Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Oh, he knows it was intentional, Beau.> Really? When did he say this? <He just doesn't know who did it, or he doesn't have the evidence yet to charge their suspect with it.> Actually, the evidence is he does know who did it, but that he can't charge anything because it wasn't intentional and it didn't damage national security.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <"what you're asking for is irrelevant to the case at hand, and therefore whether I have it or not is irrelevant to you, though it may not be irrelevant to other cases I'm pursuing, so I'll be holding on to what I may have without passing it on to you, to whom it's irrelevant."> There's no way for any reasonable person to interpret his words that way, unless they ignored half of what Mr Fitzgerald said.
Originally Posted By woody >>Fitzgerald is known for being very careful, and meticulous.<< Except for stating Plame's status. He didn't quite get his ducks in a row with the evidence since he is trying to withhold information from Libby's lawyers.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"what you're asking for is irrelevant to the case at hand, and therefore whether I have it or not is irrelevant to you, though it may not be irrelevant to other cases I'm pursuing, so I'll be holding on to what I may have without passing it on to you, to whom it's irrelevant.">> <There's no way for any reasonable person to interpret his words that way, unless they ignored half of what Mr Fitzgerald said.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>Fitzgerald is known for being very careful, and meticulous.<< <Except for stating Plame's status.> No, including that. He wouldn't have said she was covert if he didn't think so. And, as others have said, if she wasn't, the investigation would have been over 30 minutes after it started. <He didn't quite get his ducks in a row with the evidence since he is trying to withhold information from Libby's lawyers.> Prosecutors are not required to give defense lawyers information not related to the case at hand.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Dabob, I think we're talking to folks who are using the "this one goes to 11" defense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And, as others have said, if she wasn't, the investigation would have been over 30 minutes after it started.> That's an assertion that doesn't have any evidence to back it up. <Prosecutors are not required to give defense lawyers information not related to the case at hand.> But if they have it, they shouldn't claim they don't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Dabob, I think we're talking to folks who are using the "this one goes to 11" defense.> And I think I'm talking to folks who are using the "let's claim anything and then ignore it when people ask where we're getting our facts from" offense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And, as others have said, if she wasn't, the investigation would have been over 30 minutes after it started.>> <That's an assertion that doesn't have any evidence to back it up.> Evidence? How about simple logic? As in the past, you're asking for "evidence" of something that can not be shown. Clever, but not clever enough. My statement was simply true on its face. If she wasn't covert, there would be no crime to investigate. Also, anyone who could be harmed by an investigation would simply have come forward with definitive evidence that she was not, handed it to Fitzgerald, and he would have had to terminate the investigation. It's like a missing person case: there may be an investigation into this, but if the person in question shows up - investigation over. If there was proof that Plame was not covert, surely it would have showed up; too many powerful people didn't want this investigation going forward. But you'll no doubt continue to bluster "Okay...but that still doesn't PROVE that if she wasn't covert, the investigation would have been over..." Right. Knock yourself out, dude. <<Prosecutors are not required to give defense lawyers information not related to the case at hand.>> <But if they have it, they shouldn't claim they don't.> It's irrelevant to the Libby case in any event. If you read his statement, he's saying "it's irrelevant to you" but being rather cagey about what he might have in relation to other ongoing investigations. Which is both smart and appropriate. <And I think I'm talking to folks who are using the "let's claim anything and then ignore it when people ask where we're getting our facts from" offense.> Asked and answered.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Evidence? How about simple logic?> All the evidence points to the her status not being covert. <If she wasn't covert, there would be no crime to investigate.> That does not mean that there can't be an investigation, however. <Also, anyone who could be harmed by an investigation would simply have come forward with definitive evidence that she was not, handed it to Fitzgerald, and he would have had to terminate the investigation.