Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

I've never seen you claim before that there was a complete lack of evidence in the case. Do you claim that now, or was that a hypothetical?

Cycloptichorn

Advocate wrote:

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2949954#2949954]But a little over a week ago, Advocate[/url] wrote:

...

There is zero evidence that Plame was any kind of expert on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof.

Come now ... which is it?

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. "

Advocate wrote:

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2949954#2949954]But a little over a week ago, Advocate[/url] wrote:

...

There is zero evidence that Plame was any kind of expert on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof.

Come now ... which is it?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never seen you claim before that there was a complete lack of evidence in the case. Do you claim that now, or was that a hypothetical?

Cycloptichorn

I don't know how much evidence there was, other than not enough.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never seen you claim before that there was a complete lack of evidence in the case. Do you claim that now, or was that a hypothetical?

Cycloptichorn

I don't know how much evidence there was, other than not enough.

Would you agree that this sort of case is far more difficult to prosecute than one which does not involve highly placed government officials - who are given immunity from jail time?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never seen you claim before that there was a complete lack of evidence in the case. Do you claim that now, or was that a hypothetical?

Cycloptichorn

I don't know how much evidence there was, other than not enough.

Would you agree that this sort of case is far more difficult to prosecute than one which does not involve highly placed government officials - who are given immunity from jail time?

Cycloptichorn

I don't understand your question.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never seen you claim before that there was a complete lack of evidence in the case. Do you claim that now, or was that a hypothetical?

Cycloptichorn

I don't know how much evidence there was, other than not enough.

Would you agree that this sort of case is far more difficult to prosecute than one which does not involve highly placed government officials - who are given immunity from jail time?

Cycloptichorn

I don't understand your question.

Really?

Rephrased: is it more difficult for a prosecutor to gather the evidence he needs when almost all the suspects involved have immunity to normal prosecutorial evidence gathering techniques?

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I've never seen you claim before that there was a complete lack of evidence in the case. Do you claim that now, or was that a hypothetical?

Cycloptichorn

I don't know how much evidence there was, other than not enough.

Would you agree that this sort of case is far more difficult to prosecute than one which does not involve highly placed government officials - who are given immunity from jail time?

Cycloptichorn

I don't understand your question.

Really?

Rephrased: is it more difficult for a prosecutor to gather the evidence he needs when almost all the suspects involved have immunity to normal prosecutorial evidence gathering techniques?

Cycloptichorn

That's like asking whether it's more difficult to prosecute a murder or a petty theft. You either have the evidence or you don't. If you don't have the evidence, you cannot prove a crime. Stop making excuses for Fitzgerald. He couldn't prove the case ... period.

Weak retreat from an easy question. You could have just as easily said yes.

We have a system in which prosecutors have methods with which they find out information that is hidden from them; in 99% of cases, the president does not pardon the liar from jail time in order to prevent him from spilling the beans.

Without access to the techniques that modern prosecutors use, it's hardly fair to blame Fitz for being unable to prove a case - one in which the laws in question hold a super-high evidential bar as well.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Weak retreat from an easy question. You could have just as easily said yes.

We have a system in which prosecutors have methods with which they find out information that is hidden from them; in 99% of cases, the president does not pardon the liar from jail time in order to prevent him from spilling the beans.

Without access to the techniques that modern prosecutors use, it's hardly fair to blame Fitz for being unable to prove a case - one in which the laws in question hold a super-high evidential bar as well.

Cycloptichorn

It's a stupid question. That's like asking: "Is it easier to prove a case when the defendant confesses?"

I don't blame Fitzgerald for not being able to prove his case. Prosecutors are often asked to look at cases they cannot prove. The fact that he couldn't prove his case doesn't mean he's a bad prosecutor. And it most certainly doesn't prove -- contrary to what you would like for us to believe -- that a crime was committed.

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Weak retreat from an easy question. You could have just as easily said yes.

We have a system in which prosecutors have methods with which they find out information that is hidden from them; in 99% of cases, the president does not pardon the liar from jail time in order to prevent him from spilling the beans.

Without access to the techniques that modern prosecutors use, it's hardly fair to blame Fitz for being unable to prove a case - one in which the laws in question hold a super-high evidential bar as well.

Cycloptichorn

It's a stupid question. That's like asking: "Is it easier to prove a case when the defendant confesses?"

I don't blame Fitzgerald for not being able to prove his case. Prosecutors are often asked to look at cases they cannot prove. The fact that he couldn't prove his case doesn't mean he's a bad prosecutor. And it most certainly doesn't prove -- contrary to what you would like for us to believe -- that a crime was committed.

I don't recall claiming that Fitz's failure to prove the case, proves there was a crime committed.

I have claimed that the crime in question had an extremely high burden of proof as compared to many other crimes, and also had a group of defendants who enjoyed significant and special protections from normal legal techniques for finding out the truth.

This lends credence to my claim, which is the opposite of what you have written, in fact: that the failure to bring charges does not prove that a crime wasn't committed - as Okie and others would have us believe.

Cycloptichorn

Some people can't see the simple fact that a CIA agent was outed. The motives are too simple for some to evaluate. ...

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Weak retreat from an easy question. You could have just as easily said yes.

We have a system in which prosecutors have methods with which they find out information that is hidden from them; in 99% of cases, the president does not pardon the liar from jail time in order to prevent him from spilling the beans.

Without access to the techniques that modern prosecutors use, it's hardly fair to blame Fitz for being unable to prove a case - one in which the laws in question hold a super-high evidential bar as well.

Cycloptichorn

It's a stupid question. That's like asking: "Is it easier to prove a case when the defendant confesses?"

I don't blame Fitzgerald for not being able to prove his case. Prosecutors are often asked to look at cases they cannot prove. The fact that he couldn't prove his case doesn't mean he's a bad prosecutor. And it most certainly doesn't prove -- contrary to what you would like for us to believe -- that a crime was committed.

I don't recall claiming that Fitz's failure to prove the case, proves there was a crime committed.

I have claimed that the crime in question had an extremely high burden of proof as compared to many other crimes, and also had a group of defendants who enjoyed significant and special protections from normal legal techniques for finding out the truth.

This lends credence to my claim, which is the opposite of what you have written, in fact: that the failure to bring charges does not prove that a crime wasn't committed - as Okie and others would have us believe.

Cycloptichorn

What is the basis for your claim that the burden of proof in this case was higher than any other case?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Some people can't see the simple fact that a CIA agent was outed. The motives are too simple for some to evaluate. ...

Some of us just don't have simple enough minds, c.i.

You, however, are the right man for the job.

Ticomaya wrote:

What is the basis for your claim that the burden of proof in this case was higher than any other case?

The IIPA was written with an extremely high burden of proof; namely, that one must prove affirmative intent to out an agent, and not just the fact that someone DID out the agent. This is extremely difficult to do without first-hand conversations, which Libby lied about and was then spared from prison and other penalties which would have compelled him to tell the truth. Add to this the fact that those in question enjoy significant and special legal protections and you have a very, very difficult case to prosecute.

Fitz was going about it in the usual manner that one would; namely, roll the lowers up the ladder. This was prevented by Bush's willingness to effectively pardon convicted criminals in his administration, an event which virtually never happens normally. This increases the difficulty for the prosecutor tremendously.

I didn't say, also, that the burden of proof was higher then ANY other case, just much higher then most.

Cycloptichorn

Quite evident most of your posts.