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...