> Not necessarily. <But you'll no doubt continue to bluster "Okay...but that still doesn't PROVE that if she wasn't covert, the investigation would have been over..."> I'm not the one blustering. <If you read his statement, he's saying "it's irrelevant to you" but being rather cagey about what he might have in relation to other ongoing investigations. Which is both smart and appropriate.> No, it's not. If he doesn't want it known whether he has documentation or not, then he should not imply he doesn't have it. Why would he need to be "cagey" about whether he has any documentation that confirms Ms Plame's status?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Asked and answered.> Tom hasn't answered the questions I asked him in post 118.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Evidence? How about simple logic?>> <All the evidence points to the her status not being covert.> What "evidence." All I've seen are people's assumptions. <<If she wasn't covert, there would be no crime to investigate.>> <That does not mean that there can't be an investigation, however.> If it could have been proven (for instance, by this "evidence" you claim) that her status was not covert early on in this process, why would Fitzgerald continue to investigate what would then be a moot question? <<Also, anyone who could be harmed by an investigation would simply have come forward with definitive evidence that she was not, handed it to Fitzgerald, and he would have had to terminate the investigation.>> <Not necessarily.> But in the real world - yes. I think even you know this. People have been harmed by the investigation. Libby is out of his job, and Rove had to pay so much attention to it that many people attribute that to some of the "politically tone deaf" decisions made by Bush recently. Certainly the Bush administration can't have wanted this investigation, and if anyone within it could have provided proof to Fitzgerald that Plame was not covert, they'd have done so. <<But you'll no doubt continue to bluster "Okay...but that still doesn't PROVE that if she wasn't covert, the investigation would have been over...">> <I'm not the one blustering.> Sure you are. I'm calmly pointing out how things work in the real world, you're looking at a losing argument and blustering "...b-but, you can't PROVE it!" <<If you read his statement, he's saying "it's irrelevant to you" but being rather cagey about what he might have in relation to other ongoing investigations. Which is both smart and appropriate.>> <No, it's not. If he doesn't want it known whether he has documentation or not, then he should not imply he doesn't have it. Why would he need to be "cagey" about whether he has any documentation that confirms Ms Plame's status?> Because the investigation is ongoing into people other than Libby. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to make possible targets wonder what they know (before the trial stage, of course).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Asked and answered.>> <Tom hasn't answered the questions I asked him in post 118.> Asked and answered in my case, then.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <What "evidence." All I've seen are people's assumptions.> Then your seeing only what you want to see. Those assumptions are based on the facts of Ms Plame's life. <If it could have been proven (for instance, by this "evidence" you claim) that her status was not covert early on in this process, why would Fitzgerald continue to investigate what would then be a moot question?> That's a good question, and one we might not ever get a answer to. <Certainly the Bush administration can't have wanted this investigation, and if anyone within it could have provided proof to Fitzgerald that Plame was not covert, they'd have done so.> We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof, but still continued to investigate. <Sure you are. I'm calmly pointing out how things work in the real world, you're looking at a losing argument and blustering "...b-but, you can't PROVE it!"> You're not calmly pointing out how things work in the real world. For instance, prosecutors don't file papers saying they don't have documents if they have it. You're trying to construct a scenario that doesn't match the facts of the case, so you can hold on to the idea that the Bush administration intentionally outed a covert agent due to some need for revenge. <Because the investigation is ongoing into people other than Libby.> You're answering a specific question with a generality. How is it helpful for Mr Fitzgerald to make his potential targets think he doesn't have any documents that confirm Ms Plame's status?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What "evidence." All I've seen are people's assumptions.>> <Then your seeing only what you want to see. Those assumptions are based on the facts of Ms Plame's life.> Excuse me? Could you be a little more vague, please? <<If it could have been proven (for instance, by this "evidence" you claim) that her status was not covert early on in this process, why would Fitzgerald continue to investigate what would then be a moot question?