself. As if you're the only reasonable straight thinking non-partisan here? Or as if you had even been able to accurately represent the truth through these threads. The fact is that perjury and obstruction are crimes in and of themselves and do not require there to have been some other crime involved. On top of which, it is not at all uncommon to charge people with lesser offenses or even unrelated offenses that arise from investigations into some crime or allegation. You make it seem like this is some sort of underhanded scheme to get Libby. If you are perfectly willing to say that perjury and obstruction are no big deal, as you did when you said "Give me a freakin' break", then that's your own problem.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Bullshit. It's incredible that a guy with Fitzgerald's investigative abilities and the full force of the FBI behind it, couldn't find anyone who knew about her, and stated such in his announcement. He also declared that her identity was classified.

But you know so much more than him. From now on, I'm just going to listen to you. You're the man. What *was* I thinking?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

"Plame's identity was not a closely guarded government secret."

Which has nothing to do with whether or not her status was classified. There are many things that are classified that I couldn't tell you because of that classification, but that you could find in any number of open sources.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

you said
"What I've said repeatedly is that the fact that Plame worked for the CIA wasn't a secret."

fitzgerald said
"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."


so is fitzgerald a liar or does he just not know as much about this case as you do?



"In short, if Plame's name was classified, then why is no one charged with leaking it?"

what takes the identities act out of play is the lack of evidence on the motive side of the statute. the defendant has to show

let's hear what fitzgerald has to say about it since you obviously have no desire to actually read the transcript
"It's especially important in the national security area. The laws involving disclosure of classified information in some places are very clear, in some places they're not so clear.

And grand jurors and prosecutors making decisions about who should be charged, whether anyone should be charged, what should be charged, need to make fine distinctions about what people knew, why they knew it, what they exactly said, why they said it, what they were trying to do, what appreciation they had for the information and whether it was classified at the time."

there are 6 factors in there that all have to fall into place perfectly
1 what they knew
2 why they knew it
3 what they said exactly
4 why they said it
5 what they were trying to do
6 was the information classified

you can get 5 out of 6 nailed down and the charge still would not stick. so in your asinine, brain-dead question only #6 applies. so #6 could be more true than the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about and the charge would not stick.

and why can't fitzgerald get all the other stuff? because everyone in this administration of felons has been lying to him the whole time. how can you get facts straight if everyone is lying?

if oj was really guilty of murder why isn't he in jail? if capone was really some thug mobster how come they only got him on tax evasion?

your idea that crimes or immoral acts can only be proven by a legal conviction or indictment is so intellectually stunted i'm surprised your keyboard hasn't shorted itself as you drool all over it typing this ridiculous mess

"If you are perfectly willing to say that perjury and obstruction are no big deal, as you did when you said "Give me a freakin' break", then that's your own problem."

I've never said that perjury is OK. I'll just keep it simple for you, since you don't seem able to grasp what I'm saying (maybe I'm being too convoluted but hey, that's me):

This is about POLITICS, NOT JUSTICE

I've said those exact words many times in these threads. Just as Starr's vendetta against Clinton (through Lewinsky) was bullshit, so is this. Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice. That was clear. I believe that Clinton deserved to be prosecuted for a number of offenses, NONE OF WHICH involved Lewinsky. The fact that Starr could only get him for perjury in that matter simply demonstrates that Starr was a flaming incompetent hack. I'm putting Fitzgerald in the same mold, with the possible exception that he might just be a dupe. In either case, we're all watching the magician's left hand, when the trick is being done with the right.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"fitzgerald said..."

Look, I watched the press conference, and I've read all the releases and the indictment. I seem to be speaking way over all of your heads, because everyone wants to argue points not relevant to the issue. So I'm out of here after repeating ONE MORE TIME:

This is politics, NOT justice.

No crime has been committed here, at least not one that anyone cares about. No lives have been jeopardized and no national secrets have fallen into enemy hands. This is all much ado about nothing.

Except that the partisans smell blood in the water, and so my tax money will be wasted on yet another set of meaningless investigations which will solve nothing.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

please, cousin elwood, please tell me whose vendetta this is. that's one of the many things missing from your web of conspiracy, and it's a pretty massive omission on your part.

who is fitzgerald a dupe for?
what indication do you have that fitzgerald himself would have some kind of beef?

you have nothing except your desire to have the facts fit whatever conclusion you have decided must be so.

the cia called for this investigation - that's a fact
john ashcroft recused himself and appointed fitzgerald - that's a fact
fitzgerald has absolutely no history of being some kind of partisan zealot - that's a fact


your attempt to make this look like the starr thing is completely different because...
the republican dominated congress called for that investigation - that's a fact
ken starr was hand-picked because he was a republican - that's a fact


i really love how you're able to back off your stupid-ass statements without admitting you are so horribly wrong about them

so tell me again, cousin elwood, was plame's identity as a cia agent secret or was it not? answer me

I seem to be speaking way over all of your heads

Yes, that's exactly the dynamic at play here. It's so obvious . . .

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"I seem to be speaking way over all of your heads, because everyone wants to argue points not relevant to the issue."

Uhuh, that's exactly what's going on, because it couldn't possibly be that everyone else on the forum is right, and you, all by your lonesome, without any evidence or fact to back up your absurd conclusions, might be wrong.

So let's wrap up. You didn't win anyone over in the first thread so you started a new one.

You didn't win anyone over in the second thread so you're going to just claim you're smarter than everyone and then quit.

You claim that perjury and obstruction are no big deal in 2005.

You claim that Fitzgerald is part of a massive conspiracy to railroad Republicans, but can't explain how that is or who he's working for.

You claim that Plame's identity couldn't have been classified because other people with clearances knew who she was.

You claim that because Joe Wilson may have been partisan, the logical extension of that is that someone would divulge classified information, namely the employment of his wife, and therefore he brought this trouble on himself.

You claim Fitzgerald hasn't worked on anything else but his partisan scheme for the last two years despite the fact that he has worked on other cases that whole time.

Yes, yes, I can see how you're talking way above everyone else's heads.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"please, cousin elwood, please tell me whose vendetta this is. that's one of the many things missing from your web of conspiracy, and it's a pretty massive omission on your part."
- - I guess you've missed all the hissies over WMDs and the CIA's failure pre-9/11. There has been a feud between the CIA and the WH, with Dems throwing in with the CIA. As has been pointed out, Wilson's reports and op ed on the yellowcake deal were bogus. Do you think he did it for Michael Moore?

"who is fitzgerald a dupe for?"
- - He has obviously bought into the BS that WH staffers, while demonstrating that Wilson was a fraud and a hack (a matter that has completely been ignored by the left) leaked the identity of his wife, who works for the CIA. The CIA says she was classified; other sources say she was not. Perhaps she became classified ex post facto because her classified status was useful in the internal war game.

"what indication do you have that fitzgerald himself would have some kind of beef?"
- - None. I think he's a well-meaning zealot. Perhaps you are too.

"you have nothing except your desire to have the facts fit whatever conclusion you have decided must be so."
- - Except that this tempest still doesn't spill out of its teapot.

"the cia called for this investigation - that's a fact"
- - It's also a fact that the administration has been overhauling the CIA and keel-hauling ranking officials there.

"john ashcroft recused himself and appointed fitzgerald - that's a fact
fitzgerald has absolutely no history of being some kind of partisan zealot - that's a fact"
- - Because Ashcroft is a more honorable man than the last AG. It was the right thing to do. Everybody is partisan, don't kid yourself. Fitzgerald may very well believe all the shit he has been fed. I don't care. It's still a huge storm over nothing.

your attempt to make this look like the starr thing is completely different because...
- - Because Starr actually had crimes to investigate

"the republican dominated congress called for that investigation - that's a fact"
- - Which means what?

"ken starr was hand-picked because he was a republican - that's a fact"
- - Yeah, we saw what happened when it was up to Reno to investigate Clinton!!

"i really love how you're able to back off your stupid-ass statements without admitting you are so horribly wrong about them"
- - About what have I backed off? I'm just tired of all the wax in your ears.

"so tell me again, cousin elwood, was plame's identity as a cia agent secret or was it not? answer me"
- - For the fifty-seventh time, IT WAS NOT.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Uhuh, that's exactly what's going on, because it couldn't possibly be that everyone else on the forum is right, and you, all by your lonesome, without any evidence or fact to back up your absurd conclusions, might be wrong."

Actually, genius, I started a new thread to try to get away from the unprovable "he said/she said" crap about Plame's status and whether or not a crime was committed, which question you can't answer and Fitzgerald hasn't either, which leads me to say none and all of you to howl that I'm a partisan hack...

The new thread was about whether or not any of this merits prosecution, and no one seems to want to go there. Maybe because in the final analysis, ALL OF YOU see that:
a) NO national secrets were disclosed to anyone
b) NO one was endangered (Wilson's blather to the contrary notwithstanding)
c) This is just political in-fighting inside the beltway and doesn't mean diddly.

I know a lot of those on the left are absolutely furious that Bush yanked his next nominee for the Supreme Court out of his hat just in time to blow this whole story off the front page. I don't think any of them care about justice, they just want to throw overripe vegetables at the WH. If you'll read what has been written here, you can clearly see that people are foaming at the mouth, and yet I'm wondering why? How much does this little matter affect YOUR life?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I seem to be speaking way over all of your heads

Yes, that's exactly the dynamic at play here. It's so obvious . . .

Well, if you'll go back to the original post in this thread, you'll find that none of you have responded on point, but have simply insisted on continuing the other thread onto this one. So yes, you've all missed the point. Color me surprised...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Actually, genius, I started a new thread to try to get away from the unprovable "he said/she said" crap about Plame's status and whether or not a crime was committed, which question you can't answer and Fitzgerald hasn't either"

Are you kidding me? Again, since you just tend to ignore anything that proves you wrong, I'll quote Fitzgerald:

"Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into 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 us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

As for whether or not a crime was committed, apparently there was, since Libby has been indicted. The indictment might not be for the original crime (yet) that was the cause of the investigation, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, that doesn't mean that crime wasn't also committed, just that charges haven't been brought yet.

"NO national secrets were disclosed to anyone"

Says you. Apparently everyone else disagrees with what you define as a national secret. I always thought, as a person who has held a clearance for many years, that anything classified was, by definition, a national secret. Silly me, I should have ignored all my briefings and picked up a copy of "Cousin Elwood's Guide to which secrets are important and which can be told to the media without regard for the consequences"

"NO one was endangered"

How do you have any possible way of knowing what the down-range effects of this might have been? Wait, let me answer that for you....You don't.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Are you kidding me? Again, since you just tend to ignore anything that proves you wrong, I'll quote Fitzgerald:"
- - Proving once again that you're not listening, and you're still on the other thread. I heard Fitzgerald climb on his high horse and talk about what happens when the names of covert agents are leaked, and then I see Plame and Wilson on the cover of Vanity Fair and now they're celebrities. Spare me the tale of woe.

"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."
- - "Not widely known" is one long friggin' hike from top secret.

"Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."
- - So maybe her husband shouldn't have decided to attack the WH.

"The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
- - And we still don't know who Novak's source was for this.

"As for whether or not a crime was committed, apparently there was, since Libby has been indicted. The indictment might not be for the original crime (yet) that was the cause of the investigation, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, that doesn't mean that crime wasn't also committed, just that charges haven't been brought yet."
- - Wake me when those charges are filed, would you?

"NO national secrets were disclosed to anyone"
"Says you. Apparently everyone else disagrees with what you define as a national secret."
- - So what national secret(s) was/were disclosed?

"NO one was endangered"
"How do you have any possible way of knowing what the down-range effects of this might have been? Wait, let me answer that for you....You don't."
- - So who was endangered? Plame and Wilson are now the toast of Broadway. You'd better pick someone else to hold out for sympathy.

