Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

When you two can demonstrate that the great prosecutor ever came up with an underlying crime, the crime you are so convinced happened, then your opinion might matter. And until he indicts the man that actually outed the great Valerie Plame Wilson, Mr. Armitage, then your opinions don't amount to a hill of beans. Your problem is that your liberal friends are so driven by hatred that you had the case tried and convicted before a crime was ever determined to have happened, and so you made one up, and to this day the crime has never been determined. The whole affair was a waste of taxpayers time and money.

0 Replies

Typical de-moKKKer-rat manufactured scandal. They seemingly manufacture scandals much the same way they manufacture votes.

0 Replies

FACT: Fitzgerald started this investigation because of the outing of a CIA agent. Whether that is a crime is yet to be determined. Otherwise, the secondary crime of lying to the FBI and grand jury would never have happened. You don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

Funny how some people miss this simple logic.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

FYou don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

Sorry, but that's PRECISELY what the turkey did. Plame was never a covert agent or anything of the sort and her identity was public knowledge. It's precisely this kind of abuse of our legal system which leads me to think that the US is no longer really a viable country and needs to be split up.

0 Replies

A typical neocon newspeak. She had the clearance , thats a fact, she had undercover company, thats a fact, the outing of her has potentially jeopardized her undercover company contacts who were under deep cover, thats a fact.

You seem to dispose of TREASON as a minor traffic violation. (I think perhaps that you spend too much tim e listening to hate talk radio)

0 Replies

You're full of **** as usual "farmerman", the parameters of this are well known. Plame was a leftover KKKlintonista flunky doing office work whose identity was known. If any sort of a crime had been committed, then you and fitzgerald need to tell us the name of the criminal, and I mean crimes other than not having a perfect memory.

0 Replies

Amazing, the loony right-wingers still claim Plame wasn't covert.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

FACT: Fitzgerald started this investigation because of the outing of a CIA agent. Whether that is a crime is yet to be determined. Otherwise, the secondary crime of lying to the FBI and grand jury would never have happened. You don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

Funny how some people miss this simple logic.

As gungasnake pointed out the obvious, that is what happened. To this day, Fitzgerald has never asserted a crime occurred per the statutes involved. Never. We are all still waiting. How many years has it been now?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
FACT: Fitzgerald started this investigation because of the outing of a CIA agent. Whether that is a crime is yet to be determined. Otherwise, the secondary crime of lying to the FBI and grand jury would never have happened. You don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

Funny how some people miss this simple logic.

As gungasnake pointed out the obvious, that is what happened. To this day, Fitzgerald has never asserted a crime occurred per the statutes involved. Never. We are all still waiting. How many years has it been now?

Fitzgerald said that determining the truth was impossible due to Libby's perjury. Remember the "sand in the face of the umpire" metaphor?

Stop lying, okie.

0 Replies

Bush and Cheney have not been indicted. Therefore, in the minds of the Reps here, it follows that there was nothing wrong with their performance. Bush will go down in history as the worst president ever.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Whether that is a crime is yet to be determined.

What do you suppose the time line of that investigation is? Do you seriously think it's ongoing?

c.i. wrote:

You don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

This is evidently not the case, c.i.

c.i. wrote:

Funny how some people miss this simple logic.

In my opinion, good logic is better than "simple" logic.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
FACT: Fitzgerald started this investigation because of the outing of a CIA agent. Whether that is a crime is yet to be determined. Otherwise, the secondary crime of lying to the FBI and grand jury would never have happened. You don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

Funny how some people miss this simple logic.

As gungasnake pointed out the obvious, that is what happened. To this day, Fitzgerald has never asserted a crime occurred per the statutes involved. Never. We are all still waiting. How many years has it been now?

Fitzgerald said that determining the truth was impossible due to Libby's perjury. Remember the "sand in the face of the umpire" metaphor?

Stop lying, okie.

Bullshit. If he could prove perjury, then the perjury didn't stand in the way of his investigation. His lack of evidence or proof did. And the fact that he lacked evidence or proof clearly does not mean a crime was committed.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
FACT: Fitzgerald started this investigation because of the outing of a CIA agent. Whether that is a crime is yet to be determined. Otherwise, the secondary crime of lying to the FBI and grand jury would never have happened. You don't start an investigation of a non-crime to develop other crimes for prosecution.

Funny how some people miss this simple logic.

As gungasnake pointed out the obvious, that is what happened. To this day, Fitzgerald has never asserted a crime occurred per the statutes involved. Never. We are all still waiting. How many years has it been now?

Fitzgerald said that determining the truth was impossible due to Libby's perjury. Remember the "sand in the face of the umpire" metaphor?

Stop lying, okie.

Bullshit. If he could prove perjury, then the perjury didn't stand in the way of his investigation. His lack of evidence or proof did. And the fact that he lacked evidence or proof clearly does not mean a crime was committed.

You intentionally ignore the high evidential bar set by the IIPA. Without direct testimony from someone who was obviously lying, it wasn't possible to obtain evidence that the crime was intentionally committed. The compartmentalization of the Cheney VP office, the erased emails - there were significant challenges to finding enough evidence to charge others with a crime in light of Libby's refusal to tell the truth.

C'mon, man, be intellectually honest - even if you want to support your ideological position.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Bullshit. If he could prove perjury, then the perjury didn't stand in the way of his investigation. His lack of evidence or proof did.

You would know, Tico; you're an expert on shoveling bovine excrement.

It's not at all inconceivable that the information necessary to prove one charge could be very limited indeed. That doesn't preclude in any way, that the entire plan was meant to derail any real investigation. Fitzgerald made a pointed remark to this very issue.

