Valerie Plame Confirms Her Covert Status Prior To Novak Leak

[Colon™]

Teh people demand those Vanity Fair covers.

[Sava]

I'd do her

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

a) Fitzgerald never claimed jack wrt Plame covert status.
b) Of course Plame and CIA affirm to the fact that she was covert since both have previously said so. Hers in a civil charge. CIA in requesting Fitzgerald to investigate in the first place.
c) It's good you mention Toensing as she was the one who drafted the legislation in the first place and wrote an amicus curiae in support of Cooper and Miller saying no law was broken via-a-vis Intelligence Identities Act of 1982.


All in all this was a whole lot of nothing (other than a plaintiffs assertion) that gives no further illumination as to whether or not she was covert and if the law was truly broken.

Toensing says no. Fitzgerald apparently saw the case for IIA of 1982 violations as being too weak for indictment/prosecution. Does that mean he deemed her status as covert as the weak link, or the intent of the leakers, or knowledge of her alleged covert status by the leakers as the reasons for non-prosecution. Who knows?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Heresson


she is?

Show us some women who used to work for one of your intelligence services...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Fitzgerald apparently saw the case for IIA of 1982 violations as being too weak for indictment/prosecution. Does that mean he deemed her status as covert as the weak link, or the intent of the leakers, or knowledge of her alleged covert status by the leakers as the reasons for non-prosecution. Who knows?

Not necessarily. He could have simply made a trial lawyer's decision that it was a simpler case to put in front of a jury.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Berzerker
of course, and yet we see Dino repeating the Repug line - she appeared on Vanity Fair, that means... well... it means she wasn't too concerned with public exposure.

DinoDoc has always been a partisan hack. A nice guy but still a hack.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Not necessarily. He could have simply made a trial lawyer's decision that it was a simpler case to put in front of a jury.

Translation: He didn't think he had a case. Reason for such a line of thought - unknown.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Translation: You don't have a clue.

Same thing applies in civil cases. I can sue for a, b, or c, but only collect once. Do I try to make a case the easy way, or spend more time/resources/money to prove every element of every theory of the case?

Same thing with the Enron trials - there are hundreds of other counts which also could have been pursued against Lay, Skilling and Fastow, but for what point?

Perjury and obstruction are easy cases to make with well defined jury instructions and a solid body of appellate law. Why bother with a less tested, more complex statute when you know you can nail the guy and make your point the easier way? It's not like Libby would actually serve more time?

[DinoDoc]

Why not charge the leaker, MtG?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Translation: You don't have a clue.

Same thing applies in civil cases. I can sue for a, b, or c, but only collect once. Do I try to make a case the easy way, or spend more time/resources/money to prove every element of every theory of the case?

Same thing with the Enron trials - there are hundreds of other counts which also could have been pursued against Lay, Skilling and Fastow, but for what point?

Perjury and obstruction are easy cases to make with well defined jury instructions and a solid body of appellate law. Why bother with a less tested, more complex statute when you know you can nail the guy and make your point the easier way? It's not like Libby would actually serve more time?

Because Libby wasn't the target perhaps? Any charges of noncompliance with IIAP 1982 would have been levied at Armitage at a minimum. Likely Rove as well. Sure Libby gets the easy perjury charge doesn't mean the others who apparently didn't perjure themselves weren't guilty of the more heinous (as requested via CIA) charge of violating IIAP 1982. Failure to indict the others for what CLEARLY (according to those here purporting) was violation of this statute is evidence enough that Fitzgerald thought he didn't have a case. End of story full stop. Reasons unknown.

Did he get his pound of flesh? Yep in the form of worthless perjury charges. Did he advance the notion that some violation of IIAP 1982 occurred, nope, not in the slightest.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I smell politics.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I'm shocked shocked. Politics in DC who'ld a thunk?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Isn't it a rule now that special prosecutors have to get somebody for somethin', so that nobody can whine too much about wasting the taxpayer's money?

And rule 2 is that if the Congress is controlled by the same party as the guys being investigated, you have to pick the lowest fall-guy you can?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Libby actually was higher by org chart standards than Rove or Armitage.

I mean face it you got Libby and Bush at the same level reporting into Cheney.

[Drake Tungsten]

I mean face it you got Libby and Bush at the same level reporting into Cheney.