Tico said:
Quote:I nearly agree with you completely here, Soz. But I do think, at this time, it is meaningless. Put it aside ... keep an eye on it ... but until such time as it is explaned more fully, and given context and form, it is meaningless. And it isn't evidence, unlike the very relevant opinion of Karl Rove concerning his intent. The only possible way it would be evidence is if this official is in a position to have knowledge concerning where Ms. Plame has been stationed in the last year, and his/her opinion as to the legal effect of that knowledge is only pertinent if he has the legal background and experience to square those facts with the IIPA, and form a reasoned legal opinion.
Meaningless? As in without meaning? You can't be serious.
and again:
Quote:What's wrong with the lawyers having all the power?
You are tweaking us again, aren't you?
and again:
Quote:
This issue (whether Rove committed a crime) is obviously deserving of a legal analysis. Of course we can employ inference and deduction in our fanciful discussion of this issue, but we should be mindful of the shortfalls of doing so.
Fanciful? Consider the implications in your choice of word here. Towards us, the other posters, as opposed to the legal community I suppose. And what are the shortfalls of empirical evidence, inference and deduction?
Quote: I keep emphasizing that nobody is able to answer the simple question of whether she is a covert agent, a prerequisite for triggering the IIPA. It isn't that there isn't any conclusive evidence ... it's that there is NO evidence.
Where is it written that she must have been a covert agent (and at what point in time?) to trigger the IIPA?
And of course there are people that are able to answer the simple question as to whether she had worked as a covert agent.
This post is long enough. More later.
