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

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

All I Know Isâ„¢, I've been searching motor vehicle codes from every state for an answer that would clear this whole thing up. So far.... nothing.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>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?<<

Most of us have already figured out that she was undercover. What we don't know for sure is why her identity was leaked and who leaked it. And if White House staffers lie to investigators and grand juries, it may be nearly impossible to find out.

 

Originally Posted By CA DMV Section 4605

>>I've been searching motor vehicle codes from every state for an answer that would clear this whole thing up.<<

Hey, don't look at me, bub.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>What I am saying, however, is that Fitzgerald hasn't clearly stated what Plame's classification was<<

In the indictment, on page three, as part of the background information he says that her identity was classified. Information is either classified or not - and regardless of the level of classification, it is still illegal to discuss with anyone who is not cleared to know such information and who does not have a need to know it.

He clearly stated her identity was classified.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>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.<<

You don't think Libby or Delay were charged with anything? LOL

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<He clearly stated her identity was classified.>>

Porter Goss is classified. Uh Oh!! Better start taking people to jail for saying his name!!

The people who wrote the law regarding CIA agents say Plame doesn't qualify. Does that even mean a thing to the people on the left?

Just admit it... Fitzgerald isn't going after the ' scandal ' because Plame wasn't undercover and thus noboby broke any laws.

But keep the dream alive! Someway, somehow you libs might get Bush and his team for something. LOL

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Most of us have already figured out that she was undercover.>

How did you figure that out? Almost all the facts I've seen point to her not being undercover. As has been pointed out to you before, being classified is not the same as being undercover.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<In the indictment, on page three, as part of the background information he says that her identity was classified.>

But that's different than what you said earlier in the thread, which was, "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."

Since Fitzgerald is now claiming he has no documents which establish what Ms. Plame's status was, it's hard to see how he clearly identified her status.

Further, Mr. Fitzgerald also said in the indictment that Mr Libby was the first one to reveal Ms Plame's employment to the press. We now have reason to suspect this wasn't true, and it's not Mr Libby's fault that Mr Fitzgerald was misinformed.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Porter Goss is classified.<<

Porter Goss has security clearances, but his identity is not classified, as Plame's was.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>How did you figure that out? Almost all the facts I've seen point to her not being undercover.<<

LOL - I give up. The simple fact that there was an investigation that didn't end 30 minutes after it started is the definitive proof you're looking for.

But you won't look for it because if you see it you'll have to admit something you're loathe to admit.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Since Fitzgerald is now claiming he has no documents which establish what Ms. Plame's status was<<

He didn't claim that. He said that they didn't have any documents that said that she was NOT classified.

They do, however, have a copy of the State Department memo written on July 10, 2003 indicating that Plame's status was classified. This is according to a report in the Wall Street Journal from 7/17/05.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<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.>

Let me break it down for you. The "could have" in my paragraph was written in the same sense as "I could have ridden the subway this morning, but I didn't see anybody mugged." I DID ride the subway this morning - see the usage?

Fitzgerald DID identify her status as covert and DID say he didn't have papers saying she was not classified. The point was that those two things are not mutually exclusive.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<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.>

Tom answered this well in 53. Libby's lawyers asked for something irrelevant and obfuscatory.

<<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.>

Answered well in 61. Thanks, Tom, for keeping things real. #68 is particularly important to understand.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Libby's lawyers asked for something irrelevant and obfuscatory. <<


hmmm... that sounds oddly familiar...

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

As far as the law is concerned, somthing is either classified or not classified.

Her identity was classified, regardless of whether or not she was a covert operative.

Revealing classified information is a crime.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<The simple fact that there was an investigation that didn't end 30 minutes after it started is the definitive proof you're looking for.>

I think the fact that the Justice Department didn't want to launch the investigation casts that "definitive" proof into question, especially since it doesn't appear that anyone will ever be charged with the crime of revealing Ms Plame's "classified" status.

<But you won't look for it because if you see it you'll have to admit something you're loathe to admit.>

It's you keeps avoiding admitting that you can't back up your statement that, "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."

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<He didn't claim that. He said that they didn't have any documents that said that she was NOT classified.>

Again, 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 responded by saying, "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.

<They do, however, have a copy of the State Department memo written on July 10, 2003 indicating that Plame's status was classified.>

If this memo establishes Plame's status, then why is Fitzgerald claiming he doesn't have any documents that establish Plame's status?

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>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."<<

Her classified status was clearly stated in the indictment.

Her covert status was reported in a Newsweek article on February 17 (I believe) referring to court papers that pointed out that she met the definition of covert. I can't find those papers online, nor can I find any link to refute the report.

Even if she wasn't covert, her identity was still classified information.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>then why is Fitzgerald claiming he doesn't have any documents that establish Plame's status?<<

You're misinterpreting what Fitzgerald is saying in a way that supports your belief. However, the fact that there was an investigation indicates that her status was classified.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Fitzgerald DID identify her status as covert and DID say he didn't have papers saying she was not classified.>

When did Mr Fitzgerald identify Ms Plame's status as covert?

<Tom answered this well in 53. Libby's lawyers asked for something irrelevant and obfuscatory.>

It's not irrelevant and obfuscatory if Mr Fitzgerald tries to make the same claim in court that he made in the indictment and at the press conference. And Mr. Fitzgerald didn't just claim the documents were irrelevant and obfuscatory, he also stated he didn't have any.