Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
I didn't say there was any evidence that no crime was committed. What I'm curious about is why you feel there was a crime committed when there is absolutely no evidence to prove an ESSENTIAL element of the crime. Where there is no evidence of an ESSENTIAL element of a crime, there is -- therefore -- no evidence that a crime was committed. Why is that line of reasoning so difficult for you to follow?

Because, Tico, Plame's identity was outed. It isn't as if there wasn't evidence that incorrect actions took place somewhere.

Incorrect actions do not mean a crime was committed.

Quote:

A similar situation according to your logic: the police find a body. Investigators look into the matter. There is circumstantial evidence that a certain person either murdered the man or was closely involved. He is clearly lying about where he was that night. But, we can't find the murder weapon, so the case can't go forward. And your conclusion would be that there was no crime committed?

No, that is not what my conclusion would be, and nothing I have said justifies your thinking that would be my conclusion. If there is circumstantial evidence to show a person committed the crime of murder, that is sufficient evidence to move forward with the prosecution of the crime of murder.

A better analogy is there is a dead body, but there is no evidence to prove whether there was a homicide or not ... or if it was homicide, whether it was murder. If there is circumstantial evidence to prove a certain person was involved with the death, that does not mean there is ANY evidence that a murder was committed. And that person may or may not be guilty of murder, but it would be grossly unfair to conclude that person is guilty of murder when there is no evidence a murder was committed. Are you following this?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
... remember that Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice, and that's exactly what his ObJustice did - keep any possible IIPA charges from moving forward.

Cycloptichorn

You might try, again, to explain for me your rationale for believing the above to be a true statement. If Fitzgerald had the goods to prove obstruction of justice, how would it have changed things, viz the underlying Plame investigation, had Libby testified in accordance with the facts adduced at Libby's trial?

Oh, but Fitz did have the goods on ObJustice. He secured a conviction on that count, if you recall.

Um, yes I know. Read my question and replace "if" with "since." I would have thought the context would be sufficient to show what I meant, but apparently you aren't firing on all cylinders this a.m.

Quote:

If Libby had testified fully and truthfully, it would have given Fitz the opportunity to either bring charges against people for knowingly violating the IIPA, or to determine that in fact no charges could be brought against anyone for doing so. As it is, it is not possible to determine. The investigation could not reach fruition, b/c Libby's lies prevented it from doing so. Remember the 'cloud' over the VP; you know exactly what Fitz meant when he said that.

No, you aren't following my question. Libby lied ... Fitzgerald knew he lied ... Fitzgerald proved he lied ... okay, we all understand that. This is my question: If Libby had testified truthfully, as Fitzgerald was able to prove he should have, HOW WOULD THAT HAVE ALLOWED FITZGERALD TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST ANYBODY FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE IIPA? Because if Fitzgerald was able to prove how Libby should have testified, he already had the evidence that Libby would have testified to, had he done so accurately and/or truthfully. And since he already had that evidence, he did not need Libby's testimony to further the Plame investigation.

0 Replies

Advocate: Okie, the disgrace is in the manner Fitz conducted his investigation. There is certainly no disgrace that there was an investigation.

You got that right! If Fitz really wanted to do a thorough job, he needed to dig deeper into what happened between Libby and his boss, and the others that influenced his revelation about Plame to the media. I see it as a half-arse job too!

0 Replies

Quote:

No, you aren't following my question. Libby lied ... Fitzgerald knew he lied ... Fitzgerald proved he lied ... okay, we all understand that. This is my question: If Libby had testified truthfully, as Fitzgerald was able to prove he should have, HOW WOULD THAT HAVE ALLOWED FITZGERALD TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST ANYBODY FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE IIPA? Because if Fitzgerald was able to prove how Libby should have testified, he already had the evidence that Libby would have testified to, had he done so accurately and/or truthfully. And since he already had that evidence, he did not need Libby's testimony to further the Plame investigation.

I posit that Fitzgerald either suspected or had proof that Libby was not truthful regarding conversations between himself and the VP about the Plame case. Libby lied in order to provide a rational basis for the actions he took without the conversations where he (I suspect) was ordered by Cheney to get the word out about Plame.

But, without first-hand testimony, there's no way to either prove or disprove this theory. I don't think that Fitzgerald has any way to bring IIPA charges without first-hand accounts of Intent on either Libby or Cheney's part.