So you still think Libby should rot in jail. Thank you for that long and involved excursion to give a simple answer to a simple question.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

There has been a feud between the CIA and the WH, with Dems throwing in with the CIA.

ok so where does fitzgerald fit in?

The CIA says she was classified; other sources say she was not.

what source says she was not classified that is more credible than the cia and patrick fitzgerald? <- please answer this

None. I think he's a well-meaning zealot. Perhaps you are too.

so you have no reason to think fitzgerald is a zealot, but you think it anyway. why?

Which means what?

it means that your attempt to compare the starr investigation to the fitzgerald investigation is inherently flawed. there is ample evidence that the starr investigation was nothing but partisan war. you have yourself admitted that you have absolutely no reason to believe that fitzgerald is some kind of political agent. yet you choose to believe it anyway, completely without cause other than it fitting your pre-determined conclusion.

There has been a feud between the CIA and the WH, with Dems throwing in with the CIA.
"ok so where does fitzgerald fit in?"
- - As of now, he's chosen to side with the CIA.

The CIA says she was classified; other sources say she was not.
"what source says she was not classified that is more credible than the cia and patrick fitzgerald? <- please answer this"
- - What makes the CIA credible? Just one thread up people are talking about how the CIA isn't to be trusted. But here, where it fits your needs, your willing to accept that they wouldn't ever lie! Let's ask Victoria Toensing, who helped draft the Identies Protection ActL

Toensing, the former deputy attorney general who helped draft Intelligence Identities Protection Act - which Bush critics insist was violated when Valerie Plame was identified to Novak - said earlier this year that it's unlikely any laws were broken in the case.

Writing in January in the Washington Post, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the 1982 law in question.

Said Toensing: "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG explained, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame meet those criteria, Toensing argued: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S.

Toensing said that's unlikely.

In fact, the myth that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, when New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof revealed that she abandoned her covert role a full nine years before the Novak column.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994," reported Kristof. "So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

The Times columnist also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted by Novak, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Kristof concluded: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

Stolen from NewsMax

"so you have no reason to think fitzgerald is a zealot, but you think it anyway. why?"
- - His behavior identifies him as a zealot, I think that goes without saying. Perhaps your confusing "zealot" with "partisan."

"it means that your attempt to compare the starr investigation to the fitzgerald investigation is inherently flawed. there is ample evidence that the starr investigation was nothing but partisan war."
- - Back up the truck there Buford. Two dozen Clintonistas were indicted, dozens more fled the country and/or took the Fifth to avoid prosecution. Partisan war? Give me a break. I think there was over a hundred years of jail time before it was all finished, and a pretty significant body count.

"you have yourself admitted that you have absolutely no reason to believe that fitzgerald is some kind of political agent. yet you choose to believe it anyway,"
- - I never said that. I said he could be a well-meaning zealot. Look the word up.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Just one thread up people are talking about how the CIA isn't to be trusted. But here, where it fits your needs, your willing to accept that they wouldn't ever lie!

what does what other people are saying in a completely different thread have to do with me? could you at least pretend like you are trying to make sense?

as far as alternate sources, your use of kristof is amusing. he's an op-ed writer.

and for toensing, i like how you make the first part of that sentence huge and red when the second half calls it a 'serious legal question'. and beyond that, why would toensing know? and furthermore, toensing is cia. you just got finished saying the cia was out to get bush, now you want to use cia?

and the fact remains; patrick fitzgerald has lived and breathed this case for the last 2 years and the first thing out of his mouth when he finally addresses the public is: 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 us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

you have no counter-argument for this other than "i don't know maybe he's a zealot". that's pathetic, elwood, just pathetic. fitzgerald is not someone with an axe to grind. you have no logical reason to disbelieve what he said and you have no source to disprove it, just hot air and noise.

His behavior identifies him as a zealot, I think that goes without saying. Perhaps your confusing "zealot" with "partisan."

i'm quite aware what the word "zealot" means. you're playing semantic games to dance around the fact that you are embarrassingly and tragically off-base

Two dozen Clintonistas were indicted, dozens more fled the country and/or took the Fifth to avoid prosecution. Partisan war? Give me a break. I think there was over a hundred years of jail time before it was all finished, and a pretty significant body count.

"clintonistas"? yeah, you've got no horse in this race mr. "i'm above this partisan stuff"

"I heard Fitzgerald climb on his high horse and talk about what happens when the names of covert agents are leaked, and then I see Plame and Wilson on the cover of Vanity Fair and now they're celebrities. Spare me the tale of woe."

So the fact that Plame and Wilson were on the cover of Vanity Fair makes it ok that classified information was divulged? Where's the consistency in your opinion Elwood? In some threads you demand people be held accountable for leaks, and in others you say it's no big deal.



""Not widely known" is one long friggin' hike from top secret."

Really, are you learning disabled? Did you skip right to the "widely known" part and ignore the part that says "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."?



"So maybe her husband shouldn't have decided to attack the WH"

What does this have to do sith anything? It's ok to leak classified info because her husband attacked the administration? You've got to be high.



"And we still don't know who Novak's source was for this. "

Which is why no one has been indicted for that crime. Brilliant observation.



"So who was endangered? Plame and Wilson are now the toast of Broadway. You'd better pick someone else to hold out for sympathy. "

Do you seriously think that divulging the identity of a covert agent is only dangerous to that specific agent and no one else?



"So you still think Libby should rot in jail. Thank you for that long and involved excursion to give a simple answer to a simple question."

Man you have a real talent for making shit up, otherwise know as "lying." I never said Libby should rot in jail. What I said is that you are a moron. You apparently don't understand what "classified" means. You apparently don't care if someone leaks classified information, just so long as they are on your side of the aisle and the person it affects "had it coming to them." You deem yourself the judge of what is or isn't a national secret, who may or may not be hurt by leaking classified material, and which crimes are really worth prosecuting. I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes. I think people who leak classified info should be held accountable for those crimes. I think the general level of discussion in the Lavendar Room was lowered when you decided to return to posting.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"what does what other people are saying in a completely different thread have to do with me? could you at least pretend like you are trying to make sense?"
- - I only make sense if you read my posts. When you begin attempting to dissemble from the first line, you will miss the point over and over again, as you've demonstrated.

"as far as alternate sources, your use of kristof is amusing. he's an op-ed writer."
- - OK, let me give you a couple of others. But then I'm sure you'll have some reason do dismiss them as well:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was_.html

"and for toensing, i like how you make the first part of that sentence huge and red when the second half calls it a 'serious legal question'. and beyond that, why would toensing know?"
- - As a former assistant AG, currently working for the CIA? Shit Bubba, your right, YOU certainly would be the authority in this equation, not Toensing!! I don't know what I was thinking, actually consulting someone whose job it is to know this stuff!! And what she said was that "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'" She did NOT say that leaking it was the serious legal question. How can you so distort a direct quote? Or why would you even try?

"and furthermore, toensing is cia. you just got finished saying the cia was out to get bush, now you want to use cia?"
- - Well, "the CIA" is a collection of individuals. Certainly not everyone is on board for the feud.

"and the fact remains; patrick fitzgerald has lived and breathed this case for the last 2 years and the first thing out of his mouth when he finally addresses the public is: Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."
- - Because that's what he was told by the CIA. And yet he still hasn't chosen to file any charges for this allegedley oh so serious crime, which as I pointed out is certainly not, as it's only served to make celebrities out of the Wilsons. Yeah, ruin my life why don't you. I couldn't stand being on the cover of Vanity Fair. Oh the humanity...

"Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."
- - And yet I'm giving you sources who say that's not true. Is everyone a pathological liar in this world except you and Fitzgerald?

"The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

- - It would seem not, according to my sources.

"you have no counter-argument for this other than 'i don't know maybe he's a zealot'. that's pathetic, elwood, just pathetic."
- - I'm assuming the man's motivations are pure. Unlike you, I'm not going to damn a total stranger until I can see a reason to do so. A crime has been alleged, and he has investigated. It seems that he's done a piss-poor job, but maybe he'll get it together. Or maybe he's another partisan hack, I don't claim to know. I'm only claiming that he's wrong, not corrupt.

"you have no logical reason to disbelieve what he said and you have no source to disprove it, just hot air and noise."
- - So my sources are illogical, and yours are gospel. LOL

"i'm quite aware what the word 'zealot' means."
- - OK, so you're not stupid, just ignoring my words in order interpret my post to mean what you'd like it to mean.

"you're playing semantic games to dance around the fact that you are embarrassingly and tragically off-base"
- - IT would seem that that is your MO, not mine.

" 'clintonistas'? yeah, you've got no horse in this race mr. 'i'm above this partisan stuff' "
- - As I've said many times, yes I am above it. I don't support either side. I'm just proving beyond a shadow of a doubt just how partisan YOU are by saying that Starr was a hack (after indicting dozens in connection with real crimes) and Fitz is a national hero for one indictment of no consequence.

Grab a towel and wipe the foam off your mouth.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"So the fact that Plame and Wilson were on the cover of Vanity Fair makes it ok that classified information was divulged?"
- - No, it jsut makes a mockery of his claims that their lives have been ruined.

"Where's the consistency in your opinion Elwood? In some threads you demand people be held accountable for leaks, and in others you say it's no big deal."
- - I've posted support for my opinion that Plame was not a covert person nor one whose name or affiliation were classified. If I believed for one second that she was classified, I'd be on board with the prosecution.

If you can tear yourself away from being so impressed with yourself as the authority on this matter, I've posted three articles (one article and two links) that pretty well shatter the image of Plame as a covert or classified person.

"Really, are you learning disabled? Did you skip right to the 'widely known' part and ignore the part that says 'the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified.'?"
No, I have just read from numerous sources that nothing about her was classified at the time of Novak's column, nor for many years prior.

CE "So maybe her husband shouldn't have decided to attack the WH"
SG "What does this have to do sith anything? It's ok to leak classified info because her husband attacked the administration? You've got to be high."
- - Do you forget so quickly that with which you disagree? I've posted previously (and I think you've responed) that Wilson's attack on the WH was bound to bring out the facts about who he was, including who his wife was.

CE "And we still don't know who Novak's source was for this. "
SG "Which is why no one has been indicted for that crime. Brilliant observation."
- - And yet YOU seem confident that the "leak" (of unclassified information) came from Libby, even though someone else may have already leaked it.

"Do you seriously think that divulging the identity of a covert agent is only dangerous to that specific agent and no one else?"
- - You're right. Except Plame wasn't covert, even you've already agreed with that much.

"Man you have a real talent for making shit up, otherwise know as 'lying.'
- - Gee, let's descend into insults. I don't think I've called you any nasty names, have I? I've been sarcastic, but I haven't sunken to calling you a liar just because I can't make you drink my Kool Aid. It's reall sad if that's the best you can do.

"I never said Libby should rot in jail. What I said is that you are a moron."
- - Really, you never said what Libby did was wrong? I think I can find references to that in this post alone. Or are you suddenly saying the prosecution should back of and let him go? There are only two choices. Or have you been lying?

"You apparently don't understand what 'classified' means."
- - You apparently think I'm as dumb as you are, or else you're just struggling to avoid answering on point. Yes I know what classified means. I'm actually beginning to wonder if you do.

"You apparently don't care if someone leaks classified information, just so long as they are on your side of the aisle and the person it affects 'had it coming to them.' "
- - No, I don't care if someone leaks NON classified information. And I think that covert operatives should make it a point to keep themselves and their families out of national publications, don't you?

"You deem yourself the judge of what is or isn't a national secret"
- - Not at all, I've supplied more backup than you have.

