Ticomaya wrote:Well, Larry Johnson doesn't help explain whether she is a "covert agent" under Sec. 426, does he? He says she was "undercover," which doesn't tell us anything about whether she was a "covert agent" at the time of the disclosure. In short, he adds nothing to the analysis.
You need to stick a fork in the ass of your fetish about Plame's status and turn it over, it's done. The Federal Judiciary has already decided in two separate rulings that it considers her status to have been covert under the appropriate statutes at the time Novak outed her.
It is not yours, mine, Larry Johnson's, or even Special Counsel Fitzgerald's decision in this matter, the courts have decided Plame was covert based upon what Fitzgerald's open and
ex parte presentations provided to Judge Hogan and the appeals committee.
Crimminy, when you threw down the Appellate Court ruling as your supporting evidence you didn't even take the time to read it thoroughly and learn about Fitzgerald's
ex parte presentation to Judge Hogan. But it was described in each Appellate Court ruling as providing basic information for presumption that criminal activity had occurred, and was mentioned as an important feature of the appeal in the amicus brief by Toensiling.
The court rejected the argument that Plame was not covert. Go back and read the pertinent passages on this, not just the ones you posted.
You are claiming that regardless of the assessment by four Appellate Court judges of Fitzgerald's open court and
ex parte presentations that show the presumption of criminal activity and a priori demands the state of Plame's status as covert, you remain unconvinced.
It is as if you are demanding evidence on whether a dead body before you actually had lived prior to investigating who murdered it.
I can appreciate that in the course of one's obligations as an attorney one may be required to argue a premise that one knows runs counter to the facts in order to provide the best legal advice possible to win a case, but that level of double-think is not one ought to have on display as a badge of honor outside a courtroom.
Those of us, let's say more classically trained to be objective consider facts more important than winning an argument and find such double-think just repugnant bull$hit.
