Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

As outrageous as the administration's actions were in the Plame/Wilson matter, it is only a blip on the radar screen.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Quite evident most of your posts.

The depth of your wit is stunning.

At least mine is "stunning." Your's is non-existent.

0 Replies

June Cleaver wrote:

Ward, aren't you being a little hard on The Beaver?

0 Replies

From another thread:

Ticomaya wrote:
I'll bet it got rid of the virus.

JTT wrote:
How does one get rid of the dreaded tico virus? Though, seemingly, it only affects conservatives. It causes them to prevaricate, pander obeisantly to crooks and liars, and hide from anything remotely resembling the truth.

Damn puzzling that.

Yeah, I agree.

0 Replies

Do you honestly think anybody gives a flying crap whether you agree with that miserable little fool?

Pretty damn pathetic that you aren't capable of enunciating the thoughts meandering through your little mind, and feel compelled to copy of the work of a troll.

0 Replies

Tocomaya: "....work of a troll."

ROFLMAO Just have a look in the mirror, Ticomaya. You'll see the real troll of a2k. You are a very sad human; only able to spread negative jabs.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

June Cleaver wrote:
Ward, aren't you being a little hard on The Beaver?

Be careful, the little boy might take his ball and go home!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

... only able to spread negative jabs.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Tocomaya: "....work of a troll."

ROFLMAO Just have a look in the mirror, Ticomaya. You'll see the real troll of a2k. You are a very sad human; only able to spread negative jabs.

CI, it is worse than that. Tico is wrong about 99 % of the time.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.
Cycloptichorn

I am no lawyer, but as Ticomaya has explained, you are confusing the burden of proof with the elements necessary to make this a crime. It is not a crime to out an agent. For it to be a crime, it requires much more than that, as you rightfully point out the IIPA specified. The burden of proof remains the same however, as Ticomaya has pointed out.

I would add that the law was written on purpose to require several conditions to make it a crime, and I am glad it was.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps no crime was committed? The identity of Valerie Plame became known, but it became known for a large variety of reasons, perhaps not any of them for any reason that made the outing a crime, and some of the reasons she became known were because of the actions of she herself, her husband, the CIA, and the curiosity of others, chiefly Robert Novak, in regard to her actions. A big part of this was the political games being played by her own husband, Joseph Wilson.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
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

In criminal cases in the U.S., the burden of proof is on the government, and the "standard of proof" is "beyond a reasonable doubt." I assure you, the burden of proof in this case is EXACTLY the same as in any other criminal case.

What you are confusing with "burden of proof" are the elements of the crime. The specific elements of the crime must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt," in order to establish guilt. That is the prosecutor's burden, and a burden he obviously did not feel he could meet.

In most crimes, intent is an element that must be proven. That's called mens rea -- guilty mind. If you picked up a wallet, thinking it was your wallet, but it turned out to be someone else's, did you commit a crime? Only in your world, Cyclops, where you think the mere fact that you DID pick up the wallet should be enough to prove guilt.

Did Fitzgerald need to prove intent to prove a violation of IIPA? Yes, it's an element of the statute, just like intent is an element of most crimes. Prosecutor's prove intent every day, because most crimes are not strict liability or negligence crimes. Sometimes a prosecutor can prove intent, and other times they cannot.

You are correct that I used the wrong terminology, but the rest of your post is crap. It avoids every salient point; namely, that it is quite difficult to prove intent when you have no method of compelling convicted liars to tell the truth whatsoever.

Okie,

Quote:

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps no crime was committed? The identity of Valerie Plame became known, but it became known for a large variety of reasons, perhaps not any of them for any reason that made the outing a crime, and some of the reasons she became known were because of the actions of she herself, her husband, the CIA, and the curiosity of others, chiefly Robert Novak, in regard to her actions. A big part of this was the political games being played by her own husband, Joseph Wilson.

It really is sad, the extent to which you've swallowed the cover story - the one designed to give people like yourself some sort of framework to cling on to. You may note that few others make the argument that you make, b/c the vast majority of people - including those who have studied the case to a greater extent then yourself - know that the things you propose have no basis in fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are correct that I used the wrong terminology, but the rest of your post is crap. It avoids every salient point; namely, that it is quite difficult to prove intent when you have no method of compelling convicted liars to tell the truth whatsoever.

It would be overly generous to say you merely "used the wrong terminology." You clearly implied that the IIPA was some radically difficult crime to prove, IGNORING that it is no more difficult to prove than EVERY OTHER CRIME that requires the proving of intent.

If, instead, your point is that it's difficult to compel someone to tell the truth, perhaps that's true, but there is NO WAY to compel that in any case.

I would hardly be surprised to next hear you complain that the 5th Amendment was a barrier to Fitzgerald's investigation.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You are correct that I used the wrong terminology, but the rest of your post is crap. It avoids every salient point; namely, that it is quite difficult to prove intent when you have no method of compelling convicted liars to tell the truth whatsoever.

It would be overly generous to say you merely "used the wrong terminology." You clearly implied that the IIPA was some radically difficult crime to prove, IGNORING that it is no more difficult to prove than EVERY OTHER CRIME that requires the proving of intent.

If, instead, your point is that it's difficult to compel someone to tell the truth, perhaps that's true, but there is NO WAY to compel that in any case.

I would hardly be surprised to next hear you complain that the 5th Amendment was a barrier to Fitzgerald's investigation.