"I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes."
- - So you do think he should rot in jail as I asserted above. You contradict yourself so quickly. I thought you'd at least wait for the next post.

"I think the general level of discussion in the Lavendar Room was lowered when you decided to return to posting."
- - No, but it was lowered dramatically when you chose to call me a liar just because you don't like what I'm saying. That's weak, brother. I thought better of you.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Well, whether she was covert or not is the threshold issue, which is why she didn't address the leaking aspect. It matters not without first making the determination of whether she was covert or her information classified.

As for why he didn't file charges--just because he isn't filing charges doesn't mean that no crime occurred. It simply means he can't prove one occurred and both the Espionage Act and the Identities Act are fairly difficult things to prove. Personally, I think the fact that he isn't bringing charges on those crimes undercuts the idea that he is a zealot because, after all, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, right?



He(slowguy) has gone to the primary sources on the issues--i.e. the CIA and Fitzgerald. That's all the back up he needs. You say you aren't judging what is or isn't classified, but in fact, that's exactly what you are doing. Labeling something as classified isn't a matter of the circumstances surrounding a piece of information. It's up to the appropriate agency whether something is classified or not.

Whether or not Libby(or Rove for that matter) was Novak's source, I don't think there is any real dispute that both Libby/Rove were involved with this situation, either as the original source or as a conduit.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"Well, whether she was covert or not is the threshold issue, which is why she didn't address the leaking aspect. It matters not without first making the determination of whether she was covert or her information classified."
- - Which is why I've now posted or linked three articles that demonstrably challenge any assertion that there was anything about Plame that qualified as classified.

"As for why he didn't file charges--just because he isn't filing charges doesn't mean that no crime occurred. It simply means he can't prove one occurred and both the Espionage Act and the Identities Act are fairly difficult things to prove."
- - So if you can't prove your crime, then Libby is not only not guilty, he's not even charged.

"Personally, I think the fact that he isn't bringing charges on those crimes undercuts the idea that he is a zealot because, after all, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, right?"
- - Yep, and he has proved his zeal by indicting, even with no mustard or mayo...

"He(slowguy) has gone to the primary sources on the issues--i.e. the CIA and Fitzgerald. That's all the back up he needs."
- - Thankfully for Libby, that's not the case

"You say you aren't judging what is or isn't classified, but in fact, that's exactly what you are doing. Labeling something as classified isn't a matter of the circumstances surrounding a piece of information. It's up to the appropriate agency whether something is classified or not."
- - And it's disingenuous of the agency to call something classified when it is information that has been out for over nine years.

"Whether or not Libby(or Rove for that matter) was Novak's source, I don't think there is any real dispute that both Libby/Rove were involved with this situation, either as the original source or as a conduit."
- - The dispute isn't whether they talked about it, but whether they had any reason to suspect that there was anything wrong with talking about it, and further, whether there actually was anything wrong with talking about it. I'm making the case that since the information wasn't secret, all this is much ado about nothing. I'm also commenting that all the cover about the Wilson's being in danger and having their lives ruined is just plain BS.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

OK, let me give you a couple of others. But then I'm sure you'll have some reason do dismiss them as well:

i have great reasons to dismiss them... they are right-wing op-ed writers, one of which doesn't even have a job doing it. you actually linked to a blogger referencing another blogger.

Shit Bubba, your right, YOU certainly would be the authority in this equation, not Toensing!

i am not using myself as the authority here, i'm using patrick fitzgerald and his 2+ years of work on this case. your sources are significantly less qualified and trustworthy.

Well, "the CIA" is a collection of individuals. Certainly not everyone is on board for the feud.

aha. wonderful. so you use the statement that plame's identity wasn't known to determine whether or not a cia agent/staff/whatever is "on board for the fued"? that's your rubric? do you not see how that is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a logical circle? toensing has absolutely no more credibility than the many people who talked to patrick fitzgerald, yet you choose her "side" not on merit, but on what she says.

but one thing you fail to mention is that toensing is a republican and beyond that, she wrote the op-ed you failed to link to. funny that in her op-ed (she's an attorney, not a columnist) she charges plame with glory-hounding. a plank in toensing's eye makes her see the splinter in plame's. so actually your sources are nothing but partisan attack dogs. "a collection of individuals"... right.

And yet he still hasn't chosen to file any charges for this allegedley oh so serious crime, which as I pointed out is certainly not, as it's only served to make celebrities out of the Wilsons.

it has already been explained why charges weren't filed, but right on cue you ignore reality. this case required a lot of factors, many of which were heavily dependent on honest testimony, which fitzgerald obviously never got.

to quote the piece with toensing which you cite but do not link: A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

that's from attack dog toensing.

And yet I'm giving you sources who say that's not true. / So my sources are illogical, and yours are gospel.

right-wing op-ed columnists, bloggers and lawyers. partisan hacks that say it's not true. what wonderful sources. meanwhile i've got the guy who has worked for 2 years on this case, interviewed god-knows-how-many people, has absolutely no political horse in this race and was appointed by john ashcroft.

if we're making a case on merit and quality, i'm 10 miles ahead of you

IT would seem that that is your MO, not mine.

you have been reduced to "i know you are, but what am i?". a proud graduate of the pee-wee herman school of debate.

As I've said many times, yes I am above it. I don't support either side.

is this something you actually believe or something you say as an unqualified grab at credibility?

I'm just proving beyond a shadow of a doubt just how partisan YOU are by saying that Starr was a hack (after indicting dozens in connection with real crimes) and Fitz is a national hero for one indictment of no consequence.

starr got dozens of nobodies. fitzgerald got the vice president's #1 man. so sad, you are, so very dishonest.

"i have great reasons to dismiss them... they are right-wing op-ed writers, one of which doesn't even have a job doing it. you actually linked to a blogger referencing another blogger."
- - And still you won't discuss the merits. Can you say "partisan hack"?

"i am not using myself as the authority here, i'm using patrick fitzgerald and his 2+ years of work on this case. your sources are significantly less qualified and trustworthy."
- - So the assitant AG who helped write the legislation is less credible than a prosecutor? You'll have to help me with that bit of "logic."

"aha. wonderful. so you use the statement that plame's identity wasn't known to determine whether or not a cia agent/staff/whatever is 'on board for the fued'?"
- - Yes. She's willing to show the other side and gives substantiation for her view. Obviously, if one assumes there is subterfuge, she must not be a part of it.

"toensing has absolutely no more credibility than the many people who talked to patrick fitzgerald, yet you choose her 'side' not on merit, but on what she says."
- - The merit is outlined in my earlier posts and the links that support my opinion. You don't like it, but you don't address it, leading one to believe that you dismiss what you can't disprove.

"but one thing you fail to mention is that toensing is a republican"
- - And Fitz is a Dem. Your point? Are you saying htat we can only have this adjudicated by non-aligned persons? In that case, you'll have to accept my word, because I think I'm the only one here who isn't affiliated.

"funny that in her op-ed (she's an attorney, not a columnist) she charges plame with glory-hounding."
- - I don't think that's a stretch.

"a plank in toensing's eye makes her see the splinter in plame's."
- - Or maybe the splinter is actually there.

"so actually your sources are nothing but partisan attack dogs. "
- - If that makes it easier for you to dismiss them without addressing their statements, then please enjoy the sand that you're getting into your ears, Mr Ostrich.

"it has already been explained why charges weren't filed"
- - That they can't prove a crime, but you know one occurred? Yes, I've heard that.

"this case required a lot of factors, many of which were heavily dependent on honest testimony, which fitzgerald obviously never got."
- - Apparently not. I didn't hear him mention ANY of the points made by dissenters who say Plame was already outed.

"A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker."
- - Because the charges have serious consequences and are not to be used in such frivolous matters as what is at hand.

And yet I'm giving you sources who say that's not true. / So my sources are illogical, and yours are gospel.
"right-wing op-ed columnists, bloggers and lawyers. partisan hacks that say it's not true."
- - As opposed to the partisan hacks that say what you want to hear. How about addressing even the smallest part of what has been said regarding Plames outing nine years back? How about addressing Wilson's faux pas in making himself a public figure?

"meanwhile i've got the guy who has worked for 2 years on this case"
- - and hasn't come up with a crime...

"interviewed god-knows-how-many people, has absolutely no political horse in this race and was appointed by john ashcroft."
- - You claim he has no horse. I don't know whether he does or not, but by your standard (party affiliation) I guess he does.

"if we're making a case on merit and quality, i'm 10 miles ahead of you"
- - Only in your colorful imaginiation.

"you have been reduced to "i know you are, but what am i?". a proud graduate of the pee-wee herman school of debate."
- - Debate? Yes let's. Whenever you're done dismissing things that don't square with your view of things, we can do that. You can start by addressing the issue of Plame's outing nine years back. Can't do that? Then in a debate, you lose.

As I've said many times, yes I am above it. I don't support either side.
"is this something you actually believe or something you say as an unqualified grab at credibility?"
- - You weren't around when I was dissing Starr during the Whitewater days. You can dismiss me as a partisan if that makes you sleep better, but you'd be just plain wrong.

"starr got dozens of nobodies. fitzgerald got the vice president's #1 man. so sad, you are, so very dishonest."
- - Starr got dozens of fish, Fitz hasn't gotten one yet. If all this makes you think you're backing a winner, please take another dose of your medication.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

SOUP! (great name lol) already discussed the merits of those sources. They *are* hacks.
You've sourced bloggers, for Christ's sake. Bloggers!

And past that you sourced a former CIA woman after going leaps and bounds to say the CIA isn't trusthworthy. Past that you choose a former CIA woman who is now a Republican shill. And you still have the gall to pretend you have some ground to stand on?

---
And Fitz is a Dem.
---

Liar.
You are nothing more than a liar. You made that up out of thin air.
As SOUP! has already said, he was appointed by hyper-frightening Republican freakshow John Ashcroft for his outstanding work in Illinois, where he was appointed by yet another Republican (Peter Fitzgerald, no relation).

You are absolutely beyond the pale on this. Patrick Fitzgerald is lauded as a relentless and non-partisan guy who has dedicated his entire life to pursuing justice in cases like this.

You are a liar.
Your sources are The National Review and NewsMax. You are a Republican hatchet-man and a liar.

Since you're whining absurdly about how none of us are actually responding to your original post, I'm going to take the time to address it. After that, I'm through playing with you about this, it's too stupid of an argument even for me to spend time on. And that's saying something.

Somebody even claimed that it would be illegal to divulge the name of a CIA janitor!! That's an absurd thought.

What I claimed was that if a janitors association with the CIA was classified, it would be a crime to reveal it. Which is true, notwithstanding the fact that a janitor's identity is probably not classified.

- At some point, someone, presumably a highly placed official in the Bush administration, got upset that Joe Wilson was contributing to the "Bush lied/people died" campaign by claiming that he had information proving that Bush and MI-6 were wrong about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake.

Agreed.

In exposing Wilson's dissembling, it was disclosed that Wilson's wife works for the CIA

Agreed. This means, since you don't seem to be grasping the concept, that her identity as a CIA employee was revealed, which was a crime, since that relationship was classified.

Someone (doesn't matter who) cried "foul" over the disclosure mentioned

Agreed.

and Joe Wilson himself has since over-dramatized the effect of this dissemination

Irrelevent.

Considering that the two of them were on the cover of Vanity Fair and are now the toast of NY, it's a little hard to swallow that their lives are ruined or that they are in some danger. So the Wilson's have not been damaged.

Irrelevent. The point in criminalizing disclosure of classified information is primarily to protect the security of the nation.