Ticomaya wrote:

... And the fact that he lacked evidence or proof clearly does not mean a crime was committed.

Nor does it mean that a crime wasn't committed.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You intentionally ignore the high evidential bar set by the IIPA. Without direct testimony from someone who was obviously lying, it wasn't possible to obtain evidence that the crime was intentionally committed. The compartmentalization of the Cheney VP office, the erased emails - there were significant challenges to finding enough evidence to charge others with a crime in light of Libby's refusal to tell the truth.

C'mon, man, be intellectually honest - even if you want to support your ideological position.

Cycloptichorn

Though we've had this discussion on multiple occasions, you have yet to explain sufficiently your thought process to conclude that even though Fitzgerald could prove Libby was lying, the lying precluded Fitzgerald from conducting his investigation. Because if he could prove the lying, the lying was not a barrier to the investigation. The investigation may have been hampered by a lack of evidence, but that is an entirely different matter.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Though we've had this discussion on multiple occasions, you have yet to explain sufficiently your thought process to conclude that even though Fitzgerald could prove Libby was lying, the lying precluded Fitzgerald from conducting his investigation. Because if he could prove the lying, the lying was not a barrier to the investigation. The investigation may have been hampered by a lack of evidence, but that is an entirely different matter.

Bear in mind that we can't help it if your narrow thought process renders you incapable of following along with the logical flow of the discussion.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Though we've had this discussion on multiple occasions, you have yet to explain sufficiently your thought process to conclude that even though Fitzgerald could prove Libby was lying, the lying precluded Fitzgerald from conducting his investigation. Because if he could prove the lying, the lying was not a barrier to the investigation. The investigation may have been hampered by a lack of evidence, but that is an entirely different matter.

Bear in mind that we can't help it if your narrow thought process renders you incapable of following along with the logical flow of the discussion.

Precisely

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You intentionally ignore the high evidential bar set by the IIPA. Without direct testimony from someone who was obviously lying, it wasn't possible to obtain evidence that the crime was intentionally committed. The compartmentalization of the Cheney VP office, the erased emails - there were significant challenges to finding enough evidence to charge others with a crime in light of Libby's refusal to tell the truth.

C'mon, man, be intellectually honest - even if you want to support your ideological position.

Cycloptichorn

Though we've had this discussion on multiple occasions, you have yet to explain sufficiently your thought process to conclude that even though Fitzgerald could prove Libby was lying, the lying precluded Fitzgerald from conducting his investigation. Because if he could prove the lying, the lying was not a barrier to the investigation. The investigation may have been hampered by a lack of evidence, but that is an entirely different matter.

Libby lied about several matters, proven in court, which specifically were designed to hide the truth about the coordinated nature of the attack against Plame. The jury found there to be no merit in his defenses.

Without first-hand testimony - also known as Libby's account of the truth - it would have been difficult for any charges to have been filed against Cheney or others in the VP's office.

Libby was lying; that has been proven. In a normal case, one in which the president isn't your buddy and does an end-run around justice, the threat of jail would have flipped Libby. You know this. Yet you pretend as if the prosecutor simply couldn't get the case done. This isn't even close to the truth.

You can say the investigation was 'hampered by a lack of evidence,' and call that something else, but it isn't, really. Libby did not tell the truth about the matter, and his recollections were the evidence that was necessary to move forward. His political pals spared him the slammer in order to shut him up from giving that evidence.

The lying didn't preclude Fitz from conducting his investigation - except maybe at the very highest level. It prevented him from making his case against others in the VP's office. A neat piece of work on the end of a corrupt administration.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Essentially, Libby took the fall for Cheney, Rove and Bush. When Libby threatened to squeal, Bush commuted his sentence.

0 Replies

To dredge up old history, I ran across this, quoting what Valerie Plame herself said about Saddam Hussein and WMD when we invaded Iraq. This question and answer is in regard to her book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/29/DI2007102901429.html

"Annapolis, Md.: Thanks for participating in the discussion. I have a question concerning the Bush administration's assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They claim that as far as they knew the intelligence services were all certain that Iraq had them and that they could be a danger to us. What was your opinion before the invasion (and that of your fellow analysts), did you believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

Valerie Plame: We certainly knew that Saddam was an evil tyrant who had used WMD on his own people. We knew that in the shadow of 9/11, it would not have been prudent to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was clearly up to no good. As the invasion of Iraq was launched in March 2003, my greatest fear was the I and my former CIA colleagues had somehow missed a WMD cache, or we just didn't find the right scientist to talk to so as to understand the state of their WMD programs. I was beside myself thinking of the potential WMD threats to US troops that we had not found. "

Here we have Valerie Plame admitting that she had no conviction that Hussein did not have WMD, in fact she expresses her fear for our troops. It seems to me this directly contradicts her husband's apparent claims that George Bush knew all along there was no WMD. We've been told that this subject was part of Valerie Plame's job, good grief, if she thought there may be WMD in Iraq and that Hussein could not be trusted, it was her agency and part of her supposed expertise that advised the Bush administration accordingly. Then, she gives us her husband that claims otherwise.

It is difficult to sort through all the spin, but these words from Valerie herself show she is apparently blind to her own hypocrisy, and it continues to convince me that the whole Joseph Wilson affair was nothing more than politics. These people apparently want it both ways. For example, Valerie's agency, the CIA, failed miserably, but somehow they don't see that as their responsibility, they instead create a frameup on George Bush, and they use a guy that has no intelligence experience whatsoever, Joseph Wilson. I think it is truly pathetic, and I remain totally convinced the administration had every reason to be ticked off.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know