There has been no rational explanation offered by Libby or his supporters for why he felt it was necessary to contact several members of the media and inform them of Plame's identity. Occam's razor would suggest that he was told to do so by his superiors, or at the very least decided to do so on his own. Instead, he offered the explanation that the reporters were the ones who contacted him and asked questions about the case. This was shown to be false; his ObJustice was to try and create a false narrative about the events which took place, and what actions led to those events.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I will again point out that the Grand Jurors were surprised that Fitz did not ask for an indictment against Rove. His reputation is impeccable in the regard that he is not the type to overreach, in fact, if anything, he under-reaches.

Quote:

No, you aren't following my question. Libby lied ... Fitzgerald knew he lied ... Fitzgerald proved he lied ... okay, we all understand that. This is my question: If Libby had testified truthfully, as Fitzgerald was able to prove he should have, HOW WOULD THAT HAVE ALLOWED FITZGERALD TO BRING CHARGES AGAINST ANYBODY FOR THE VIOLATION OF THE IIPA?

No one knows for sure as one can't read Fitz's mind. Certainly had Libby and everyone, including Rove, testified truthfully, the investigation would have went in a different direction. What direction we don't know and will not know unless and until Fitzgerald decides to tell us.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne: No one knows for sure as one can't read Fitz's mind. Certainly had Libby and everyone, including Rove, testified truthfully, the investigation would have went in a different direction. What direction we don't know and will not know unless and until Fitzgerald decides to tell us.

Yeah, that's my point; why Fitz, known for his thoroughness has not gone further in his investigation to question Cheney and Rove. What a big disappointment!

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Has Novak testified in front of a Grand Jury? Has he sworn an oath to tell the truth? No, he has not, and in fact his story has changed several times. So it's amazing to me that you could find him to be more believable.
Cycloptichorn

How about Harlow? Has he testified under oath? Ask him exactly what he told Novak, and then what did he tell other people, then call those people in and ask them to testify. Lets get to the bottom of this case. How about Valerie Plame? How about Joseph Wilson? Have they been called to testify? All pertinent players in this scenario as to whether Plame was covert and what Harlow told Novak, and on and on. Then, I agree, put Novak under oath. But how about Armitage? Has he testified under oath concerning the pertinent points? How about people like David Corn and Bob Woodward? Put all of these people under oath and find out what they knew and who they told what. This is about leaking to the press, so lets get the press involved. They should all love the limelight, and so should Valerie Plame and lets see which story she tells on the stand. If Fitz has a case, he should at least find out if a crime was committed. Witch hunts can go all kinds of directions. What did Joseph Wilson know about the CIA's secret work, and what did he tell to other people about his wife and when? Many people have made noises that Plame was an open secret in Washington. Find out if that is true, and if so, let us quit this nonsense once and for all, pardon Libby, and forget the whole thing.

0 Replies

Sheesh, Okie, read the article!!!

Quote:

How about Harlow? Has he testified under oath?

Yes, Harlow testified under oath before the GJ.

Quote:

How about Valerie Plame?

Yes, she testified under oath before Waxman's committee.

Quote:

If Fitz has a case, he should at least find out if a crime was committed.

Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie. The only question is whether or not he can prove it in a court of law.

Quote:

Many people have made noises that Plame was an open secret in Washington

Translation: Republicans have made noises to this effect. But there is no such thing as an 'open secret.' Information is either classified or it isn't, and her identity was classified.

Quote:

Find out if that is true, and if so, let us quit this nonsense once and for all, pardon Libby, and forget the whole thing.

Libby was convicted of lying; why on earth does he deserve to be pardoned? Even if there was no underlying crime, it's still illegal to lie to the grand jury. Or do I need to ask your opinion on Clinton?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

Fair translation. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that he may have access to evidence which helps him reach this conclusion that you or I may not be privy to; in fact, this is doubtless.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

Fair translation. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that he may have access to evidence which helps him reach this conclusion that you or I may not be privy to; in fact, this is doubtless.

Cycloptichorn

If that's the case, it's apparently not very good evidence, huh?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

Fair translation. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that he may have access to evidence which helps him reach this conclusion that you or I may not be privy to; in fact, this is doubtless.

Cycloptichorn

If that's the case, it's apparently not very good evidence, huh?

I'm sure it's great evidence, if you aren't trying to prove a crime which was written to have an incredibly high standard of evidence.

I'm sure Fitz has spent plenty of time cursing the writers of the IIPA for making it impossible to actually charge someone under it. Without the Intent clause, you'd see people charged for it in the drop of a hat. As it is, it practically requires first-hand testimony, which Libby successfully Obstructed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

Fair translation. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that he may have access to evidence which helps him reach this conclusion that you or I may not be privy to; in fact, this is doubtless.

