Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [klehner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
   "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).
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
---
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [Tridiot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"== 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...
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [adamb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"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...
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
---
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.
Last edited by: adamb: Nov 4, 05 23:44
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [adamb] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"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...
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [Cousin Elwood] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.

Quote:
Lots of people do lots of shit that they don't get charged for.


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

Quote:


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.
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
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?
Quote Reply
Re: Back to the top on Fitzgerald in hopes of a meaningful dialogue [mclamb6] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"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...
Quote Reply

Prev Next