Plame is not a covert agent and no one really cares that she works for the CIA

Irrelevent. She does not need to be a covert agent for her status to be classified. It matters nothing whether or not anyone cares that she works for the CIA, although I don't see how you've come to that conclusion, other than that you just made it up. Someone cared enough that they assigned a classified status to her association with the CIA.

A lot of people seemed to have known about Plame, including whoever told Robert Novak (as Fitz, you know who this person was, and it wasn't Scooter)

What people are you talking about? A lot of people with security clearances, presumably.

No secret information was released

Completely wrong. Her identity as a CIA employee was secret. It was released, as you've noted already.

Joe Wilson has written an op ed about his Niger trip and has - without proper authorization - revealed details about his mission that were not meant for public consumption.

"Not intended for public consumption" is not, as far as I know, the same thing as "classified."

Prosecute Wilson for leaking

For leaking what? Non-classified informartion that the Bush Administration didn't want the public to know? I don't think that's illegal.

Prosecute Judith Miller who reported the story but wouldn't divulge her source

What would the crime be?

Prosecute Novak for publishing the information

What would the crime be?

Prosecute a staffer in the VP's office because he makes a convenient scape-goat

A "staffer"? You mean the VP's chief of staff? OK. No, I wouldn't prosecute him because he makes a convenient scapegoat. I'd prosecute him because the grand jury found enough evidence that he lied under oath and to the investigators about an investigation into a crime- the disclosure of classified information.

Determining that no actual damage was done call "no harm, no foul,"

Nope. I don't know, in the first place, that no actual damage was done. I'm working under the assumption that if classified information is revealed, it has the potential to cause damage to national security. That's why information is classified, you know. Besides which, that isn't what I'm prosecuting him for- I'm prosecuting him for lying in an attempt to obstruct an investigation, which in and of itself is damaging to the pursuit of justice.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

what source says she was not classified that is more credible than the cia and patrick fitzgerald? <- please answer this

World Net Daily, clearly.

---

_______________________________________________

SOUP! is such a moron.

Dude, David Horowitz from NewsMax will tell you straight up that Plame is an attention-seeking whore who outed herself AND that Patrick Fitzgerald has phone sex with John Kerry.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, DUMBASS!?

Patrick Fitzgerald has phone sex with John Kerry

Really, who hasn't?

---

_______________________________________________

Certainly not Cousin Elwood, because he doesn't have any partisan leanings. He's Buddha on the goddam mountaintop.

"Do you forget so quickly that with which you disagree? I've posted previously (and I think you've responed) that Wilson's attack on the WH was bound to bring out the facts about who he was, including who his wife was. "

Again, since, as you say, I've already responded to this, what makes you think that Wilson's alleged attack on the White House makes it ok for this information to be divulged? Why does his behaviour have anything at all to do with the issue?

"And yet YOU seem confident that the "leak" (of unclassified information) came from Libby, even though someone else may have already leaked it."

You see, now this is why you get called a liar. Point to me where I said I am convinced Libby comitted this crime.

"I've been sarcastic, but I haven't sunken to calling you a liar just because I can't make you drink my Kool Aid. It's reall sad if that's the best you can do."

I'll wager that's because I haven't been making things up.

"SG-I never said Libby should rot in jail. What I said is that you are a moron."
- CE-Really, you never said what Libby did was wrong? I think I can find references to that in this post alone. Or are you suddenly saying the prosecution should back of and let him go? There are only two choices. Or have you been lying? "

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit. How do you make the leap from "Libby should be prosecuted for any crimes he committed" to "Libby should rot in jail."?

"SG-"I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes."
- CE-So you do think he should rot in jail as I asserted above. You contradict yourself so quickly. I thought you'd at least wait for the next post. "

Here again. Do you really wonder why I called you a liar? It's either that, or you're exceedingly stupid. You have to read the words on the screen, not the ones you want to be on the screen. I clearly said that Libby should be held accountable for any crimes he committed, if he did in fact commit crimes. You deliberately mis-represent that to mean I want Libby to rot in jail because you're argument is nonexistent and you can't call me a partisan hack unless I'm out to get Libby.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"And you still have the gall to pretend you have some ground to stand on?"

Until one of you blowhards responds on point, I have laid out a story (from three sources) that says Plame was outed nine years back. None of you want to touch it. I can only assume that flaming my sources makes you feel good, but it doesn't refute their story.

Yeah, you and Soup tell me that a current prosecutor is somehow much more credible source than a former assistant USAG. Sell crazy somewhere else, junior, we're all stocked up here. (Nicholson).

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Given a much more intimate knowledge of the facts of the case, ya, I would say Fitzgerald has more credibility on the issue. Why would an assistant US AG who has no real connection or access to the investigation be anywhere near more knowledgeable?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

In lieu of an argument, Elwood quotes shitty movies.

Your sources are pure garbage, nothing but right-wing hacks.

Oh, and you're a liar.

"Since you're whining absurdly about how none of us are actually responding to your original post, I'm going to take the time to address it."
- - Thanks, but I wasn't even close to whining. I was just pointing out that you pinheads blow smoke without addressing points. You may win a consensus amongst yourselves that I'm a whacko, but you don't win a debate by walking away.

"After that, I'm through playing with you about this, it's too stupid of an argument even for me to spend time on. And that's saying something."
- - Yes, as we will see...

"What I claimed was that if a janitors association with the CIA was classified, it would be a crime to reveal it. Which is true, notwithstanding the fact that a janitor's identity is probably not classified."
- - Yep, you went for hyperbole. Nice of you to ALMOST admit that it was BS. FACT: No janitor has ever nor will ever have classified or covert status at the CIA.

At some point, someone, presumably a highly placed official in the Bush administration, got upset that Joe Wilson was contributing to the "Bush lied/people died" campaign by claiming that he had information proving that Bush and MI-6 were wrong about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake.

Agreed.
- - GASP!!!

In exposing Wilson's dissembling, it was disclosed that Wilson's wife works for the CIA

Agreed. This means, since you don't seem to be grasping the concept, that her identity as a CIA employee was revealed, which was a crime, since that relationship was classified.
- - Only if her status was truly classified, which is refuted soundly in several pieces that I posted or linked. It seems her identity a) is not even well guarded and b) was "leaked" over nine years ago.

Someone (doesn't matter who) cried "foul" over the disclosure mentioned

Agreed.

and Joe Wilson himself has since over-dramatized the effect of this dissemination

Irrelevent.
- - Not when Fitzgerald and Wilson's attorney spend all day last Friday trying this case on the air waves. How do we now get a jury pool that isn't poisoned?

Considering that the two of them were on the cover of Vanity Fair and are now the toast of NY, it's a little hard to swallow that their lives are ruined or that they are in some danger. So the Wilson's have not been damaged.

Irrelevent. The point in criminalizing disclosure of classified information is primarily to protect the security of the nation.
- - I agree. Where I disagree is that there was anything classified about her, and I disagree with his contention that their lives have been ruined, said contention being made to help sweeten the pot.

Plame is not a covert agent and no one really cares that she works for the CIA

Irrelevent. She does not need to be a covert agent for her status to be classified. It matters nothing whether or not anyone cares that she works for the CIA, although I don't see how you've come to that conclusion, other than that you just made it up. Someone cared enough that they assigned a classified status to her association with the CIA.
- - She would, however, need to be a covert agent in order for the Identies Act to apply, which is where this nonsense started. And the question before us today is this: When was her status classified, and has it been so during the past five (or nine) years. I've produced evidence that it was not.

A lot of people seemed to have known about Plame, including whoever told Robert Novak (as Fitz, you know who this person was, and it wasn't Scooter)

What people are you talking about? A lot of people with security clearances, presumably.
- - I don't know who I'm talking about, because Novak gave up his source in secrecy, and said source is NOT being prosecuted. Hmmm, I wonder why that might be... Maybe because he's not a prominent member of the WH staff, so netting him or her wouldn't be worth any good anti-Bush publicity? If you have an alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it, because whoever this person is, they outed Plame before or at least concurrently with Libby.

No secret information was released

Completely wrong. Her identity as a CIA employee was secret. It was released, as you've noted already.
- - And it wasn't secret, as I've posted repeatedly.

Joe Wilson has written an op ed about his Niger trip and has - without proper authorization - revealed details about his mission that were not meant for public consumption.

"Not intended for public consumption" is not, as far as I know, the same thing as "classified."
- - Apparently it's up to the CIA to decide if it's classified or not, right? Since they're working with Wilson, perhaps they don't want to rock their own boat. I would certainly think that an operation such as his (checking on the possible movement of fissionable materials to Iraq) should be a classified matter.

Prosecute Wilson for leaking

For leaking what? Non-classified informartion that the Bush Administration didn't want the public to know? I don't think that's illegal.
- - How about for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by lying about what occurred there and attempting to inflame anti-US sentiment. Or perhaps his report WAS classified, as I believe it should have been.

Prosecute Judith Miller who reported the story but wouldn't divulge her source

What would the crime be?
- - Same crime. Her story outed Plame also.

Prosecute Novak for publishing the information

What would the crime be?
- - Same crime. His story outed Plame also.

Prosecute a staffer in the VP's office because he makes a convenient scape-goat

A "staffer"? You mean the VP's chief of staff? OK. No, I wouldn't prosecute him because he makes a convenient scapegoat. I'd prosecute him because the grand jury found enough evidence that he lied under oath and to the investigators about an investigation into a crime- the disclosure of classified information.
- - Thank you. You're the only person here who has responded to this post on point.

Determining that no actual damage was done call "no harm, no foul,"
Nope. I don't know, in the first place, that no actual damage was done. I'm working under the assumption that if classified information is revealed, it has the potential to cause damage to national security. That's why information is classified, you know. Besides which, that isn't what I'm prosecuting him for- I'm prosecuting him for lying in an attempt to obstruct an investigation, which in and of itself is damaging to the pursuit of justice.
- - I think that's a valid opinion and once again thank you for manning up and actually answering my post.

However, I must correct your last point. You (Fitz) were indeed prosectuting Libby for info leakage. Once you determine that no actual information was leaked and that Plame's ID was not a classified or secret item, you've got to have way too much time on your hands if you don't just walk away from this and shoot a scathing letter to the CIA about wasting your friggin' time with internicine bickering.

We could make a long list of all the government perjurers who were never prosecuted over the past 10, 20 or 50 years.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Again, since, as you say, I've already responded to this, what makes you think that Wilson's alleged attack on the White House makes it ok for this information to be divulged?"
- - I didn't even get that far. What I said was that his taking the attack to the NYT simply guaranteed that his background would be scrutinized, and as one of my linked articles demonstrated, it took very little time or energy for one reporter to figure out she was CIA. So regardless of what Libby did, she was as good as outed as soon as the NYT published his blather.

"You see, now this is why you get called a liar. Point to me where I said I am convinced Libby comitted this crime."
- - Well then I apologize. I don't have time to review the record, but you seem to have been at odds with me on this for days, and since I'm saying Libby should be dismissed along with charges against him, I just assumed that all your bloviating was because you felt just the opposite. How nice to find that we agree on something!! ;-o

"I'll wager that's (Elwood not calling Slowguy a liar) because I haven't been making things up.
- - Not at all. I haven't made anything up either. It's just because I have more class than to make a statement like that. I thought you did too, but heck I guess I was wrong.

"Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit. How do you make the leap from 'Libby should be prosecuted for any crimes he committed' to 'Libby should rot in jail.'? "
- - Wow, I have to make an appointment with my Chiropractor. I laughed so hard at that I think I wrenched my entire spine!!! SG, seriously, rotting in jail is what happens after someone is prosecuted. Did you think this was just a TV show and he gets to go home if they find him guilty? The news reports said there was a max of 30 years in prison available if he's found guilty. How do I make that leap? How do you make the leap from saying that to putting on a straight face?? Dude, seriously?