Of course there's a way to compel the truth. Have you ever seen a single RICO case been tried, Tico? You roll people on their higher-ups with the threat of jail time. It has worked time and time again to bust up exactly the sort of closed situations we are talking about. But not in this case, as those involved knew that Bush would pull them out of any threat of jail time. It's a shitty miscarriage of justice for the system to be perverted in this way.

Many crimes, as you stated, have no requirement that intent is proven. Naturally the requirement to prove intent makes a crime more difficult to prosecute successfully. My initial point with re: the IIPA is that intent is a critical component of the crime; I'm not sure that without proving intent, there even is a lesser charge to fall back on, as there is with many other crimes. This in itself does not make for a super difficult investigation; however, when combined with special governmental immunity, and a president who is willing to give preferential treatment to his cronies, it becomes almost impossible to prove.

My point still stands: I have never contended that the failure to successfully prosecute is an indicator of proof of crime; there is a ton of evidence that indicates that, but not the outcome of the trial. Instead, the opposite: that the trial's failure to get to the bottom of things doesn't prove that no crime was committed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

... the trial's failure to get to the bottom of things doesn't prove that no crime was committed.

Cycloptichorn

Obviously.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
... the trial's failure to get to the bottom of things doesn't prove that no crime was committed.

Cycloptichorn

Obviously.

It isn't obvious to many who share a similar ideological bent as you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
... the trial's failure to get to the bottom of things doesn't prove that no crime was committed.

Cycloptichorn

Obviously.

It isn't obvious to many who share a similar ideological bent as you.

Cycloptichorn

Ahh. Some points, I guess, could be made here. First, we should perhaps make a distinction between a factual crime and a legal crime.

The facts that make up an underlying alleged crime -- whatever the crime -- either occurred or they did not occur. And this includes the mental state element of a crime, such as intent. The facts and the mental state either occurred in reality or they did not. I think we could all agree that is true.

Thus, the fact that there has been no trial cannot prove that the facts and the mental state sufficient to support a crime did not in fact occur. By that same token, if there is a trial that results in an acquittal, that similarly does not mean the facts and mental state sufficient to support a crime did not in fact occur ... and a conviction does not mean they did. So, the fact that OJ wasn't convicted does not mean he did not in fact stab Nicole.

Now, whether there is a legal crime, or not, is a function of the judicial system. Thus, if a trial results in a conviction, then a legal crime has been proven, regardless of whether the facts actually lined up in reality as the jury believed. If it results in an acquittal, it does not mean OJ did not kill her in reality, but it means he did not commit a legal crime.

But until such time as there is a trial, the lack of a trial proves nothing, as it regards either a factual or legal crime, until the statute of limitations has run. Once that occurs, there is no chance of a legal crime being proven.

Not trying to parse too fine a distinction here, just trying to find common ground for agreement.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

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.
Cycloptichorn

I am no lawyer, but as Ticomaya has explained, you are confusing the burden of proof with the elements necessary to make this a crime. It is not a crime to out an agent. For it to be a crime, it requires much more than that, as you rightfully point out the IIPA specified. The burden of proof remains the same however, as Ticomaya has pointed out.

I would add that the law was written on purpose to require several conditions to make it a crime, and I am glad it was.

Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps no crime was committed? The identity of Valerie Plame became known, but it became known for a large variety of reasons, perhaps not any of them for any reason that made the outing a crime, and some of the reasons she became known were because of the actions of she herself, her husband, the CIA, and the curiosity of others, chiefly Robert Novak, in regard to her actions. A big part of this was the political games being played by her own husband, Joseph Wilson.

I can't believe that you believe that. Plame's ID was classified and, at a minimum, there was a leaking of classified information.

Intent is not that difficult to prove. There is certainly plenty of evidence of intent in this matter. There is evidence that Cheney made notes on a newspaper covering Wilson's rant implying that action should be taken on this. Then there is evidence of a meeting on this matter on the president's plane. Shortly after that, we know that Armitage, Rove, Libby, and Fleischer leaked the ID to a host of reporters. It is really disgusting what the administration did, and it is disgusting that so many people on the right couldn't care less, which is because Reps were involved. This is despite the fact that significant damage was done to the country.

0 Replies

Intent to do what is not that difficult to prove, Advocate?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Intent to do what is not that difficult to prove, Advocate?

Political retribution! See the following.

Letter: Outing of Valerie Plame illegal and immoral
Friday, November 30, 2007

The excerpt released by the publisher of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's upcoming book about the outing of covert CIA Officer Valerie Plame is not surprising and is nonetheless deplorable.

Our government, including every administration, has a solemn duty to protect and conceal the identity of every covert operative, be they working in law enforcement, national security or any other capacity. That a covert officer's identity, while working for the CIA, was revealed as political retribution is not only illegal but immoral.

As one who worked covertly during my military service in the U.S. Army Military Police Corps, I find the Plame breach to border on traitorous.

A cover is something that takes time to establish. Relationships are built with those who may be targets of a covert operation or, in some instances, the relationships may serve to foster the covert operation more generally. Many times, especially early on in a covert investigation, you do not know who all the bad guys are.

Life as a covert operative is dangerous as well as deceitful ?- always acting to project a facade. In the end, nothing is what it appeared to have been.

Hence, revealing the identity of the covert operative not only puts the operative at risk, it jeopardizes every person associated with the operative.

It is one thing to knowingly risk one's life to do such work. But, to be betrayed by your own government is an abomination.

If crimes were committed by any of those who knowingly participated in outing Ms. Plame, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, irrespective of their position in government. The time has come for Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to reconvene the grand jury and investigate whether further charges are warranted.

Bill Turcotte

tcpalm.com

0 Replies

I'm afraid Fitz is not up to the task.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know