Originally Posted By woody >>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.<< The night is young. Ken Starr was in the background until the investigation proceeded and changed from Whitewater to the Paula Jones case. Fitzgerald has already changed his mandate with the Libby indictment on perjury charges. >>He could have, but he didn't. He accomplished the same thing by other means.<< Fitzgerald has allowed himself to appear unprepared. It might not hurt his lawsuit, but it opens the door to new questions. >>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.<< How can you say DouglasDubh is the liar since Fitzgerald said some contradictory statements?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <None of the evidence I've seen, posted by you or otherwise, is definitive - or even convincing - evidence that she is not covert.> At least, not in your mind. <Good grief. He SAID she was.> No, he didn't. He said her status was classified at the time Novak's column was published. When asked if she was covert, he refused to answer. <He said flat out she was. Why do you keep ignoring THAT little point?> I can't ignore something that didn't happen. <Because that's not the quote where he said he had no documents proving she was not covert.> Yes, it's the one where he said he didn't have any documents proving she was classified, like I said. <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).> No, he said he didn't have any documents showing she was not classified. Again, classified is not covert. <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.> There's no conflict between what I said and what Mr Fitzgerald said, if you understand the difference between classified and covert.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Potential witnesses in the upcoming criminal trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as referenced in court papers by Libby's lawyers. The trial is scheduled for January: Look at the last three names! _Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state. _Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary. _Marc Grossman, former undersecretary of state for political affairs. _Colin Powell, the former secretary of state. _Karl Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff. _George Tenet, the former CIA director. _Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador _Valerie Plame Wilson Between those last three, I wager there will never be testimony. Plame and Wilson know that they're now in a trap: they either have to confess that Plame wasn't undercover at all and this was all a political ruse, or they try to keep up the ridiculous façade that she was undercover, and face perjury charges themselves. My guess is that the Dems shut down Fitz at this point... or they will at least try and spin out of this " scandal ". They've been mighty quiet about this lately, which tells me that they're regretting ever having opened this can of worms.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Plame and Wilson know that they're now in a trap: they either have to confess that Plame wasn't undercover at all << No, they don't have to say anything about that at all because it is completely irrelevant to the Libby case.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "No, they don't have to say anything about that at all because it is completely irrelevant to the Libby case." Yup.
Originally Posted By bboisvert <<which tells me that they're regretting ever having opened this can of worms.>> Well, since the Democrats don't have the majority in either chamber, they don't even have to power to open a can of soup. This whole investigation was started when the CIA, as a matter of procedure I believe, requested that the Justice Department look into whether or not Bob Novak had knowingly exposed a classified agent's identity. Why would Novak do this, Beau? Is it because novak is one of the most partisan Neo-con columnists to ever pick up a pen? Is it because he just forgot that you cannot disclose classified information. Not once, but twice? First by publishing her name, the second time by linking her front company, Brewster Jennings. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer</a> <snip> The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates." "There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery." </snip> <snip> The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered. A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. "That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said. </snip> I don't see the Democrats anywhere in this scenario, Beau, except (if you want a real stretch) that she donated to the Gore for President campaign, which is not a crime. Here's something I find interesting... <a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?ID=3840566&p1=0" target="_blank">http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.a spx?ID=3840566&p1=0</a> <snip> Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation last week, raising speculation that the Justice Department might be a focus of the probe. Friday’s development indicated that the investigation remained zeroed in the White House, however. The investigation is being led by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, who was appointed as special counsel when Ashcroft stepped aside. Fitzgerald will have independent authority to direct the investigation without seeking approval from the top officials of the Justice Department. </snip> Why did Ashcroft recuse himself from an investigation of the White House? Is there some kind of connection between him and someone there? Hmmmmm.... Oh yes. Karl Rove was on campaign team when Ashcroft was in Missouri running to RETAIN his Senate seat and then LOST TO A DEAD GUY! The same Karl Rove who the WH said has not played a role in this leak. <snip from same article> The White House has ruled out any role by three top administration officials in the leak: political adviser Karl Rove; Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter†Libby; and National Security Council official Eliot Abrams. </snip> Apparently, the Special Procecutor, appointed by Ashcroft (not a Democrat), thinks that at least one onf these men isn't telling him the truth. Now why would he think that? I guess you have to read the indictment. <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/ osc/documents/libby_indictment_28102005.pdf</a> So far, I haven't seen where the Democrats started any of this. Sure, they took the opportunity to get behind the investigation, but this is a Neo-con scandal start to finish.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Is it because novak is one of the most partisan Neo-con columnists to ever pick up a pen?> It's definitely not that. Mr Novak opposed the war in Iraq.
Originally Posted By woody "I don't see the Democrats anywhere in this scenario, Beau, except (if you want a real stretch) that she donated to the Gore for President campaign, which is not a crime." The Wilson/Plame are the Democrats in this scenario. They are working in the agency and the government with the presumption of handling intelligence impartially. Not quite impartial based on what has transpired.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, they don't have to say anything about that at all because it is completely irrelevant to the Libby case.> Libby's lawyers have made a pretty compelling case that it's not. We'll see what the judge says.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Libby's lawyers have made a pretty compelling case that it's not.<< Not really. It's obfuscation.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not really. It's obfuscation.> Says one of the guys who keeps putting words in the prosecutor's mouth. Have you read the motion?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The indictment isn't about Wilson's status. Libby isn't charged with revealing her status. He's charged with obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. How is Wilson's classified status relevant to those charges? It isn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How is Wilson's classified status relevant to those charges?> Maybe you should read the motion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Apparently, Byron York of National Review is the only person who took the time to look at the motion. Here's a link to his column on it. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200603200927.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ york/york200603200927.asp</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<None of the evidence I've seen, posted by you or otherwise, is definitive - or even convincing - evidence that she is not covert.>> <<Good grief. He SAID she was.>> <No, he didn't. He said her status was classified at the time Novak's column was published. When asked if she was covert, he refused to answer.> Okay, we're back to "classified" vs. "covert" - and I'm not about to go back and see which of said which word when. I may well have used the wrong word at some point, and we've gotten to this "gotcha" place. Well done, if that's your game.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>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.<< <The night is young. Ken Starr was in the background until the investigation proceeded and changed from Whitewater to the Paula Jones case. Fitzgerald has already changed his mandate with the Libby indictment on perjury charges.> Charging Libby with lying ABOUT the Plame case, if not with outing her himself, is rather a closer link than Whitewater to Paula Jones. >>He could have, but he didn't. He accomplished the same thing by other means.<< <Fitzgerald has allowed himself to appear unprepared. It might not hurt his lawsuit, but it opens the door to new questions.> He didn't seem unprepared at all. >>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.<< <How can you say DouglasDubh is the liar since Fitzgerald said some contradictory statements?> I didn't say Doug was the liar; I said he was claiming Fitzgerald was. With the covert vs. classified "thang," you can certainly read it that neither of us was claiming he was.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well done, if that's your game.> It's not a game. It's simply keeping your side honest.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 No, it's your little game of "gotcha" because that's all you've got. I've been honest; substituting one word when I wanted another is not dishonest, thank you.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But there's no link to the motion itself? How can I be expected to read the motion if neither of us can find it anywhere? It seems like the Libby defense is still trying to make this case out to be about the leak itself rather than about Libby's actions during the investigation.
