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

Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger

I dunno. The headline there sounds more like it should say "WASH POST's Ben Bradlee Speculates Plame Leaker Was Richard Armitage"

 

Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger

#38 for #36

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

That's interesting, Darkbeer. So Drudge thinks she was covert?

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<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.>

See #37. Also, he has said before that the case against Libby and the possible case against the Plame outer are separate. And he has not closed the latter case - if he had, then you could rest assured he was still investigating that. But he hasn't.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

Argh. "- if he had, then you could rest assured he WASN'T still investigating that"

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

Tom, your dodging the fact that Fitzgerald said he was not going to pursue Plame being Covert.

He's not saying he will get to it later after Libby goes free, but he says he is not going to go after the " scandal ", which is the basis of all of this to begin with.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<He's not saying he will get to it later after Libby goes free, but he says he is not going to go after the " scandal ", which is the basis of all of this to begin with.>

Please show where he ever said he was not going to go after it, ever again, as opposed to in connection with the Libby trial.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

Show me where he said he is going to go after anyone for outing Plame Dabob.

At this point he says he is not going to do it. Fitzgerald, after making much of Plame being "classified" now says he doesn't have any evidence of her status and he further claims it is now irrelevant.

He has said he doesn't have to show her status and he now doesn't have any intention of showing it.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story" target="_blank">http://www.chicagotribune.com/
news/nationworld/chi-060311plame-story</a>,1,7332353,print.story

>>Genuine NOCs, a CIA veteran said, "never use an official address. If she had [a diplomatic] address, her whole cover's completely phony. I used to run NOCs. I was in an embassy. I'd go out and meet them, clandestine meetings. I'd pay them cash to run assets or take trips. I'd give them a big bundle of cash. But they could never use an embassy address, ever."

Another CIA veteran with 20 years of service agreed that "the key is the [embassy] address. That is completely unacceptable for an NOC. She wasn't an NOC, period."<<

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008085" target="_blank">http://www.opinionjournal.com/
best/?id=110008085</a>

>>It's hard to see why Libby should be prosecuted for perjury given the absence of any underlying crime. Patrick Fitzgerald would show real courage if he admitted his mistake and dropped the charges.<<

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

Not even Tom thinks she was covert at this point... but he continues the good fight in the hopes that Rove might get perp walked as he comes out of WalMart wearing his Hallibutan shirt.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

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

Yes, and they didn't say what you said they said. If they did, Mr. Fitzgerald would not be telling Mr. Libby's defense team, "If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time — and we do not — we would produce them".

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<Please show where he ever said he was not going to go after it, ever again, as opposed to in connection with the Libby trial.>>

<Show me where he said he is going to go after anyone for outing Plame Dabob.>

He doesn't HAVE to say so explicity. The fact that the investigation on folks other than Libby is ongoing tells you that this is not closed in his mind.

In other words, if he'd said, explicitly, that he wasn't pursuing the outing any more - with ANYONE - you'd have a point. He never said that, though. On the other hand, the fact that the other investigations remain open itself tells you that he may choose to go after her "outer(s)" some time in the future.

<He has said he doesn't have to show her status and he now doesn't have any intention of showing it. >

Arrrrrrgh. In relation to THIS case, and THIS case only!

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

(TomSawyer)<<Douglas, the court papers were reported in several media sources last month in mid-February.>>

<Yes, and they didn't say what you said they said. If they did, Mr. Fitzgerald would not be telling Mr. Libby's defense team, "If the government had any documents stating that Ms. Wilson’s employment status was not classified during the relevant time — and we do not — we would produce them".>

I'm not sure that follows. All Fitzgerald said there was that if they had documents stating that her status was NOT classified - they'd produce them (and presumably provide them to Libby's lawyers). But he says he doesn't have papers saying that she was NOT classified.

This doesn't seem to me to contradict Tom's statement:

"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."

I don't remember these court papers, and no one's provided a link, but those things don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Fitzgerald could have identified her status as covert AND said he didn't have papers saying she was not classified, certainly.

 

Originally Posted By woody

"I don't remember these court papers, and no one's provided a link, but those things don't seem mutually exclusive to me. Fitzgerald could have identified her status as covert AND said he didn't have papers saying she was not classified, certainly."

Should've, Could've, Would've.

Should've provided a link. Boo!

Could've identified her status. Boo!

Would've been classified. Boo!

I doubt Fitzgerald has a good case.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<All Fitzgerald said there was that if they had documents stating that her status was NOT classified - they'd produce them (and presumably provide them to Libby's lawyers). But he says he doesn't have papers saying that she was NOT classified.>

Last December, Libby's lawyers asked Fitzgerald to provide "all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified" in the time period before the Novak column was published. Fitzgerald refused, saying that "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified'" during that period.

<I don't remember these court papers, and no one's provided a link, but those things don't seem mutually exclusive to me.>

Fitzgerald hasn't been clear about anything, especially Valerie Plame's status.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Fitzgerald refused because Wilson's status is irrelevant to the charges and case against Libby. Libby's lawyers were using it as a smokescreen designed to confuse the court and the public about the case, and probably to thwart the ongoing investigation into who blew Plame's cover.

It seems as though the defense lawyers tactics of obfuscation are working on at least a few of the posters here.

The case before the court has nothing to do with Plame's identity. It has everything to do with a man lying to a grand jury and to federal investigators.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Fitzgerald refused because Wilson's status is irrelevant to the charges and case against Libby.>

If that's the case, why did Fitzgerald mention her status in the indictment, and at the press conference at which he announced the indictment. And if he clearly stated that she was classified in court documents, as you claimed earlier, then why doesn't he have a single piece of paper that backs him up? How does he know she is classified?

<The case before the court has nothing to do with Plame's identity. It has everything to do with a man lying to a grand jury and to federal investigators.>

If her identity wasn't in dispute, Mr Libby wouldn't have been before a grand jury, or talking to federal investigators. If Mr Libby did lie to the grand jury, then he should be punished. But it's obvious that he wasn't the leaker, and it appears unlikely that the release of Ms Plame's identity was a crime.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Plame's status is mentioned in the background information of the indictment to lay out the cause of investigation, but Libby is not charged with revealing her identity.

Douglas, you are confusing two separate issues here. It's true that Libby never would have been questioned if there was no investigation into who at the White House revealed Plame's identity to the press. But at least one person appears to have lied to investigators and lied to the grand jury, and he has been charged with that crime.

Libby is not in front of the court because Plame's identity or status is in dispute - he's in front of the court because he is accused of lying during the course of an investigation, and that lie affected the ongoing investigation.

There's no reason for him to show papers that says that she is covert because that issue isn't in dispute in the court.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

OK Tom, so when are we going to find out that Plame was undercover, she was outed by the White House and national security was put at risk?

Isn't what this is all about for you left wing scandal chasers in the first place?

Libby didn't lie, and deep down you know he, like Delay, isn't going to be charged with anything because their is nothing to charge them with.

Funny how you act satisfied that Fitzgerald has put the whole "Plame was outed" angle on the back, back, back burner at this point. Nice backpeddle from the original hysteria that Rove was going to the slammer soon.

Not sure if Bush is toast or if this one has legs anymore. LOL

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Douglas, you are confusing two separate issues here.>

No, I'm not. What I am saying, however, is that Fitzgerald hasn't clearly stated what Plame's classification was, despite what you asserted previously.