>> <That's a good question, and one we might not ever get a answer to.> I think even you, deep down, know the answer. He wouldn't have continued. Unlike Ken Starr, Fitzgerald has a reputation for being measured, meticulous, and not investigating past his mandate. But you keep trying to subtly smear him by assuming things not in evidence, as it were. <<Certainly the Bush administration can't have wanted this investigation, and if anyone within it could have provided proof to Fitzgerald that Plame was not covert, they'd have done so.>> <We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof, but still continued to investigate.> Oh please. First of all, if Fitzgerald was provided with proof that she wasn't covert, the administration would have leaked that to the press so fast your head would have spun. And you know that. The administration could only be hurt the longer this investigation went on. Second, he did say that he did not have any documents proving she was not covert. So for you to say "We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof, but still continued to investigate" - you're essentially calling him a liar. With no evidence. Nice. <<Sure you are. I'm calmly pointing out how things work in the real world, you're looking at a losing argument and blustering "...b-but, you can't PROVE it!">> <You're not calmly pointing out how things work in the real world. For instance, prosecutors don't file papers saying they don't have documents if they have it.> Fitzgerald said he didn't have documents proving she was NOT covert. Again, do you have any evidence at all that that's not the case? <You're trying to construct a scenario that doesn't match the facts of the case,> No, that's what you're trying to do. And a far-fetched scenario at that. <so you can hold on to the idea that the Bush administration intentionally outed a covert agent due to some need for revenge.> I didn't bring that up in this thread at all, and it has nothing to do with the Libby indictment. <<Because the investigation is ongoing into people other than Libby.>> <You're answering a specific question with a generality. How is it helpful for Mr Fitzgerald to make his potential targets think he doesn't have any documents that confirm Ms Plame's status?> I don't know that that's what he's doing, but prosecutors sometimes do that in the hopes that one of the targets will either think the prosecutor has more or less evidence than he actually has, and miscalculate their response accordingly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Excuse me? Could you be a little more vague, please?> There's been plenty of evidence presented in the last few years that Ms Plame's status was not covert. This thread got started when another piece of evidence was presented. I'm at a loss to explain why you're now pretending that you haven't seen any of this evidence. <I think even you, deep down, know the answer. He wouldn't have continued.> You're wrong. Unlike some, I don't pretend to know what all motivates Mr Fitzgerald. I try to stick to the facts. <First of all, if Fitzgerald was provided with proof that she wasn't covert, the administration would have leaked that to the press so fast your head would have spun.> What if there was no proof one way or another? What if some evidence pointed to Ms Plame being covert, and some evidence pointed to her not being covert? What do you think Mr Fitzgerald should have done then? And what if, after he thinks some people may have misrepresented the truth, he decides that the evidence tilts toward her not being covert? Does he then ignore those who he thinks misrepresented the truth? Just because an investigation was started and is continuing does not mean that Ms Plame was covert. <So for you to say "We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof, but still continued to investigate" - you're essentially calling him a liar.> No, that's what you're doing. Mr Fitzgerald has said he does not have documents that show Ms Plame's classification at the time her name was published, and you're claiming he's probably lying about that. <Fitzgerald said he didn't have documents proving she was NOT covert.> As I've pointed out before, Mr Fitzgerald has also said, "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". <Again, do you have any evidence at all that that's not the case?> Yes. There has been lots of evidence that supports the theory that Ms Plame was not covert when Mr Novak published her name. <I don't know that that's what he's doing, but prosecutors sometimes do that in the hopes that one of the targets will either think the prosecutor has more or less evidence than he actually has, and miscalculate their response accordingly.> That's a possibility, but isn't it just as likely that Mr Fitzgerald answered truthfully, and he doesn't have any documents that confirm Ms Plame was classified during the time in question? What would Occam's Razor lead us to believe the answer is?