[SG-"I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes."
CE-So you do think he should rot in jail as I asserted above. You contradict yourself so quickly. I thought you'd at least wait for the next post. " ]

"I clearly said that Libby should be held accountable for any crimes he committed, if he did in fact commit crimes. You deliberately mis-represent that to mean I want Libby to rot in jail because you're argument is nonexistent and you can't call me a partisan hack unless I'm out to get Libby."
- - OK, so take a stand then. Do you or do you not think Libby should be prosecuted? Oh wait, you already answered this just a scant few paragraphs up the page!!! You're going to commit a major crime soon, and you're setting up the insanity defense... I'm right aren't I? C'mon, you can admit it.

You're deliberately driving in circles. That's OK, because I know that a lot of people with too much time on their hands like to get into Internet brawls. Hey, it's safe and you can call a complete stranger a liar and still go to bed tonight with all your teeth. That's cool. I'm just glad you finally came out and demonstrated, even if not admitted, that you're just a sniper on the information superhighway, and that you don't actually have any opinion on this matter.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"In lieu of an argument, Elwood quotes shitty movies."
- - As Good As It Gets was a great movie.

And in lieu of intelligent rhetoric, adamb simply calls anything he can't understand "pure garbage" from "right wing hacks."

Oh, and he calls me a liar from the safety of his little keyboard. That's pretty predictable after the first two.

Does your mother know what you're doing with her computer?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"FACT: No janitor has ever nor will ever have classified or covert status at the CIA. "

How in Hell would you have any way of knowing anything like that, and how do you have the gall to claim that it is fact, just because you say so?

"It seems her identity a) is not even well guarded and b) was "leaked" over nine years ago. "

None of which, as has been made clear to you, has anything to do with whether or not the information was classified. Just because someone knew the information doesn't mean it loses it's classification.

"A "staffer"? You mean the VP's chief of staff? OK. No, I wouldn't prosecute him because he makes a convenient scapegoat. I'd prosecute him because the grand jury found enough evidence that he lied under oath and to the investigators about an investigation into a crime- the disclosure of classified information.
- - Thank you. You're the only person here who has responded to this post on point. "

Are you kidding? This has been said several times.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Given a much more intimate knowledge of the facts of the case, ya, I would say Fitzgerald has more credibility on the issue. Why would an assistant US AG who has no real connection or access to the investigation be anywhere near more knowledgeable?"

Oh I don't know... Maybe because she was involved in writing the law in question? Maybe because she has greater legal experience at the level we're dealing with here?

I haven't heard you counter any of the points she makes, other than calling her a partisan hack, which btw is tantamount to admitting you have no counter.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Wow, I have to make an appointment with my Chiropractor. I laughed so hard at that I think I wrenched my entire spine!!! SG, seriously, rotting in jail is what happens after someone is prosecuted. Did you think this was just a TV show and he gets to go home if they find him guilty? The news reports said there was a max of 30 years in prison available if he's found guilty. How do I make that leap? How do you make the leap from saying that to putting on a straight face?? Dude, seriously?"

Read it again tough guy. Libby should be prosecuted for any crimes he comitted, IF HE COMITTED ANY. I don't have an opinion about whether or not Libby should "rot" in jail, and won't until I have a chance to see the evidence that he comitted the crimes for which he's being tried. On top of which, it's a load of crap to say that the inevitable result of prosecution is rotting in jail. Last I checked, 30 years was the MAX sentence, not the mandatory one. I would assume there are any number of lesser punishments that could be awarded including monetary fines.

"Hey, it's safe and you can call a complete stranger a liar and still go to bed tonight with all your teeth. "

Old man that's simply not a great concern for me. As tough as you talk, I feel certain your bark far outshadows any bite you might have.

"I'm just glad you finally came out and demonstrated, even if not admitted, that you're just a sniper on the information superhighway, and that you don't actually have any opinion on this matter. "

Do you want to be the pot or the kettle? You come from nowhere and latch onto this particular issue and you call me a sniper? Give me a break. My opinion has been made known several times.
-Classified information is classified for a reason, whether you agree with it or think it's stupid or think some people already knew or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
-Additionally, whether or not anyone can be prosecuted for leaking Plame's name is irrelevant and became so when Libby, allegedly, lied under oath repeatedly. At that point, Fitzgerald is perfectly justified, and in fact obligated, to prosecute the VPs COS for obstruction and perjury.
-If evidence can be produced regarding the divulging of classified information in regard to this case, that also should be prosecuted.
-Lying to and misleading a Grand Jury are offenses that are not, as you put it, no big deal. They are crimes and are especially serious when they obstruct the investigation of crimes like the leaking of classified information. Again, it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is ever proven or prosecuted, the perjury and obstruction are still serious matters.
-The fact that lots of people get away with it is not an excuse for us to let people continue to get away with it.
-Lastly, you have given no evidence of any kind that Fitzgerald is involved in your conspiracy to smear the White House. This "plot" is nothing more than an imaginary device that allows you to tie your ramblings together and provide a supposed motive for why Libby is being so unfairly picked on. Whether or not you are partisan, or just wrong headed on this matter is really of no consequence. A Crime is a Crime, and the fact that you don't like the people on the opposite side of the issue isn't reason to dismiss those Crimes.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I never her called her a partisan hack. That was someone else.

The fact that she drafted the Identities Act certainly qualifies her to speak to the elements of a case being brought under that statute, but it in no way makes her an expert as to the actual facts of the case at hand. She herself stated that Plame's status was an important legal issue, and while she certainly brought up information that makes her believe she wasn't covert or classified, she also seems to indicate that it was far from a done deal.

By the way, what if, early on in the course of the investigation, items in Libby's testimony weren't adding up and was indicative of perjury. How then would Fitzgerald be able to simply say "no harm, no foul" and walk away from bringing charges? In other words, is it not possible that Libby's testimony could've made it impossible for Fitzgerald to determine whether a crime was committed and thus he had to bring the charges?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"How in Hell would you have any way of knowing anything like that, and how do you have the gall to claim that it is fact, just because you say so?"
- - OK, give me the name of any janitor who was ever classified. Man you just love to argue with me. I'm flattered but shit buddy, classified janitors? Get serious. Save what little credibility you have left for issues of some importance.

"It seems her identity a) is not even well guarded and b) was "leaked" over nine years ago. "

None of which, as has been made clear to you, has anything to do with whether or not the information was classified. Just because someone knew the information doesn't mean it loses it's classification.
- - That's a good point. I knew if I kept reading your posts long enough you'd say something intelligent!! However, if you've read the linked articles, and have any familiarity with the Identities Protection Act, you'd have little choice but to recognize that a) she doesn't qualify and b) she had been declassified nine years ago. One of the articles talks about her transitioning to non-covert/non-classified duties.

Are you kidding? This has been said several times.
- - No SG, reread the post at the top of this thread. I laid out a scenario with some suppositions and asked for people to respond. Everyone wanted to challenge the suppositions, which was not the point of the post. The point of the post was to find out how many of you just want to string Libby up, or string up some member of the Bush team, and whether any of you could discuss what your feelings would be if we could peel off layers of the onion and find out that no real secrets were revealed and no crimes were committed BEFORE the investigation began.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"By the way, what if, early on in the course of the investigation, items in Libby's testimony weren't adding up and was indicative of perjury. How then would Fitzgerald be able to simply say "no harm, no foul" and walk away from bringing charges? In other words, is it not possible that Libby's testimony could've made it impossible for Fitzgerald to determine whether a crime was committed and thus he had to bring the charges?"

This is the point of all of this. If we put aside the issue of classification, the real crux of the matter is that it's illegal to lie to and mislead a Grand Jury. Let's assume for the moment that the accusations about Libby lying are true. Think of the taxpayer dollars that have been spent on determining what the truth actually was, because Libby lied about it. Think of the time and money spent on the investigation into the classification issue that might have been freed up if Libby had just told the truth. Obstruction isn't just a crime because you might not catch the criminal. It's also a crime because it might cause you to waste time looking for a crime where there is none.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"OK, give me the name of any janitor who was ever classified"

Do you even understand how stupid that sentence is? With that logic I can prove that no school teacher was ever a secret agent by asking you to name one. The whole point is that if a janitor was a covert agent and his job was classified, we wouldn't know it, and therefore wouldn't be able to tell you his name.

"whether any of you could discuss what your feelings would be if we could peel off layers of the onion and find out that no real secrets were revealed and no crimes were committed BEFORE the investigation began. "

And I have said, in this thread and the other, that it doesn't matter what the underlying crime is. If Libby indeed lied to the Grand Jury, he should be prosecuted for that crime and receive the punishment a judge or jury finds appropriate.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"while she certainly brought up information that makes her believe she wasn't covert or classified, she also seems to indicate that it was far from a done deal."
- - Meanwhile, she's bringing up details Fitzgerald forgot to mention when he was busy frying Libby on TV last Friday. Don't you find that curious? That information has been out there, because the articles I linked have cobwebs on them...

"is it not possible that Libby's testimony could've made it impossible for Fitzgerald to determine whether a crime was committed and thus he had to bring the charges?"
- - Yep. Well, remotely possible that Libby didn't lay down and give him everything he wanted. "had to bring the charges"? No I don't think there's anything that would force his actions. Maybe he got pissed of because Libby wasn't giving him what he wanted. Maybe he's trying to force Libby to turn on his boss.

What I've repeatedly said is that this tiny mess doesn't (IMO) rise to the level of federal indictments and all this furor.

It's politics, not justice.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Do you even understand how stupid that sentence is? With that logic I can prove that no school teacher was ever a secret agent by asking you to name one."
- - Dude! Get over yourself. The "classified janitor" was a silly hyperbolic statement, and even the guy who started it has backed away from it!!

"The whole point is that if a janitor was a covert agent and his job was classified, we wouldn't know it, and therefore wouldn't be able to tell you his name."
- - Yep, and janitors do so much that influences national security and the war on terror!!

"And I have said, in this thread and the other, that it doesn't matter what the underlying crime is. If Libby indeed lied to the Grand Jury, he should be prosecuted for that crime and receive the punishment a judge or jury finds appropriate."
- - Except that each time you've done so, you've had arguments about why Plame was probably covert/classified/top secret.

I'm surprised with what you said just above about wasting resources that you wouldn't be angry at Fitzgerald and the CIA for doing just that (given the scenario as outlined at the beginning of this thread.)

It was an intellectual exercise, and it has been interesting.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

So he was required to bring up any and all details in a press conference? Give me a break. Reading a statute and determining the elements of a crime is not difficult even if you didn't draft the particular piece of legislation. Furthermore, whatever you might think of Fitzgerald, I've yet to see anyone state that he isn't a highly competent, extremely intelligent attorney. I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't have excellent knowledge of what is required under the law. Moreover, given the length of the investigation, I'd be very surprised if he wasn't an expert, at this point, on the Identities Act and the Espionage Act.

You still focus solely and completel on the Identities Act when in fact there are other statutes implicated. You are also very aware of this fact(of a second statute involved).



Sounds suspiciously to me like you are saying that perjury and obstruction is no big deal. I still don't see the political horse that Fitzgerald has in any of this.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

The "classified janitor" was a silly hyperbolic statement, and even the guy who started it has backed away from it!!

No, I haven't. Not even an inch. If a janitor's association with the CIA was classified, it would be a crime to reveal it. That was the original statement, it was the statement I repeated, and it remains 100% true.

