Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

The only argument for why someone wasn't charged is that the prosecutor feels they don't have enough of a case to convict. It doesn't mean anything else.

Charges have not been brought for one simple, over-arching, inescapable reason: no underlying crime for which anyone might be charged has been found to exist.

Yes, to break the law, at least two hoops to jump through, one being covert, and the other being intent and knowledge of her status. Unfortunately, Fitz has failed to even jump through the first hoop,

Yes, to break the law, at least two hoops to jump through, one being covert, and the other being intent and knowledge of her status. Unfortunately, Fitz has failed to even jump through the first hoop, let alone the second, which would be probably the most difficult of all. Which makes many of us sit out here for years wondering what in the world is this man doing anyway?

To bring up an analogy I used before, if an investigator investigates a possible burglary, he must first establish items are missing, and secondly that someone stole them without permission. Once that is established, that a crime actually did occur, then continue to investigate the crime to find out who did it. In this case, he has yet to tell anybody if he has established that anything is even missing, after 3 years.

okie wrote:

Yes, to break the law, at least two hoops to jump through, one being covert, and the other being intent and knowledge of her status. Unfortunately, Fitz has failed to even jump through the first hoop,

And you know this how okie? Please provide us with your inside knowledge of what the CIA told Fitzgerald.

You are doing nothing but speculating. Your speculation requires that the CIA lied to investigators when they asked for the investigation. If the CIA lied why have no CIA officials been indicted? I highly doubt a prosecutor willing to make a name for himself would have missed the opportunity to ingratiate himself to the administration while at the same time indicting high ranking members of the CIA. Imagine the circus with 3 or 4 CIA officials on trial. Fitzgerald would be your hero if he had done that okie. But no, he charged the wrong people with lying. You just can't believe so you make up your own evidence and claim it is true.

Provide us with your source that shows the CIA didn't tell the truth.

Gee,
The police withhold information about crimes all the time. Failure to tell the public what was missing in no way means the crime didn't occur. It could mean the police are withholding that information because only the criminal would know what it was. Most bank robberies fail to list the amount of money that was stolen


This story says 408 bank robberies occured in NYC in 2003 but only lists the amount of money stolen in one of them. Does that mean the other 407 didn't occur okie? Bank robberies The police are obvious liars, aren't they okie? They haven't produced any evidence of how much money was taken in those bank robberies so those bank robberies didn't happen. Your logic is impeccable, don't you think?

You are too funny okie.
It is a crime to make a false crime report. You do know that, don't you?

In one paragraph you claim they shouldn't be charged while claiming they did it for political reasons and not because it was actually a crime. Why on earth would a prosecutor out to make a name for himself not jump on a crime like that?

I do think, however, that he made a wrong turn and should have gone down the road of questioning Joseph Wilson under oath. After all, he has information pertinent to this case, that would be important factors in establishing whether this is actually a crime, and if so, who originally leaked the information.

Well, I think it takes logic to recognize logic, Parados. Remember the argument we had about Clinton being handed OBL on a silver platter by Sudan? I knew after that argument that you would never ever admit any hint of being wrong about anything, regardless of how compelling the evidence and logic was.

As cyclops says, cheers. At least you are fun to debate, although frustrating as well. Maybe if you would grow up past the crybaby stage, you could understand logic?