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Excuse me? Could you be a little more vague, please?>> <There's been plenty of evidence presented in the last few years that Ms Plame's status was not covert. This thread got started when another piece of evidence was presented. I'm at a loss to explain why you're now pretending that you haven't seen any of this evidence.> Because I'm not sure what you're referring to. I've seen a lot of supposition an assumption, along the lines of "She drove to CIA headquarters - that proves she wasn't covert" and other such frivilous stuff. If you're not more specific, how can I know what "evidence" you're referring to? <<I think even you, deep down, know the answer. He wouldn't have continued.>> <You're wrong. Unlike some, I don't pretend to know what all motivates Mr Fitzgerald. I try to stick to the facts.> LOL! This isn't about his "motivation." It's about a criminal case that would have ended if the administration could have shown there was no criminal act committed. <<First of all, if Fitzgerald was provided with proof that she wasn't covert, the administration would have leaked that to the press so fast your head would have spun.>> <What if there was no proof one way or another?> You're dodging, and trying to change the question, because you know durn well my statement above is right. <What if some evidence pointed to Ms Plame being covert, and some evidence pointed to her not being covert?> The administration would have leaked the evidence that pointed to her not being covert. <What do you think Mr Fitzgerald should have done then?> If the evidence was conflicting, he should have continued investigating. <And what if, after he thinks some people may have misrepresented the truth, he decides that the evidence tilts toward her not being covert? Does he then ignore those who he thinks misrepresented the truth?> No, and he hasn't. But we have no evidence that he thinks the evidence tilts toward her not being covert. <Just because an investigation was started and is continuing does not mean that Ms Plame was covert.> If the continuing investigation concerns possible charges against people for outing a covert agent, then it means Fitzgerald thinks she was. As he has said. <<So for you to say "We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof, but still continued to investigate" - you're essentially calling him a liar.>> <No, that's what you're doing. Mr Fitzgerald has said he does not have documents that show Ms Plame's classification at the time her name was published, and you're claiming he's probably lying about that.> You keep getting this wrong. He said he doesn't have documents that say she was NOT covert. So he's said that... and you've said "We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof" (that she wasn't covert)... so it is you who is saying he's a liar. With no evidence of that. <<Fitzgerald said he didn't have documents proving she was NOT covert.>> <As I've pointed out before, Mr Fitzgerald has also said, "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".> And as I've pointed out before, you are reading only one possible interpretation of that statement, when in fact there are several. <<Fitzgerald said he didn't have documents proving she was NOT covert. Again, do you have any evidence at all that that's not the case?>> <Yes. There has been lots of evidence that supports the theory that Ms Plame was not covert when Mr Novak published her name.> I didn't mean evidence that supports the theory she was not covert at the time (and again, most of the so-called "evidence" I've seen to this effect has been highly questionable); I meant do you have any evidence that Fitzgerald was lying when he said he didn't have any documents proving she was not covert? <<I don't know that that's what he's doing, but prosecutors sometimes do that in the hopes that one of the targets will either think the prosecutor has more or less evidence than he actually has, and miscalculate their response accordingly.>> <That's a possibility,> Indeed it is... <but isn't it just as likely that Mr Fitzgerald answered truthfully, and he doesn't have any documents that confirm Ms Plame was classified during the time in question?> That's not exactly what he said. He left it ambiguous. He didn't say he didn't have any; he said he didn't seek or obtain all. He was able to use that language because Libby's lawyers asked for "all documents, regardless of...etc." - Fitzgerald basically threw that language back at them, saying they didn't have what Libby's lawyers asked for - but leaving open the possibility that he could have something.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I've seen a lot of supposition an assumption, along the lines of "She drove to CIA headquarters - that proves she wasn't covert" and other such frivilous stuff. If you're not more specific, how can I know what "evidence" you're referring to?> I've read dozens of articles and made dozens of posts on this subject over the last few years. I'm not going to try to repeat it all now. If you're really interested in the evidence, go look it up. It's out there. <But we have no evidence that he thinks the evidence tilts toward her not being covert.