It was an intellectual exercise

You flatter yourself.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

"Read it again tough guy. Libby should be prosecuted for any crimes he comitted, IF HE COMITTED ANY. I don't have an opinion about whether or not Libby should "rot" in jail, and won't until I have a chance to see the evidence that he comitted the crimes for which he's being tried."
- - So you've never said that classified information was revealed and the (classified) names of CIA officers, and someone needs to pay for that? I'll take your word for it, since I'm just way too bored with this to go reread the entire thread...

"On top of which, it's a load of crap to say that the inevitable result of prosecution is rotting in jail."
- - That's true. It has to be a successful prosecution.

"Last I checked, 30 years was the MAX sentence, not the mandatory one."
- - Again correct. And for a guy Libby's age, 20 years wouldn't be "rotting in jail," would it?

"I would assume there are any number of lesser punishments that could be awarded including monetary fines."
- - Only if the court determined that the offense was a very minor one.

"Old man that's simply not a great concern for me. As tough as you talk, I feel certain your bark far outshadows any bite you might have."
- - Yep, it's only a few short steps from calling your openents names to challenging them to step outside. This is the Internet, you're somewhere on the east coast, if memory serves, and I'm in California. Don't waste your breath.

CE "I'm just glad you finally came out and demonstrated, even if not admitted, that you're just a sniper on the information superhighway, and that you don't actually have any opinion on this matter. "
SG "Do you want to be the pot or the kettle? You come from nowhere and latch onto this particular issue and you call me a sniper? Give me a break. My opinion has been made known several times."
- - Actually, Mr Sniper, the more I read here, the less I know if you even have an opinion. You say Libby should be prosecuted, then you say you aren't sure he's done anything. You say Plame was classified, but you shrink from the Identities Act. You say you don't want Libby to rot in jail, but yet you want him prosecuted on indictments that could get him 30 years. I'm not sure I know where you stand. I did yesterday, but you've flipped and flopped today more than John Kerry did in his entire campaign.

"-Classified information is classified for a reason, whether you agree with it or think it's stupid or think some people already knew or not is irrelevant to the matter at hand."
- - Except that prosecuting someone for leaking that which is already leaked makes no sense. It is indicative of larger issues underlying the prosecution.

"-Additionally, whether or not anyone can be prosecuted for leaking Plame's name is irrelevant and became so when Libby, allegedly, lied under oath repeatedly. At that point, Fitzgerald is perfectly justified, and in fact obligated, to prosecute the VPs COS for obstruction and perjury."
- - And if Fitzgerald new from the git-go that no classified info was leaked, then HE should be dealt with for abusing his office.

"-If evidence can be produced regarding the divulging of classified information in regard to this case, that also should be prosecuted."
- - OK, I'm in agreement with that. That would actually reinvest this whole process with some credibility.

"-Lying to and misleading a Grand Jury are offenses that are not, as you put it, no big deal. They are crimes and are especially serious when they obstruct the investigation of crimes like the leaking of classified information. Again, it doesn't matter if the underlying crime is ever proven or prosecuted, the perjury and obstruction are still serious matters.
-The fact that lots of people get away with it is not an excuse for us to let people continue to get away with it."
- - Agreed somewhat. As I've said, I thought it was BS when it was used against Clinton. I'd be a hypocrite to now say it's OK to do this to a Bush staffer.

"-Lastly, you have given no evidence of any kind that Fitzgerald is involved in your conspiracy to smear the White House."
- - Because I have none and have stated that I would rather see him as a zealot, IOW I think he probably believes in what he's doing.

"This 'plot' is nothing more than an imaginary device that allows you to tie your ramblings together and provide a supposed motive for why Libby is being so unfairly picked on."
- - I'd say it's payback for the Clinton investigations. Maybe the Repubs deserve it.

"Whether or not you are partisan, or just wrong headed on this matter is really of no consequence. A Crime is a Crime, and the fact that you don't like the people on the opposite side of the issue isn't reason to dismiss those Crimes."
- - I don't like the people on EITHER side of this issue.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"No, I haven't. Not even an inch."

OK, so you're a nutball. Classified janitors, sheesh. What next, classified cats and dogs?

It was an intellectual exercise
You flatter yourself.
- - And you're obviously out of shape (intellectually).

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"So he was required to bring up any and all details in a press conference?"
- - Nope. In fact, he wasn't in any way required to HOLD a press conference. In fact, doing so is and was ill-advised, as it damages the process and pollutes the potential jury pool. But as long as he was going to try the case in the media, wouldn't he have seemed less rabid if he presented the exculpatory along with the damning? Doesn't it make him seem like a partisan hack that he made his opening statement on TV instead of in the courtroom?

"Give me a break. Reading a statute and determining the elements of a crime is not difficult even if you didn't draft the particular piece of legislation. Furthermore, whatever you might think of Fitzgerald, I've yet to see anyone state that he isn't a highly competent, extremely intelligent attorney. I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't have excellent knowledge of what is required under the law. Moreover, given the length of the investigation, I'd be very surprised if he wasn't an expert, at this point, on the Identities Act and the Espionage Act."
- - He certainly should be, just as a requirement of his job.

"You still focus solely and completel on the Identities Act when in fact there are other statutes implicated. You are also very aware of this fact(of a second statute involved)."
- - Yep, and that one too is wrapped up with whether or not Plame's identity constituted classified information, because no one "leaked" anything about what she did for the CIA.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

-----
Thank you. You're the only person here who has responded to this post on point.
-----

SOUP! already addressed that point (with terrible capitalization).

The fact that there are no indictments for the leaking is because that charge is built like a house of cards. This is something Fitzgerald made perfectly clear. You can't get this conviction if people are lying to you. And people lied to him.

Let me quote Fitzgerald:
"Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate."

Read that again, liar, and see if it sinks in:
You cannot get the conviction for leaking if people are lying.

Liars, like you, lied to Fitzgerald and lied about what happened. That's what liars do, and since you are a liar I am sure you understand the pathology. So really this shouldn't require any explaining. You know, since you're already a liar.

I keep mentioning that you're a liar (which you are) because that is the unpardonable sin of interpersonal discourse. Without the basic assumption of honesty, no constructive dialogue can be held (or "meaningful dialogue" as you put it, perhaps you should have said "lie-filled bullshit").

Scooter Libby has been indicted on 5 felony counts. Felonies. This isn't stealing a pack of gum. They are felonies. Felonies are serious crimes. If convicted, a high-ranking member of the Bush administration will have been convicted of a felony. That's a pretty big deal, no matter how far in the sand you have shoved your lying head, you liar.

---
Oh, and he calls me a liar from the safety of his little keyboard. That's pretty predictable after the first two.
---

From the safety of my keyboard. Yes, tough guy. I am calling you a liar because you tell lies. That's why we call people liars. That's what the word is for. I am impressed with your iMachismo and eFlexing.

---
I haven't heard you counter any of the points she makes, other than calling her a partisan hack, which btw is tantamount to admitting you have no counter.
---

What could be the counter argument if not to question her credibility (she has none)?
Her claim is based 100% on the perception of credibility. She makes the statement with no backup, so the statement rests 100% on her credibility.

Try and keep up with the class, liar.

"Dude! Get over yourself. The "classified janitor" was a silly hyperbolic statement, and even the guy who started it has backed away from it!!"

You're the one who asked me for the name of a janitor who's identity was classified, Elwood. Don't throw a tantrum just because you said something stupid and got called on it.

"Yep, and janitors do so much that influences national security and the war on terror!! "

You are beyond help.

"I'm surprised with what you said just above about wasting resources that you wouldn't be angry at Fitzgerald and the CIA for doing just that (given the scenario as outlined at the beginning of this thread.) "

What you don't seem to get through your thick skull is the fact that an investigation has to be conducted into alleged crimes before one can determine if those crimes were actually committed. You seem to want to take the end result (which is not finished by the way) and then say, well they never should have looked at this to begin with because it ended up not being a crime. That's insane.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"OK, so you're a nutball. Classified janitors, sheesh. What next, classified cats and dogs?"

Are you really so dense as to miss the whole point of the "janitor" example? If what the janitor did or where he did it or how he did it was deemed to be important enough to classify, then it would be classified. It's not up to you to determine what jobs or people are classified. As I said before, there are plenty of things just a trivial as a janitor may seem to be to you, that nevertheless are classified.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

CE, it's been so long since you spewed your shit on the forum, I'd forgotten what it's like to argue with you. It's seriously an exercise in futility because you simply obfuscate, change the subject, ignore words, parts of sentences or even full paragraphs, make wild exagerrations, levy ridiculous accusations, ignore the facts, employ some sort of twisted bizarre un-logic to prove your points, and then, when all else has failed, as it always does, you just make shit up out of thin air. Anyway, as wrong as you continue to be about almost every single aspect of this issue, I'm really tired of explaining the same remedial concepts to you. I guess we'll see how Libby makes out soon enough, and then you can find another issue to be wrong about. Have a nice weekend.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"SOUP! already addressed that point (with terrible capitalization)."
- - Nope, and you don't realize that because you haven't been paying attention.

"The fact that there are no indictments for the leaking is because that charge is built like a house of cards."
- - Yep, without the benefit of a foundation. Nice analogy!

"This is something Fitzgerald made perfectly clear. You can't get this conviction if people are lying to you. And people lied to him."
- - People always lie to attorneys. If he didn't have any evidence then why would he expect the suspect to provide it?

"Those fine distinctions are important in determining what to do. That's why it's essential when a witness comes forward and gives their account of how they came across classified information and what they did with it that it be accurate."
- - I've hear this before. So what's your point?

"Read that again, liar, and see if it sinks in:"
- - Oh my you've called me a liar again. Whatever will I do? Actually, whatever will YOU do. I mean seriously, junior, is that your best shot. Is that what you do when you get frustrated at your inability to follow what's happening?

"You cannot get the conviction for leaking if people are lying."
- - Actually, you can if you are a good prosecutor with good investigators.

"Liars, like you, lied to Fitzgerald and lied about what happened."
- - I must be getting senile. I don't even remember being called to testify!!

"That's what liars do, and since you are a liar I am sure you understand the pathology."
- - I think it makes sense. I'm glad someone who understands it so well is willing to talk about it.

"So really this shouldn't require any explaining. You know, since you're already a liar."
- - Yep, well substantiated, just like all your other points!! ROTFLMMFAO!!!

"I keep mentioning that you're a liar (which you are) because that is the unpardonable sin of interpersonal discourse."
- - And here I thought the unpardonable sin was calling someone a liar.

"Without the basic assumption of honesty, no constructive dialogue can be held"
- - I agree, which is why it saddens me that none of you seem able to read and comprehend, or respond on point.

"Scooter Libby has been indicted on 5 felony counts. Felonies. This isn't stealing a pack of gum. They are felonies. Felonies are serious crimes."
- - At least they used to be.

"If convicted, a high-ranking member of the Bush administration will have been convicted of a felony. That's a pretty big deal, no matter how far in the sand you have shoved your lying head, you liar."
- - Now THAT is funny. You're new to all this, aren't you?

"From the safety of my keyboard. Yes, tough guy. I am calling you a liar because you tell lies."
- - Nah, you're calling me a liar because it's easier than dealing with my point of view or any of the supporting evidence I've offered. It's rather like saying that my sources are all partisan hacks. OK, they're all partisan hacks. Now respond to what they've said or we'll all take your silence on their points as admission that they've stumped you. But then I imagine a lot of people and situations stump you. That would explain why you so quickly jump to name callng over the Internet and other such acts of cowardice.

"That's why we call people liars. That's what the word is for. I am impressed with your iMachismo and eFlexing."
- - Um, actually, I don't think I did any of that. Did I take your bait and suggest I'd like to throttle your silly self? Nope, didn't happen. You really need to control your temper AND your imagination, son. I'm 55 years old. My days of kicking people's asses for shit that doesn't amount to weak fart in a high wind are long since passed.

