Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

specifically that Ms. Plame has been stationed overseas within 5 years prior to the disclosure.

There are punishments even for 'unknowingly' giving out secure information, as I'm sure you know, Tico.

But I would only take exception with this:

Quote:

specifically that Ms. Plame has been stationed overseas within 5 years prior to the disclosure.

Stationed, or travelled on assignment? My reading of the statute seems to say that she could merely have gone overseas on assignment for this to count.

And we of course have no information to go off of on that count, so....

Cycloptichorn

Tico,
The same logical conclusions any jury would come to in a court of law in spite of your spin. As a lawyer you should be well aware of the difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. It's unreasonable to expect that lawyers in the DoJ and in the CIA all came to bad conclusions. The AG didn't recuse himself because there was no legal basis for the pursuit of criminal activity. There is a rather large law community that have actually looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from you who has not looked at it. A reasonable person would take the word of multiple people all agreeing as opposed to a naysayer that has no access.

Or, we could act like adults, have a little patience, and wait until the investigation is completed and Mr. Fitzgerald has revealed his results.

Tico,
The same logical conclusions any jury would come to in a court of law in spite of your spin. As a lawyer you should be well aware of the difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. It's unreasonable to expect that lawyers in the DoJ and in the CIA all came to bad conclusions. The AG didn't recuse himself because there was no legal basis for the pursuit of criminal activity. There is a rather large law community that have actually looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from you who has not looked at it. A reasonable person would take the word of multiple people all agreeing as opposed to a naysayer that has no access.

JustWonders wrote:

Or, we could act like adults, have a little patience, and wait until the investigation is completed and Mr. Fitzgerald has revealed his results.

I am not the one claiming that Fitzgerald didn't bother to check the most basic part of the law and find out if Plame was covered under it or not.

parados wrote:

Tico,
The same logical conclusions any jury would come to in a court of law in spite of your spin. As a lawyer you should be well aware of the difference between reasonable doubt and unreasonable doubt. It's unreasonable to expect that lawyers in the DoJ and in the CIA all came to bad conclusions. The AG didn't recuse himself because there was no legal basis for the pursuit of criminal activity. There is a rather large law community that have actually looked at the evidence and come to a conclusion different from you who has not looked at it. A reasonable person would take the word of multiple people all agreeing as opposed to a naysayer that has no access.

So, it's verified beyond a shadow of doubt that she was covert and this has been proven and testified to and is now fact?

Tico, I think you have ... at long last ... your answer :wink:

JustWonders wrote:

Or, we could act like adults, have a little patience, and wait until the investigation is completed and Mr. Fitzgerald has revealed his results.

We could. I am happy to wait for the results. I will be happy to live with the results. Will you state now that you will support whatever indictments or other findings Fitzgerald comes out with?

I am not the one claiming that Fitzgerald didn't bother to check the most basic part of the law and find out if Plame was covered under it or not.

OMFG!!! Why does anyone even discuss this refuted "Plame is not covert" canard?

parados wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

Or, we could act like adults, have a little patience, and wait until the investigation is completed and Mr. Fitzgerald has revealed his results.

We could. I am happy to wait for the results. I will be happy to live with the results. Will you state now that you will support whatever indictments or other findings Fitzgerald comes out with?

I am not the one claiming that Fitzgerald didn't bother to check the most basic part of the law and find out if Plame was covered under it or not.

You are the one who has leaped to conclude he is only focusing on the IIPA.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

JustWonders wrote:

Or, we could act like adults, have a little patience, and wait until the investigation is completed and Mr. Fitzgerald has revealed his results.

We could. I am happy to wait for the results. I will be happy to live with the results. Will you state now that you will support whatever indictments or other findings Fitzgerald comes out with?

I am not the one claiming that Fitzgerald didn't bother to check the most basic part of the law and find out if Plame was covered under it or not.

You are the one who has leaped to conclude he is only focusing on the IIPA.

LOL.. wow.. when did I say that was all he was focusing on? You fall victim to your own tactics here Tico.

CIA lawyers determined that revealing Plame's name was a possible violation of US law.
DoJ lawyers determined that revealing Plame's name was a possible violation of US law.
US Code states that willfully revealing the name of covert agent is a violation of US law.
US prosecutor Fitzgerald and the GJ have continued to think there is a possible violation of law.
Papers filed with Court and a judge's ruling state there is the very real threat to national security from this investigation.

How many billable hours are you getting per week, Tico?

Tico,

There is a large difference between the REASON that the CIA and DoJ started the investigation and the possible reasons that it continues today.

The CIA has stated that it informed the DoJ that a possible crime was committed when the name of a undercover CIA agent was revealed. The DoJ concurred and started the investigation. Fitzgerald may have rejected that by this time because he can't meet the "intent" part of the law but the only probable way to start the investigation is to meet the "covert" status based on what the CIA reported as a possible crime.

At this point, Fitzgerald could be investigating conspiracy, obstruction, lying to Federal investigators etc. But there is no way to make an argument to start the investigation if you can't come close to meeting the covert status of the law.

So Tico if I argue for something does that mean I am against unrelated items? If I question the existence of something would that mean I am really against it when I refuse to address a list of items that show it to exist?

Until you can explain away my list Tico you don't have much of a question there. It is unreasonable because you can't show reason why you think the question has any validity.

I have also heard that Plame was "outed" by Aldrich Ames back in 1994, so she was brought back to the States and given a desk job. If that's accurate, that would likely mean she was not sent overseas again.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.