> We also have no evidence that he thinks the evidence tilts toward her being covert. <The administration would have leaked the evidence that pointed to her not being covert.> Perhaps that's how we've gotten some of the evidence that points to her not being covert. <If the continuing investigation concerns possible charges against people for outing a covert agent, then it means Fitzgerald thinks she was. As he has said.> As I've pointed out before, he's said a number of things, none of which add up to Ms Plame being definitely covert. <You keep getting this wrong. He said he doesn't have documents that say she was NOT covert.> I presented the quote again. Here it is again, "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". That is not saying that he does not have any documents that say she is not covert. And as I've pointed out before, you are reading only one possible interpretation of that statement, when in fact there are several. <And as I've pointed out before, you are reading only one possible interpretation of that statement, when in fact there are several.> My interpretation is that he is telling the truth. Yours appears to be that he is lying. <I meant do you have any evidence that Fitzgerald was lying when he said he didn't have any documents proving she was not covert?> I've never claimed he was lying. I think he was telling the truth, and doesn't have any documents verifying Ms Plame's status during the time in question. <He left it ambiguous. He didn't say he didn't have any; he said he didn't seek or obtain all.> And I still don't see the point in doing that. He could have left it ambiguous by just saying whether he had any or not was irrelevant.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I've seen a lot of supposition an assumption, along the lines of "She drove to CIA headquarters - that proves she wasn't covert" and other such frivilous stuff. If you're not more specific, how can I know what "evidence" you're referring to?>> <I've read dozens of articles and made dozens of posts on this subject over the last few years. I'm not going to try to repeat it all now. If you're really interested in the evidence, go look it up. It's out there.> None of the evidence I've seen, posted by you or otherwise, is definitive - or even convincing - evidence that she is not covert. At best it's ambiguous and READ by right-wingers as evidence against covert. But it's hardly definitive - if it was, the investigation would be over. And that's the bottom line. <<But we have no evidence that he thinks the evidence tilts toward her not being covert.>> <We also have no evidence that he thinks the evidence tilts toward her being covert.> Good grief. He SAID she was. <<The administration would have leaked the evidence that pointed to her not being covert.>> <Perhaps that's how we've gotten some of the evidence that points to her not being covert.> Then they'll have to do a lot better. Because none of it was definitive. <<If the continuing investigation concerns possible charges against people for outing a covert agent, then it means Fitzgerald thinks she was. As he has said.>> <As I've pointed out before, he's said a number of things, none of which add up to Ms Plame being definitely covert.> He said flat out she was. Why do you keep ignoring THAT little point? <<You keep getting this wrong. He said he doesn't have documents that say she was NOT covert.>> <I presented the quote again. Here it is again, "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". That is not saying that he does not have any documents that say she is not covert.> Because that's not the quote where he said he had no documents proving she was not covert. That was ANOTHER quote, also previously posted. <<And as I've pointed out before, you are reading only one possible interpretation of that statement, when in fact there are several.>> <My interpretation is that he is telling the truth. Yours appears to be that he is lying.> Just the opposite. See next... <<I meant do you have any evidence that Fitzgerald was lying when he said he didn't have any documents proving she was not covert?>> <I've never claimed he was lying. I think he was telling the truth, and doesn't have any documents verifying Ms Plame's status during the time in question.> Here it is again. Fitzgerald has said flat out that he doesn't have any documents showing she was not covert (in another quote, not the one you keep bringing up). You said "We don't know that Mr Fitzgerald wasn't provided with that proof" (that she wasn't covert)...when he has SAID he doesn't have such proof... so it is you who is saying he's a liar. With no evidence of that. You can't weasel out of this one. <<He left it ambiguous. He didn't say he didn't have any; he said he didn't seek or obtain all.>> <And I still don't see the point in doing that. He could have left it ambiguous by just saying whether he had any or not was irrelevant.> He could have, but he didn't. He accomplished the same thing by other means.