Cycloptichorn

If that's the case, it's apparently not very good evidence, huh?

I'm sure it's great evidence, if you aren't trying to prove a crime which was written to have an incredibly high standard of evidence.

I'm sure Fitz has spent plenty of time cursing the writers of the IIPA for making it impossible to actually charge someone under it.
...

I see ... it's great evidence, is it? ... except it's not all that good to use in actually proving anything. In my book, that makes it not great.

Quote:

... Without the Intent clause, you'd see people charged for it in the drop of a hat. As it is, it practically requires first-hand testimony, which Libby successfully Obstructed.

Cycloptichorn

That's like saying without the intent clause, you'd see people charged with murder at the drop of a hat. If intent is an essential element of the crime, there is no crime without intent. If you can't prove intent, you cannot prove a crime. So, unless Fitzgerald has evidence of intent, he has no evidence of a crime. If he has some evidence of a crime, but not good enough evidence to take to trial, then he does not, by my definition, have great evidence of intent.

You disagree?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

Fair translation. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that he may have access to evidence which helps him reach this conclusion that you or I may not be privy to; in fact, this is doubtless.

Cycloptichorn

If that's the case, it's apparently not very good evidence, huh?

I'm sure it's great evidence, if you aren't trying to prove a crime which was written to have an incredibly high standard of evidence.

I'm sure Fitz has spent plenty of time cursing the writers of the IIPA for making it impossible to actually charge someone under it.
...

I see ... it's great evidence, is it? ... except it's not all that good to use in actually proving anything. In my book, that makes it not great.

Quote:
... Without the Intent clause, you'd see people charged for it in the drop of a hat. As it is, it practically requires first-hand testimony, which Libby successfully Obstructed.

Cycloptichorn

That's like saying without the intent clause, you'd see people charged with murder at the drop of a hat. If intent is an essential element of the crime, there is no crime without intent. If you can't prove intent, you cannot prove a crime. So, unless Fitzgerald has evidence of intent, he has no evidence of a crime. If he has some evidence of a crime, but not good enough evidence to take to trial, then he does not, by my definition, have great evidence of intent.

You disagree?

You could still charge someone with manslaughter or a lesser charge, normally; but what lesser charge exists here?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie.
...

Translation: He believes it in his soul. He has a gut feeling.

Fair translation. It isn't a stretch to think, though, that he may have access to evidence which helps him reach this conclusion that you or I may not be privy to; in fact, this is doubtless.

Cycloptichorn

If that's the case, it's apparently not very good evidence, huh?

I'm sure it's great evidence, if you aren't trying to prove a crime which was written to have an incredibly high standard of evidence.

I'm sure Fitz has spent plenty of time cursing the writers of the IIPA for making it impossible to actually charge someone under it.
...

I see ... it's great evidence, is it? ... except it's not all that good to use in actually proving anything. In my book, that makes it not great.

Quote:
... Without the Intent clause, you'd see people charged for it in the drop of a hat. As it is, it practically requires first-hand testimony, which Libby successfully Obstructed.

Cycloptichorn

That's like saying without the intent clause, you'd see people charged with murder at the drop of a hat. If intent is an essential element of the crime, there is no crime without intent. If you can't prove intent, you cannot prove a crime. So, unless Fitzgerald has evidence of intent, he has no evidence of a crime. If he has some evidence of a crime, but not good enough evidence to take to trial, then he does not, by my definition, have great evidence of intent.

You disagree?

You could still charge someone with manslaughter or a lesser charge, normally; but what lesser charge exists here?

Cycloptichorn

Or if the intent was to defend oneself from grievous bodily harm, the homicide is justified, and there's no crime whatsoever. That's a lesser charge, I guess.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sheesh, Okie, read the article!!!

Quote:
How about Harlow? Has he testified under oath?

Yes, Harlow testified under oath before the GJ.

Okay, so he did, but how come Fitz did not figure out who was telling the truth here, Harlow or Novak? This point seems pretty crucial to the case. Here is the section in the article:

"Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name.""

First point, he never told Novak she was undercover or "covert," and secondly, he advised him against the publication AFTER he confirmed her identity to him. And the description of her job to Novak implied she did not have foreign assignment, so what do you expect Novak to conclude?

Quote:

Quote:
How about Valerie Plame?