"What could be the counter argument if not to question her credibility (she has none)?"
- - So YOU say. And let's just say that I agree with you, even though I don't. She still makes points that you can't refute. Don't you feel absolutely DICKLESS being unable to counter the statements of a partisan hack??

"Her claim is based 100% on the perception of credibility. She makes the statement with no backup, so the statement rests 100% on her credibility."
- - Oops, you didn't read it, did you?

"Try and keep up with the class, liar."
- - At my age, that's hopeless. But I'm having no trouble staying in front of you!!

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"It's seriously an exercise in futility because you simply obfuscate, change the subject, ignore words, parts of sentences or even full paragraphs, make wild exagerrations, levy ridiculous accusations, ignore the facts, employ some sort of twisted bizarre un-logic to prove your points, and then, when all else has failed, as it always does, you just make shit up out of thin air."
- - You mean like classified janitors? Precisely what did I make up out of thin air. Look SG, you're the one who takes an adamant stand that something's got to be done and yet isn't sure if any laws were broken, but wants Libby prosecuted to the fullest extend of the law but really thinks he should get any actual jail time, etc. Why are you so incensed about all this if you don't have a position, or do you have a position but just don't want to get caught standing up for it?

Look, I've posted valid information demonstrating why Plame wasn't coverd regarding identities or secrets. So far, all I've heard is that my sources (including a former assitant USAG) are not credible, with no attempts made to discuss their statements on point. How's that for obfuscation and pig-headedness?

"Anyway, as wrong as you continue to be about almost every single aspect of this issue, I'm really tired of explaining the same remedial concepts to you."
- - I'm tired of it as well. Especially since you keep revising and extending, but mostly revising.

"I guess we'll see how Libby makes out soon enough,"
- - Yes we will. Care to stand up and be counted as to how you hope it will turn out?

Have a nice weekend.
- - Planning on it. I hope you do as well.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Are you really so dense as to miss the whole point of the "janitor" example?"
- - I got it, it just wasn't a very good example, although vitus wants to stand by it. I certainly can't imagine why.

"If what the janitor did or where he did it or how he did it was deemed to be important enough to classify, then it would be classified."
- - Only in a parallel universe.

"It's not up to you to determine what jobs or people are classified."
- - I never said it was, I just said janitors weren't. I think that's a safe statement, and yet you want to argue it. That's really obsessive.

"As I said before, there are plenty of things just a trivial as a janitor may seem to be to you, that nevertheless are classified."
- - I'm sure you're wrong about that, too. I'm sure there are a lot of silly things that get classified, but not janitors or anything as trivial as janitors.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Sir, I'd suggest you look up what the Intelligence Identities Act actually states. It is only a law with regards to a covert agent. Leaking classified information is an entirely different law. If it was a classified piece of information that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA, then telling someone that piece of information who did not have a proper clearance (and potentially a "need to know") would be against the law.

As of right now, it doesn't appear that we are dealing with that. Just someone who potentially lied to a Grand Jury, and mislead an investigation. Hopefully no one did that, but if they did, they must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

"You're the one who asked me for the name of a janitor who's identity was classified, Elwood. Don't throw a tantrum just because you said something stupid and got called on it."
- - I'm not the one who said janitors could be classified.

"What you don't seem to get through your thick skull is the fact that an investigation has to be conducted into alleged crimes before one can determine if those crimes were actually committed."
- - Actually, what all of you dickweeds have pole vaulted over is the fact that someone has to determine that a crime has been committed before an investigation has begun. If my sources are correct - and I believe they are (even more now that none of you can refute what they say except to call them partisan hacks) - then Fitzgerald screwed up by not figuring out that there was no crime before wasting resources attempting to trap a member of the WH staff in perjury and obstruction charges.

"You seem to want to take the end result (which is not finished by the way) and then say, well they never should have looked at this to begin with because it ended up not being a crime. That's insane."
- - Not at all. If you call a cop and tell him you were robbed, they check to find out what was stolen before trying to arrest anyone. If nothing is missing, then they might look at YOU for filing a false report. If Plame was indeed not covered by either the identities or secrets acts, then someone at CIA has a lot of 'splainin' to do, and so does Fitz.

Look, I don't know how this will play out, and as incompetent as the whole Bush posse is, I wouldn't be surprised if Libby gets hung out to dry. I am simply on record as saying that this whole bundle of nonsense is bullshit at 3¢ a ton. Plame stinks, Wilson stinks, the Cia stinks and Fitzgerald is beginning to stink. If they have a REAL crime to investigate, then bring it on. Otherwise, stop wasting everyone's time and money...

Actually, they're not wasting our time anymore, since Alito has bumped Libby off the front page, but they're wasting our money, and Starr wasted enough of that for the next three presidents. Did we learn NOTHING from that debacle?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Sir, I'd suggest you look up what the Intelligence Identities Act actually states. It is only a law with regards to a covert agent. Leaking classified information is an entirely different law."
- - I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we've been all over that. Please read the entire thread so I don't have to repost my references that demonstrate that Plame wasn't covert, nor was anything about her classified nor has it been for at least nine years.

"If it was a classified piece of information that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA, then telling someone that piece of information who did not have a proper clearance (and potentially a 'need to know') would be against the law."
- - Actually, according to the law, it would only be a violation if the person in question had constructive notice that the individual's identity was classified. But again, that's not where we are at the moment.

"As of right now, it doesn't appear that we are dealing with that. Just someone who potentially lied to a Grand Jury, and mislead an investigation."
- - Which was the POINT of this thread. It started with the question: Assuming these facts, would you charge Libby. One of the assumed facts was that there was no reason to protect Plame's identity. I started this thread to get away from all the wrangling over whether she was or wasn't, because most of the partisans on the left insist she was while the partisans on the right (and I who am not partisan) say that she wasn't. Since we can't get an agreement on that, I asked "what if..."

"Hopefully no one did that, but if they did, they must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
- - OK, assuming that the investigation wasn't just a partisan witch hunt over a non-crime that the prosecutors knew to be such and therefore they are guilty of malfeasance. Meanwhile, I can still remember all the voices ringing out in horror when Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction. He was never prosecuted for that, was he? And I don't think he should have been.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

In response to : "Bullshit. It's incredible that a guy with Fitzgerald's investigative abilities and the full force of the FBI behind it, couldn't find anyone who knew about her, and stated such in his announcement. "

Actually, I heard a sound bite from Andrea Mitchel that she and any reporters who worked the intelligence community were well aware of the relationship of Wilson, his CIA trip, and Plame once the first leak of Wilson got published. That was before the NY Times editorial.

If the Libby case goes to trial, all sorts of reporters are going to be called. It is going to be a real mess.

   "Sir, I'd suggest you look up what the Intelligence Identities Act actually states. It is only a law with regards to a covert agent. Leaking classified information is an entirely different law."
- - I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we've been all over that. Please read the entire thread so I don't have to repost my references that demonstrate that Plame wasn't covert, nor was anything about her classified nor has it been for at least nine years.
== The CIA says it was classified, so as everyone else has pointed out, unless you can prove otherwise, you are wrong. It has nothing to do with being covert, as I pointed out.


"If it was a classified piece of information that Valerie Wilson/Plame worked for the CIA, then telling someone that piece of information who did not have a proper clearance (and potentially a 'need to know') would be against the law."
- - Actually, according to the law, it would only be a violation if the person in question had constructive notice that the individual's identity was classified. But again, that's not where we are at the moment.
== Since Libby has a clearance, he should be well versed in what the rules of the land are in relation to classified information. As such, if anyone ever mentioned her name, and a relationship the CIA, on that alone he should know that it is not appropriate (though not illegal) to relay information about her identify. Further, if there was any indication from "Person A" that Valerie Plame/Wilson's identity or relationship to the CIA was classified, then he should know that he can't relay that, or speak about it on the telephone or in any area that is not secure.


"As of right now, it doesn't appear that we are dealing with that. Just someone who potentially lied to a Grand Jury, and mislead an investigation."
- - Which was the POINT of this thread. It started with the question: Assuming these facts, would you charge Libby. One of the assumed facts was that there was no reason to protect Plame's identity. I started this thread to get away from all the wrangling over whether she was or wasn't, because most of the partisans on the left insist she was while the partisans on the right (and I who am not partisan) say that she wasn't. Since we can't get an agreement on that, I asked "what if..."
== I'm fine with that, anything else between us in this thread will only deal with the fact that no one has been charged for leaking classified information, or the Intelligence Identities Act.

"Hopefully no one did that, but if they did, they must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."
- - OK, assuming that the investigation wasn't just a partisan witch hunt over a non-crime that the prosecutors knew to be such and therefore they are guilty of malfeasance. Meanwhile, I can still remember all the voices ringing out in horror when Clinton was accused of perjury and obstruction. He was never prosecuted for that, was he? And I don't think he should have been.
== If anyone has committed any crime, they should be charged. That is how our country works. You break the law, you get charged, you get a trial, but you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. I don't care about Clinton, anything about him is inmaterial to thise case (however, if he committed a crime or was thought to, he should have been charged, though charging a sitting President is different than charging the COS of the VP. Either way, if you break a law, you should be charged).

---
People always lie to attorneys. If he didn't have any evidence then why would he expect the suspect to provide it?
---

The first sentence is not true, and even if it were, why should someone else's decision to lie affect Fitzgerald's actions?

---
I've hear this before. So what's your point?
---

My point is that the lack of indictments on the crime that was the focus of the investigation is not evidence that no such crime was committed. Such logic is fallacious because it assumes that indictment is the natural result of a crime's commission. This is just absurd.

---
And here I thought the unpardonable sin was calling someone a liar.
---

You thought wrong. What liars (like you) do is tell lies and then get angry when called out on it. I am not letting you get away with being a liar because you've poisoned the well. Others will simply correct you and just let it go. People can have differences of opinion or interpretation, but what you've done is tell an outright, bald-faced lie. And now that you've been called out on your lie you are completely unwilling to recant and apologize for lying.
I do not care that it makes you angry that I call you what you are, a liar. You tell lies. You are a liar. Being a liar is the problem, calling a liar a liar is not.

---
Nah, you're calling me a liar because it's easier than dealing with my point of view or any of the supporting evidence I've offered.
---

No, I'm calling you a liar because you tell lies.
Right here, here's a lie: "And Fitz is a Dem."

That is a lie and you are a liar.

---
My days of kicking people's asses for shit that doesn't amount to weak fart in a high wind are long since passed.
---

But your days of pretending like you would are, sadly, still with us.

---
Now THAT is funny. You're new to all this, aren't you?
---

Tell me the last time a member of the White House was indicted with a felony.
If you don't want to waste time Googling for the answer, it was in 1875. 1875 as in the 19th century as in the Ulysses S. Grant administration.

---
She still makes points that you can't refute. Don't you feel absolutely DICKLESS being unable to counter the statements of a partisan hack?
---

I can refute them by citing a source that is absolutely not a partisan hack and has done over 2 years of investigative work in this matter, Patrick Fitzgerald.

"== The CIA says it was classified, so as everyone else has pointed out, unless you can prove otherwise, you are wrong. It has nothing to do with being covert, as I pointed out."
- - The CIA opened the bidding by making the claim that a covert agent had been outed. That has evaporated and now it's about classified information, said information being the identity of a person who doesn't qualify for inclusion under the Identities Act. If the information disclosed is only Plame's name and nothing regarding any work product she may have been involved with it is doubtful that the secrets act could be stretched to cover the difference. Also, as my sources (which you either didn't read or choose not to respond to) pointed out, calling Plame's identity or her connection with the CIA classified is not a credible assertion.

