Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

The problem that Fitz has is that he has never established that a crime has been committed, let alone establishing a prime suspect of the crime, or trying to prove the guilt of that suspect or suspects.

People now claim she was covert, beyond any doubt, but I doubt that based on a simple reading of the law, which seems to indicate a requirement of foreign assignment, but be that as it may, this basic point has never really been tested by a court, that she was even covert to begin with, let along all of the other conditions required for a crime to have been committed.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

The problem that Fitz has is that he has never established that a crime has been committed, let alone establishing a prime suspect of the crime, or trying to prove the guilt of that suspect or suspects.
.

A lie even repeated a thousand times is still a lie. The best lies are "half-truths" but still lies. Fitz couldn't prosecute the underlying crime because the Bush Crime Family cover-up has so far worked. As even Chris Matthews has said, anyone looking at this case objectively would see that a major cover-up is in effect here.

When Libby threatened to sing, Crime Boss Bush commuted his sentence.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

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

Political retribution! See the following.

I see. So, if Fitzgerald could prove the intent of "political retribution" (which you claim is easy to prove), do you think he could get a conviction?

If so, why? If not, why not?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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

Political retribution! See the following.

I see. So, if Fitzgerald could prove the intent of "political retribution" (which you claim is easy to prove), do you think he could get a conviction?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Under your supposition, what do you think, and why?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

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

Political retribution! See the following.

I see. So, if Fitzgerald could prove the intent of "political retribution" (which you claim is easy to prove), do you think he could get a conviction?

If so, why? If not, why not?

Under your supposition, what do you think, and why?

Grow a spine, Advocate.

Or, at the very least, engage your brain and figure out your theory to a deeper level than just the surface. I'm trying to point out the error of your thinking without painting the picture for you.

0 Replies

Tico, you love to ask questions, so you should be willing to answer them. But I guess you want to mount some foolish cross examination.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Tico, you love to ask questions, so you should be willing to answer them. But I guess you want to mount some foolish cross examination.

Okay ... I'll help you out, Advocate, because you are evidently struggling here.

I'll go one step at a time .. try to follow along.

Cyclops asserted the IIPA was written with a "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." Okay, so we can all see Cyclops was referring to the intent required to be shown to prove a violation of the IIPA. He was very clear is specifying EXACTLY what that intent is. Here is a link to the IIPA. Read up on intent there, if you want.

Okie responded by reiterating what I had said about Cyclops using the wrong terminology ("burden of proof"). Cyclops has acknowledged this, but reminded us that his main point is that intent is difficult to prove.

You responded to Okies post by saying, "Intent is not that difficult to prove." You went on to lay out the "evidence" you believe shows "intent." It was apparent to me from the laundry list of your "evidence," that the intent you were talking about was not the intent being discussed by okie, Cyclops, me, or the IIPA.

So I asked you what intent you were talking about. You said: "political retribution!" Now, perhaps you have some reason you think it's helpful to our discussion concerning the intent required to be proven by the IIPA, to make an assertion that the intent of "political retribution!" is easily proven, but I'm not sure how that might be. I certainly don't see how proving that intent would assist Fitzgerald in his prosecution of any crimes.

But maybe you do. Thus my question.

And if you refuse to answer the question, your interjection of "intent is not that difficult to prove," will remain impertinent and soon forgotten. Whether you have learned anything through this discussion remains to be seen, but I highly doubt it. Your tact of not answering questions put to you is probably your best defense to someone pressing you to support your position ... that way you can continue to pretend you know what the hell you're talking about.

Mental jousting with you is like playing chess with a 7 year-old.

0 Replies

I see you refuse to answer the question under your supposition.

BTW, I gather you feel that Cyclops is another Clarence Darrow, whose legal edicts must be accepted. Wow!

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, other federal laws were broken (e.g., leaking classified information). I wish Fitz would explain why there is no action under those provisions.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I see you refuse to answer the question under your supposition.

BTW, I gather you feel that Cyclops is another Clarence Darrow, whose legal edicts must be accepted. Wow!

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, other federal laws were broken (e.g., leaking classified information). I wish Fitz would explain why there is no action under those provisions.

Could it be because he didnt think there were any other federal laws broken?

Here is a letter from the ACLU, dated 12/11/02
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/classified/14445leg20021211.html

And here is an interesting paragraph from it...

Quote:

A criminal leaks statute would harm First Amendment values by exposing journalists engaged in routine newsgathering activities, particularly in the national defense and foreign policy fields, to possible criminal prosecution if they refused to name their confidential sources before a grand jury. Finally, it would greatly impede the ordinary process of disseminating information in official Washington, by chilling candid, ""off the record"" conversations between Administration officials and experienced foreign policy and defense reporters, depriving the public of vital information.

So, maybe thats why there was no prosecution for the "leaking of classified information" that you seem so upset about.
There might not be any such statute that applies in this situation.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I see you refuse to answer the question under your supposition.

BTW, I gather you feel that Cyclops is another Clarence Darrow, whose legal edicts must be accepted. Wow!

Also, as I have stated repeatedly, other federal laws were broken (e.g., leaking classified information). I wish Fitz would explain why there is no action under those provisions.

Cyclops has clearly studied this matter to some degree, and has some legal knowledge and background. He may, one day, decide to go to law school. While I believe his overall worldview is misguided, he doesn't claim to know everything, and he has always given me the impression that he is willing to learn more about a given subject. When he refers to the intent requirement of the IIPA, while I think his ultimate judgment on the matter is incorrect, he at least appears to have read the IIPA and has a functional knowledge of what it says. So, as it relates between the two of you, Cyclops is indeed Darrow in comparison.