Yes, she testified under oath before Waxman's committee.

and some have accused her of lying to the committee.

Quote:

Quote:
If Fitz has a case, he should at least find out if a crime was committed.

Fitz already knows a crime was committed, Okie. The only question is whether or not he can prove it in a court of law.

Here again, the argument is the same as Ticomaya's. It is totally in doubt what Fitz thinks.

Quote:

Quote:
Many people have made noises that Plame was an open secret in Washington

Translation: Republicans have made noises to this effect. But there is no such thing as an 'open secret.' Information is either classified or it isn't, and her identity was classified.

Huh?

Quote:

Quote:
Find out if that is true, and if so, let us quit this nonsense once and for all, pardon Libby, and forget the whole thing.

Libby was convicted of lying; why on earth does he deserve to be pardoned? Even if there was no underlying crime, it's still illegal to lie to the grand jury. Or do I need to ask your opinion on Clinton?

Cycloptichorn

In Whitewater, crimes were committed and people went to prison to serve time. As usual, Clinton skated.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

In Whitewater, crimes were committed and people went to prison to serve time. As usual, Clinton skated.

Wow. what a world okie must live in. He thinks people went to jail for Whitewater. I wonder which mythical persons went to which mythical jails for a crime concerning Whitewater.

Not one person went to jail for any crime associated with Whitewater okie. Here is the IC's report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/whitewater_032002.html There were no indictments for crimes associated with Whitewater. There were no convictions for crimes associated with Whitewater. But if you want to believe things that aren't true. I guess we can't stop you. Libby was convicted of a crime. That doesn't make him innocent in the real world but in your world of up is down it seems it does.

0 Replies

...interested to see okies reply to this factual recollection of results of whitewater "investigation".

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
In Whitewater, crimes were committed and people went to prison to serve time. As usual, Clinton skated.

Wow. what a world okie must live in. He thinks people went to jail for Whitewater. I wonder which mythical persons went to which mythical jails for a crime concerning Whitewater.

Not one person went to jail for any crime associated with Whitewater okie. Here is the IC's report. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/whitewater_032002.html There were no indictments for crimes associated with Whitewater. There were no convictions for crimes associated with Whitewater. But if you want to believe things that aren't true. I guess we can't stop you. Libby was convicted of a crime. That doesn't make him innocent in the real world but in your world of up is down it seems it does.

Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker were both convicted of crimes associated with Whitewater. McDougal was pardoned by Clinton on 1/20/01.

0 Replies

Parados, you can start by looking up Jim Guy Tucker and the McDougals, all associated with the Whitewater scandal.

Hokiebird, thanks for the info as well. I posted the same time as you.

0 Replies

To date, most of those convicted of crimes have involved the Arkansas phase of Whitewater. On Aug. 17, 1995, Starr obtained an indictment of then-Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and the McDougals, and on May 28, 1996, all three were convicted of charges related to Whitewater. On April 28,1996, Clinton delivered four hours of videotaped testimony on behalf of the defense in the first Whitewater trial. He also testified in the second Whitewater trial -- of Arkansas bankers Herby Branscum and Robert Hill. A hung jury forced a mistrial and Starr has decided not to retry the case.

James McDougal was found guilty on 18 of 19 felony counts of conspiracy and fraud; Susan McDougal was found guilty on four of four felony counts. He will begin serving his sentence in early summer. She is awaiting sentencing and now is imprisoned for her refusal to answer a grand jury's questions and also is awaiting trial on charges of embezzlement in an unrelated matter.

Following his conviction on two of seven felony counts of conspiracy, Tucker resigned as governor and could face up to 10 years in prison. The following individuals also have been convicted or have pleaded guilty to Whitewater-related crimes:

* Stephen Smith (former Clinton political adviser and business partner of McDougal) pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor;

* Eugene Fitzhugh (owner of Townsend Financial Services, which received the $300,000 Hale loan) got a one-year sentence;

* Madison real-estate dealer Robert Palmer was given three years probation;

* Webster Hubbell pleaded guilty to two felony charges of defrauding the Rose Law Firm and served 18 months of a 21-month sentence;

* David Hale received a 28-month sentence and three years supervised release;

* Arkansas banker Neal T. Ainley got two years probation for crimes connected to Clinton's 1990 gubernatorial race;

* Whitewater real-estate broker Christopher Wade was sentenced to 15 months in prison and three years probation;

* Appraiser Charles Matthews was sentenced to 28 months in prison, serving 16;

ARTICLE

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know