Plame's identity, if truly a secret, was thinly ve

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

In any case, as cmpaley said, it's up to the courts to decide.

 

Originally Posted By cmpaley

>><<I don't recall granting you the privilege of using my given name.>>

I do. You said that since I understood the beauty that is Star Trek, we are best buds.

BWAAAHHAAAAA<<

Presumption is a sin, you know.

I will give you one thing, though. You have the Borg drone routine down to a "T." You repeat Republican talking points just like a drone.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>So after years of the libs screaming Plame was outed and it was a national security problem, Fitzgerald isn't even going to go after that anymore?<<

Did he say he's not going to go after it, Beau? No, he didn't - he just said it's irrelevant to the current trial because Libby isn't charged with that particular crime.

But guess what? He's still investigating, and he may still charge Libby or someone else with the crime at some point in the future. Since the outing of Plame is not the issue in this case (it's about lying to investigators), there's no reason to bring it up lest he reveal things about his ongoing investigations.

Fitzgerald is still looking at the original scandal. The Libby case is about lying.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<Did he say he's not going to go after it, Beau? No, he didn't - he just said it's irrelevant to the current trial because Libby isn't charged with that particular crime.>>


Uh Tom, no..


"We're trying a perjury case," Fitzgerald told Judge Reggie Walton. Even if Plame had never worked for the CIA at all, Fitzgerald continued — even if she had been simply mistaken for a CIA agent — the charges against Libby would still stand.


TOM... now read Fitzgeralds next sentence...

In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.

 

Originally Posted By bboisvert

... in this case. There may still be others brought up on different charges once the obfuscation issue is decided by the courts.

Don't forget... Libby, if found guilty of obstruction, could still be charged with treason. Others could too.



So you seemed to not come up with an answer as to exactly WHO Pat Fitzgerald is a "tool" for.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<In court papers released last month, Fitzgerald clearly identified her status and the fact that she met the standards of being covert at the time of her outing by the White House.>

Could you provide a link to these papers, Tom? I haven't seen any such thing.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

BB, Fitzgerald is simply a tool. As in, he's a dope.

Like Tom said, it should have taken Fitz about 30 minutes to gt an answer to Plames CIA status. Instead, he never even looked into it, he for some reason, being the dope he is, decided to believe the story that Joe Wilson and his wife were outed for revenge.... which we all know is total BS.

I can't wait for Libby's trial and for the Wilsons to take the stand to finally explain themselves.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Sounds a little like Monicagate, don't it? After years investigating Whitewater and trying to nail President Clinton, it came down to lying about sex with an intern.>

Not quite. The Whitewater investigation lead to the conviction of several associates of President Clinton.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Libby, if found guilty of obstruction, could still be charged with treason.>

I don't see how.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>In addition, Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.<<

That's because it doesn't have anything to do with the case before the court, and he's still investigating the outing itself.

The concept might be alien to you, but he's arguing the case in front of him instead of trying to bring in irrelevant information. This case is about lying to investigators. The investigation of the Plame outing is ongoing and separate.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Instead, he never even looked into it<<

Of course he did, Beau.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Douglas, the court papers were reported in several media sources last month in mid-February.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

Tom, what part of..

Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.

Do you not understand.

Where did you get some information that he is still pursuing the angle that Plame was " outed " ?

He has nothing because nothing is there....just as we have been telling liberals for ever.

In fact, most stuff liberals think is true is not true regarding Bush and what he does.

So your ( the )whole moonbat theory that Plame was some outed secret agent and her husband is some American hero for exposing Bush as a liar regarding yellowcake is once again pure liberal fantasy.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Tom, what part of..

Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.

Do you not understand.>

Beau, what part of of "he's not going to offer any proof of that IN THIS ONE CASE" (Libby's case) do you not understand?

Libby is not being prosecuted for that crime, but rather for lying to investigators. Therefore, in this particular case, damages to Plame are irrelevant. In a future case he might bring, they might not be.

This has been explained to you several times; do you really not understand?

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

You see, Dabob, that's not how his radio explains things to him.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<< In a future case he might bring, they might not be.>>

If you can show me ANYWHERE where Fitzgerald has said he is going after anyone for outing Plame as a secret agent please show me Dabob.

He has nothing, which is amazing if you listened to the breathless libs regarding this stroy and hor Rove would be doing the perp walk.

So now we are down to going after Libby, a guy who forgot who he spoke with.

I am willing to bet 2 annual DL passes that Libby is found not guilty.

Anyone??? We can set up an account to hold the money...

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Fitzgerald said, he does not intend to offer "any proof of actual damage" caused by the disclosure of Wilson's identity.

Do you not understand.<<

I understand it perfectly, Beau. You're the one having trouble with it.

Fitzgerald is arguing a case involving a person who lied to investigators and a grand jury. The case is entirely about the lie, not about the Plame outing. Regardless of whether or not Plame was covert and whether or not Libby was involved in her outing, Libby apparently lied to investigators and to the Grand Jury. He made comments that were contradictory and apparently designed to throw the investigation off track.

Fitzgerald isn't going to offer any evidence regarding the Plame affair because it has no bearing on the case before the court.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Beau, when did I ever say that Ambassador Wilson was a hero?

Man, you are really going off the deep end with making stuff up today.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

<a href="http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm" target="_blank">http://www.drudgereport.com/fl
ash3.htm</a>

>>WASH POST's Ben Bradlee Claims Plame Leaker Was Richard Armitage
Mon Mar 13 2006 10:48:34 ET

THE WASHINGTON POST's famous Watergate editor Ben Bradlee claims that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage who was the individual who leaked the identity of CIA official Valerie Plame.

In the latest issue of VANITY FAIR: "Woodward was in a tricky position. People close to him believe that he had learned about Plame from his friend Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's former deputy, who has been known to be critical of the administration and who has a blunt way of speaking. 'That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,' former WASHINGTON POST editor Ben Bradlee said."

'I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it.'"<<

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

<a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/12/fitzgerald-suggests-cia-leak-probe-may.php" target="_blank">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pap
erchase/2005/12/fitzgerald-suggests-cia-leak-probe-may.php</a>

In court papers filed Friday, US Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald [official website] said certain details of his investigation into the CIA leak case [JURIST news archive], including grand jury testimony and documents identifying witnesses, must remain secret, implying that the probe continues to move forward and that further charges may be forthcoming.