Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2007/05/29/politics/animal/main2865777.shtml</a> According to Patrick Fitzgerald. As the writer of the linkedpiece says, this should settle that issue once and for all.
Originally Posted By DlandDug My comment reflects no opinion about Ms. Plame's status. The article in question offers nothing definitive beyond the opinions of two individuals, albeit one of whom (Fitzgerald) carries considerable weight. Rather, my comment was intended to point out that this really settles nothing at all. The lines have been drawn long ago, and those who passionately hold an opinion about Plame's status will be undeterred. Incidently, I have never weighed in on whether or not she was actually covert, as I have little or no interest. I was certainly most interested in finding out who revealed her identity to Novak in the first place. That individual, as we all now know, was Richard Armitage.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder For the uninitiated, here's the key part: "But obviously she had been working under cover outside the U.S. quite extensively during the previous five years, which means that Plame almost certainly qualified as "covert" under the specific definitions outlined in IIPA. Nonetheless, for some reason Fitzgerald decided not to bring outing charges against anyone. This suggests that Mark Kleiman has been right all along: Fitzgerald's decision had nothing to do with technical aspects of IIPA, but rather with its scienter requirements. That is, the leakers had to know that leaking Plame's name could be damaging, and Fitzgerald didn't think he had the evidence to make that case. That might have been especially true since the leaks seem to have been authorized at very high levels, something the leakers could have used in their defense at trial." Focus on "scienter". The Armitages and Libbys of the world had to KNOW leaking her name would be damaging, i.e. that putting her name out there would blow her cover. Fitzgerald, being a diligent prosecutor, was able to see what a possible defense cold be and elected not to go forward. The leakers were executive pawns. "And so, of course, it does." Good that you agree, even if you have to resort to your usual condescension in the process.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 As I remember, Beau was pretty much the only one here insisting he "knew" that she wasn't covert to begin with, and no one was taking him seriously anyway. Of course, he represented plenty of wingnuts outside of LP who insisted on this. <I was certainly most interested in finding out who revealed her identity to Novak in the first place. That individual, as we all now know, was Richard Armitage.> But it's worth remembering that others inside the administration were also leaking her name to other reporters in the same period (Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, at least). They decided not to print that leak publicly, and so Novak was the first to do so, but others besides Armitage did indeed leak her name inappropriately (and possibly illegally, though Fitzgerald didn't know that he could prove it beyond a reasonable doubt).
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Good that you agree, even if you have to resort to your usual condescension in the process.<< Clearly I did not agree. I was not being condescencing, I was being facetious. The explanation above (as well as the explanation of the explanantion for those who apparently believe some of us need to have explanations explained) contain an awful lot of words like "almost certainly," "suggests," and "might have been," leading to the psychic conclusion, "The Armitages and Libbys of the world had to KNOW leaking her name would be damaging..." As I said above, the lines were drawn on this one long ago.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> My comment reflects no opinion about Ms. Plame's status. The article in question offers nothing definitive beyond the opinions of two individuals << Ms Plame's covert status has never been a matter of 'opinion'. People who contend that she was not covert maintain this belief in order to serve a larger agenda that the she wasn't outed by this administration and that libby was unjustly prosecuted. In other words, it's their oxe being gored. But they don't get to decide who is or isn't covert. That's okay, they've gotten to be very good at ignoring actual facts over thier beliefs and opinions.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <leading to the psychic conclusion, "The Armitages and Libbys of the world had to KNOW leaking her name would be damaging..."> Read a little closer, there, Dug. The original author (as well as SPP) is not making a psychic conclusion that they did know; he is saying "the Armitages and Libbys of the world had to know leaking her name would be damaging, in order for them to be prosecuted; if that could not be proven, they would not be" (and Fitzgerald wasn't sure he could make that case).
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Read a little closer, there, Dug. The original author (as well as SPP) is not making a psychic conclusion that they did know; he is saying "the Armitages and Libbys of the world had to know leaking her name would be damaging, in order for them to be prosecuted; if that could not be proven, they would not be" (and Fitzgerald wasn't sure he could make that case)." Exactly. But was Dug being facetious or condescending with the "psychic" crack? I misplaced my Dug handbook.
Originally Posted By jonvn Didn't she say she was covert in her congressional testimony? If she wasn't, that's lying before congress. Doesn't seem that she's been indicted yet.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder She said she was covert, we all know she was covert, but some among us still don't believe it.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes... The level of outright criminality and unpatriotic activity in this administration is horrible. It has done nothing but further our decline as a nation.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But was Dug being facetious or condescending with the "psychic" crack? I misplaced my Dug handbook.<< Gee, and here I thought this was a thread about Valerie Plame...
Originally Posted By gadzuux The larger picture is that this is a thread about the corruption of the GOP and the complicity in these crimes by their supporters. Apparently after all of the indignities heaped upon conservatives by the current administration, the last remnants of support (the "rock bottom remainders") will excuse anything by this administration. ANYthing. Even today there's yet another whispering campaign - fueled by not one but TWO books - about the clintons' sex life - all in an effort to derail the democratic front-runner. Hey, it worked before, right? Let's sling the muddiest mud we can find again. And it's all being done without shame. They don't seem to understand how they reduce themselves in the process. Maybe that's because they've already stooped so low that it's no longer seen as demeaning to their own reputation. Instead it's just more of the same. Lying to congress? That's easy. They've made a national hero out of oliver north who is more famous for perjuring himself before congress than for anything else - save perhaps for running a 'secret war' out of the white house basement. Gonzales has provided testimony to congressthat's more false than true, yet he gets the full endorsement from the leader of the GOP party. Bush names a signatore of the 1998 PNAC letter to replace the disgraced wolfowitz as head of the world bank. Other signers of this document were wolfowitz himself, along with rumsfeld, bolton, bill bennett, armitage, and elliott abrams. Meet the new boss - same as the old boss.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder For the longest time I felt that charges of corruption, criminal behavior and the like against this Administration were the wishes of the extreme left. It couldn't be as bad as all that. Now I'm not so sure, not sure at all. It's embarrassing to say I voted for Bush.
Originally Posted By jonvn No one could have forseen what contempt this admin has had for the laws of this nation. It's nothing to be embarassed over. While I don't agree with the generaly policies, that's a standard thing to disagree on. But it really has gone beyond that.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>The larger picture is that this is a thread about the corruption of the GOP and the complicity in these crimes by their supporters.<< Uh, no. It's about "Valerie Plame WAS covert." But if you want to try and say it's something else, be my guest.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Uh, no. It's about "Valerie Plame WAS covert." But if you want to try and say it's something else, be my guest." Well, confirmation that this is Dug's board and he just lets us live here. Nice.
