Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He was actually quite measured in his responses.> In some of his statements, yes. But not in all. <Why did it take 2 1/2 years? I think more likely some combination of thoroughness and difficulty in getting testimony form various sources. Or do you think he's got a vendetta or something, because few people have said that about him, even hardcore conservatives.> I believe it's taken so long because Mr Fitzgerald believed the wrong people. <Maybe in your mind only.> Hardly.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<He was actually quite measured in his responses.>> <In some of his statements, yes. But not in all.> Examples, please? <<Why did it take 2 1/2 years? I think more likely some combination of thoroughness and difficulty in getting testimony form various sources. Or do you think he's got a vendetta or something, because few people have said that about him, even hardcore conservatives.>> <I believe it's taken so long because Mr Fitzgerald believed the wrong people.> I'm amazed you know his thought process well enough to know who he believed and when. <<Maybe in your mind only.>> <Hardly.> I'm sure there are other people equally blinded by ideology.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It was an error on Mr Fitzgerald's part to accuse Mr Libby of blowing Ms Plame’s cover when he was not charged with that crime. It was also incorrect to say that Ms Plame's "outing" affected all of us when Mr Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence that any damage was done by her name being released. <I'm amazed you know his thought process well enough to know who he believed and when.> I don't. I'm just guessing, based on what's been reported. <I'm sure there are other people equally blinded by ideology.> Hardly.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Mr Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence that any damage was done by her name being released. << I'm not aware of any such quotes from fitzgerald. However I am aware of plenty of comments made by CIA about enormous damage that has been done as a result of this. The cover for her 'shell' corporation was blown, as well as everyone else who was supposedly 'employed' by this company, which was actually a front for CIA operatives. If you've got something from fitzgerald that says otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's not weak, Dabob, it's realistic. There's no point in my searching out a bunch of quotes to "prove" my opinion when you'll simply dismiss them.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If you can prove your point, I won't dismiss it. (And for those still playing at home, we're talking about Fitzgerald's statements, as discussed in #75-79).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh One, I didn't post a "point" that can be proven. I posted my reaction to Fitzgerald's statements. Two, I can't "prove" anything to someone who won't take an honest look at the evidence I present.
Originally Posted By gadzuux My 'opinion' is that your earlier assertion of fact is untrue. >> Mr Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence that any damage was done by her name being released. <<
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <One, I didn't post a "point" that can be proven. I posted my reaction to Fitzgerald's statements.> I'd still settle for some Fitzgerald quotes that show why you think what you think. We could then debate whether your reaction is valid or whether you're mischaracterizing his statements. But not if you won't provide them. <Two, I can't "prove" anything to someone who won't take an honest look at the evidence I present.> I do take an honest look at the evidence you present. When I disagree you claim I didn't take an "honest" look - which is itself intellectually dishonest. As someone said recently, reasonable minds can disagree.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >> Mr Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence that any damage was done by her name being released. << Douglas, do you have a link to a statement by Fitzgerald in which he says words to that effect? Here's a link to his Oct. 2005 statement to the press when Libby was indicted. <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001392240" target="_blank">http://www.editorandpublisher. com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001392240</a> There's nothing there that I saw that says "no evidence of damage" but there is this line, which perhaps is what you're thinking of? >>Let me make clear there was nothing wrong with government officials discussing Valerie Wilson or Mr. Wilson or his wife and imparting the information to Mr. Libby.<<
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh In one of it's legal filings, the Libby's team asked Mr Fitzgerald to provide "any assessment done of the damage (if any) caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee." Mr Fitzgerald responded that "a formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document." In a later response, Mr Fitzgerald said, "The actual -- as opposed to potential -- damage caused by the outing of Ms. Wilson is not alleged in the indictment, nor was it a focus of the grand jury investigation. The indictment alleges only that the outing of CIA employees could cause damage. The actual damage resulting from uncharged conduct is irrelevant to whether the defendant lied about his conversations with reporters."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think it's kind of a stretch from his statements to your claim, but thanks for at least posting them.
Originally Posted By woody >>I think it's kind of a stretch from his statements to your claim, but thanks for at least posting them.<< Wow, Fitzgerald needs more to convict Libby than your weak retort.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Not at all. Fitzgerald's statement was that any damage as a result of her name being leaked was never part of his investigtion, which is different than the earlier assertion that ... >> Mr Fitzgerald has since said he has no evidence that any damage was done by her name being released. << Douglas issued a 'clarification' that showed fitzgerald's comments to be wholly different than 'there was no damage'.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Exactly, gadzuux. Plus, it has nothing to do with convicting Libby on perjury and obstruction charges.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