"== Since Libby has a clearance, he should be well versed in what the rules of the land are in relation to classified information. As such, if anyone ever mentioned her name, and a relationship the CIA, on that alone he should know that it is not appropriate (though not illegal) to relay information about her identify."
- - If it wasn't illegal, then why should he defer. Lots of people work for the CIA in non-classified positions, and if one of them gets her husband a job where he then proceeds to knife the administration in the back by lying about what he did on that mission, then part of discrediting him might well include noting that he only got the gig through his wife. And again, the act requires constructive notice, regardless of what one might hope one could "ass-u-me" with regards to Libby.

"Further, if there was any indication from "Person A" that Valerie Plame/Wilson's identity or relationship to the CIA was classified, then he should know that he can't relay that, or speak about it on the telephone or in any area that is not secure."
- - And apparently a case for that level of knowledge can't be made, at least not at this time. I guarantee that Fitzgerald would much rather have a substantive charge to accompany the perjury and obstruction, both of which look like sour grapes without it. Back in the good old days, cops used to charge you with a, b, c and resisting arrest. That way they were covered for beating your ass, and also had a fall back if the other stuff wouldn't fly. This reminds me of that.

"== If anyone has committed any crime, they should be charged. That is how our country works. You break the law, you get charged, you get a trial, but you are presumed innocent until proven guilty."
- - This is going to sound flippant and arrogant, and it isn't meant to. But seriously, you can't have much life experience if you think that statement is true. Lots of people do lots of shit that they don't get charged for. Especially people with money and/or power.

"I don't care about Clinton, anything about him is inmaterial to thise case (however, if he committed a crime or was thought to, he should have been charged, though charging a sitting President is different than charging the COS of the VP."
- - How is it different? Neither the Constitution nor the laws of the land make any distinction that would allow a sitting President to commit crimes with impunity. And Clinton definitely committed perjury and demonstrably obstruction and yet he wasn't prosecuted (see the paragraph above).

"Either way, if you break a law, you should be charged."
- - In a perfect world.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

I neve said the world works how I think it should, therefore your claims about how long I've been in the world are not valid. Sorry.

You seem to not care that Libby has been charged with several crimes, that's fine. I personally do not find it acceptable for people to lie under oath, to withhold information, or to obstruct an investigation. If your life experience tells you these are acceptable actions, well, that's your deal. But I disagree.

The great about this, is that Libby is going to get his day in court, and we'll see what happens then.

"My point is that the lack of indictments on the crime that was the focus of the investigation is not evidence that no such crime was committed."
- - OF COURSE IT IS!!! It may not be compelling or convincing evidence, but to say that it doesn't indicate a greater probability of no crime being committed than an indictment would attest to is just plain goofy.

"Such logic is fallacious because it assumes that indictment is the natural result of a crime's commission. This is just absurd."
- - Uh... how? why? huh? I'm sorry, I can't even figure out how to respond to a stament that absurd. I'm speechless!!

"You thought wrong. What liars (like you) do is tell lies and then get angry when called out on it."
- - I'm not angry. I'm just amazed that you can't hold a civil discussion without tossing insults. By the way, care to enumerate my lies?

"I am not letting you get away with being a liar because you've poisoned the well. Others will simply correct you and just let it go. People can have differences of opinion or interpretation, but what you've done is tell an outright, bald-faced lie."
- - Which you've yet to demonstrate.

"And now that you've been called out on your lie you are completely unwilling to recant and apologize for lying."
- - Since I didn't, I see no reason to recant. When are you going to apologize for calling me a liar?

"I do not care that it makes you angry that I call you what you are, a liar. You tell lies. You are a liar. Being a liar is the problem, calling a liar a liar is not."
- - Thats sad, Bubba. Read your post. You sound like a five-year-old.

Right here, here's a lie: "And Fitz is a Dem."
- - I think you may have me on that one. Based on his history in NY and Illinois, and his record of having indicted over 5 dozen Republicans in Illinois, I ass-u-med he was a Dem. According to all accounts he is not registered with either party. I stand corrected for that error. However, I won't accept that as a lie, merely am incorrect assumption. Statistically, Fitz has certainly demonstrated that he leans on Republicans much harder than on Democrats. I'd want to see his voting record before I concede that he's not just an unregistered Dem.

"But your days of pretending like you would are, sadly, still with us."
- - Really? Have I made threats? Have I called you names in hopes of provoking threats?

"Tell me the last time a member of the White House was indicted with a felony."
- - That's good. Let's ignore the fact that Bill Clinton committed several (perjury and OOJ) and bargained his way out before the fact by agreeing to pay Jones MORE than the original face value of the suit. Let's also ignore all the perjury and obstuction that accompanied the Whitewater, Iron Contra, Watergate and numerous other scandals. Kind of makes you wonder (well, not YOU obviously, sane people) why we need to suddenly begin indicting WH staff for something as thin as this.

She still makes points that you can't refute. Don't you feel absolutely DICKLESS being unable to counter the statements of a partisan hack?
"I can refute them by citing a source that is absolutely not a partisan hack and has done over 2 years of investigative work in this matter, Patrick Fitzgerald."
- - ROTFL. Logic can't get any more circular than that, Bubba.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

---
It may not be compelling or convincing evidence, but to say that it doesn't indicate a greater probability of no crime being committed than an indictment would attest to is just plain goofy.
---

It indicates a higher probability of no crime having been committed, but that is absolutely no basis to make moronic statements like "no crime was committed."


---
I think you may have me on that one.
---

Now that you know you were wrong about that, do you think you might be wrong in your other baseless assumptions about Fitzgerald?


---
Have I called you names in hopes of provoking threats?
---

In the hopes of provoking threats? No no. You did, however, the "safety" of my keyboard. Let's not pretend we are idiots, the meaning behind that is clear.
Of course, since you are not responsible for your own actions and words, it is *my* fault you have no self-control. Like all good conservatives, personal responsibility for everyone I don't call "myself".


---
Kind of makes you wonder (well, not YOU obviously, sane people) why we need to suddenly begin indicting WH staff for something as thin as this.
---

Awesome work not acknowledging the fact that this is the first felony indictment of a White House official in 130 years.
You want people to believe it is from some web of conspiracy... yet you are completely unable to find any conspirators. Not one.


---
Logic can't get any more circular than that, Bubba.
---

It's not circular at all. I have reasons to say Fitzgerald is more trustworthy as a source of this information than every single one of your sources.
Every single one of your sources is a self-admitted right-wing op-ed columnist or blogger. Every single one.
Fitzgerald is a Republican-appointed non-partisan special prosecutor who has interviewed dozens of people about this case and has lived and breathed it for 2 years.

No circles, just plain logic.

"It indicates a higher probability of no crime having been committed, but that is absolutely no basis to make moronic statements like 'no crime was committed.' "
- - And that wasn't my basis for making the statement.

"Now that you know you were wrong about that, do you think you might be wrong in your other baseless assumptions about Fitzgerald?"
- - What, that he might be a zealot? Why else would he be pursuing investigation and indictents into a non-crime?


"In the hopes of provoking threats? No no. You did, however, the "safety" of my keyboard. Let's not pretend we are idiots, the meaning behind that is clear."
- - I won't if you'll man-up. You called me a liar to provoke me, and I simply chuckled over your readiness to do something that you and I both know you wouldn't do if we were in a room together, and not because I'm a tough guy, but because only sniveling children resort to name-calling.

"Of course, since you are not responsible for your own actions and words, it is *my* fault you have no self-control. Like all good conservatives, personal responsibility for everyone I don't call 'myself'. "
- - See, junior, there you go again. You just can't satisfy yourself talking about the issues. Bad toilet training?

"Awesome work not acknowledging the fact that this is the first felony indictment of a White House official in 130 years."
- - Like I said, makes you wonder.

"You want people to believe it is from some web of conspiracy... yet you are completely unable to find any conspirators. Not one."
- - Actually several, starting with Joe and Valerie.

"It's not circular at all. I have reasons to say Fitzgerald is more trustworthy as a source of this information than every single one of your sources."
- - Yes, because he says what you want to hear.

"Every single one of your sources is a self-admitted right-wing op-ed columnist or blogger. Every single one."
- - Which automatically allows ignorant people to dismiss them. Convenient not to have to address the valid points they raise, eh?

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

The CIA made no such claim that a covert agent was outed. They asked the DOJ to investigate whether there was any illegality associated with revealing Plame's connection with the CIA. You are spreading misinformation in continually repeating that the focus of the investigation was strictly on Plame's covert/non-covert status.



I find this statement interesting considering your interactions with adamb in which you said that no indictment is a strong indication of no crime.

Your sources might be experts on certain aspects of this case, such as the legal elements associated with the Identities Act or the Espionage Act, but none of them are privy to the facts in the way Fitzgerald is. They are merely speculating and as such, they lack credibility as to the conclusions they are drawing. Fitzgerald is the primary source on the issue. He has stated the information was classified. While not gospel, it certainly trumps any source you can produce stating otherwise. And it has nothing to do with their(your sources') political affiliation and everything to do with the fact that they aren't dealing with the same facts that Fitzgerald is.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

Cousin Elwood:

----
What, that he might be a zealot?
----

He might be a zealot and you might be a child molestor.
There is an equal amount of evidence for both of those statements: none.


----
Why else would he be pursuing investigation and indictents into a non-crime?
----

Because other crimes were committed while he was investigating whether or not another crime happened.


----
I won't if you'll man-up.
----

"Man-up". Awesome.


----
You called me a liar to provoke me, and I simply chuckled over your readiness to do something that you and I both know you wouldn't do if we were in a room together, and not because I'm a tough guy, but because only sniveling children resort to name-calling.
----

I would call you a liar if we were in a room together. You've never met me. I don't think calling someone who lies a "liar" is name-calling. It's a statement of fact and it is relevant to a political debate.


----
See, junior, there you go again.
----

Junior? Didn't you just say something about name-calling. You are a joke (another thing I would happily say to your face).



mclamb6:


----
I find this statement interesting considering your interactions with adamb in which you said that no indictment is a strong indication of no crime.
----

You are expecting intellectual consistency from a liar?

"I find this statement interesting considering your interactions with adamb in which you said that no indictment is a strong indication of no crime."

One has nothing to do with the other, or very little. Lots of things happen that prosecutors don't feel would be worth their time to pursue, given that there are constraints on their time. Also, in many of the cases like Martha and Scooter, no prosecution occurs because the prosecutor doesn't have a bug up his ass about nailing someone for the sake of scoring points.

Meanwhile, it is the simplest and most basic logic to conclude that no indictment is certainly a greater indication that no crime was committed than if an indictment had been issued. If you can't follow that, I can't help you.

"Your sources might be experts on certain aspects of this case, such as the legal elements associated with the Identities Act or the Espionage Act, but none of them are privy to the facts in the way Fitzgerald is. They are merely speculating and as such, they lack credibility as to the conclusions they are drawing."
- - They're not drawing conclusions, they are stating that Plame was outed nine years ago and is therefore no a classified or covert individual at this time or any other in the last nine yeears.

"He has stated the information was classified. While not gospel, it certainly trumps any source you can produce stating otherwise."
- - Fortunately, we live in the United States of America, where one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. In this case, Fitzgerald bailed on any charges relating to classified information, rather blowing an enormous hole in any claim relating to same.

Fitzgerald is pissed because he wasn't able to make a case. His press conference (grandstanding) was inappropriate, because a) the case is to be tried in court, not the media and b) he goes on TV and talks about the leaking of classified information and the outing of covert agents, and then he doesn't charge anyone in connection with these wild accusations. He should be sued for that, or at the very least, sanctioned.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...