"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...