As to other federal laws aside from the IIPA that you believe have been broken (i.e., leaking classified information), can you cite to the specific statutes in question? Have you read the laws you think have been broken? Are you prepared to discuss in detail the elements of the crime, and analyze the evidence known as it relates to those elements? In short, have you done any research into the matter? And does your evidence of "political retribution!" intent relate to these other federal crimes?

Finally, what "supposition" of mine are you referring to?

0 Replies

Here's exactly what we DO want...the rightwing propaganda machine to come after McClellan. Let's get him really pissed off, boys.

Go to the link and scroll down to the Billo segment and watch the video. Note too Billo's lie re McClellan's later statement which didn't really exculpate Cheney even if Billo wants you to think so. Such a putz.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/tof-calling-out-mcclellan-112907.wmv

0 Replies

Blatham recommending people watch a Fox News video ... a first on A2K?

Well, it was heavily edited by Crooks and Liars, and hosted on their website, so I guess that give it legitimacy for you. One suspects this is where you watch all your Fox News clips.

Okay ... I watched the video. So? He wants McClellan to clarify his statements. You -- of all people -- surely don't have a problem with that.

0 Replies

Two points. First, Billo lied regarding McClellan's clarification statement re Cheney. Or he's just really stupid. Either or both are possible.

Second. I do sincerely hope that Billo keeps sending people over to knock on McClellan's door and I sincerely hope that the rightwing machine goes on the attack against McClellan, as they predictably do whenever anyone in the administration makes some statement which reflects negatively on the administration...a long list now. Billo, being the incredible idiot that he is, seems to hold that McClellan's responsibility is to the people he worked with, as opposed to the citizens of the country or to the truth. I want McClellan angry enough with this culture he has come out of to speak openly and honestly.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Two points. First, Billo lied regarding McClellan's clarification statement re Cheney. Or he's just really stupid. Either or both are possible.

You're going to have to be more specific, because I've no idea what you're talking about. What is the lie?

Quote:

Second. I do sincerely hope that Billo keeps sending people over to knock on McClellan's door and I sincerely hope that the rightwing machine goes on the attack against McClellan, as they predictably do whenever anyone in the administration makes some statement which reflects negatively on the administration...a long list now. Billo, being the incredible idiot that he is, seems to hold that McClellan's responsibility is to the people he worked with, as opposed to the citizens of the country or to the truth. I want McClellan angry enough with this culture he has come out of to speak openly and honestly.

I think "Billo" (and, btw ... such a cute little nickie you folks have for him. Are you guys really this obsessed?) is saying that McClellan has a responsibility to clarify his statement, since it appears he is NOT accusing Bush/Cheney of lying, but the stupid media (and certain A2K'ers) are reading that into his book teaser ... and you and I both know the media has a hard on for anything that reflects negatively on the current administration. If McClellan's book teaser is misleading, he has an obligation to clarify and correct the misunderstanding. You, predictably, believe yourself to be valiant in your defense of "truth," when instead it appears you are only interested in the misunderstanding and inaccurate prior reporting by the media to remain misleading and false, so long as it casts Bush et al. in a bad light.

I'll give you the last word.

0 Replies

Tico, your ignorance is stunning. See Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions. It is a very serious crime and calls for very stiff punishment, including a long prison sentence.

0 Replies

Quote:

blatham wrote:
Two points. First, Billo lied regarding McClellan's clarification statement re Cheney. Or he's just really stupid. Either or both are possible.

tico: You're going to have to be more specific, because I've no idea what you're talking about. What is the lie?

Within two or three days of the initial revelation (the passage from McClellan's book), McClellan, through his publisher, added that he [McClellan] didn't think that Bush had knowingly deceived him but he did not include Cheney in that exculpatory remark. There's Billo's lie.

Given that lie, your next paragraph below doesn't require much in the way of address.

Quote:

I think "Billo" (and, btw ... such a cute little nickie you folks have for him. Are you guys really this obsessed?) is saying that McClellan has a responsibility to clarify his statement, since it appears he is NOT accusing Bush/Cheney of lying, but the stupid media (and certain A2K'ers) are reading that into his book teaser ... and you and I both know the media has a hard on for anything that reflects negatively on the current administration. If McClellan's book teaser is misleading, he has an obligation to clarify and correct the misunderstanding. You, predictably, believe yourself to be valiant in your defense of "truth," when instead it appears you are only interested in the misunderstanding and inaccurate prior reporting by the media to remain misleading and false, so long as it casts Bush et al. in a bad light.

O'Reilly, like Coulter, is an ugly human and a destructive force in your polity. He is without integrity, intellectual or otherwise.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Tico, your ignorance is stunning. See Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions. It is a very serious crime and calls for very stiff punishment, including a long prison sentence.

Here's the text of 18 U.S.C. § 641:

Quote:

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word "value" means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

The problem with your theory about using this general theft statute against persons involved in the Plame matter, is there is no precedent I'm aware of for application of this statute to the "theft" of something intangible. This is not a case where records, documents or photographs were stolen; nor money. You may say Fitzgerald should argue that Plame's identity is a "thing of value," but the prosecutor who makes that argument is walking a extremely thin line. The proscribed actions of embezzle, steal, purloin, or convert, are terms in criminal law that customarily involve the unauthorized taking of title to some property of another. And just what is the penalty? What is the "value of such property"? Is it over a $1,000? By what standard? Not an argument Fitzgerald was looking forward to making, I suspect. Assuming he thought he could prove all of the elements ... which I suspect he did not believe he could.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
blatham wrote:
Two points. First, Billo lied regarding McClellan's clarification statement re Cheney. Or he's just really stupid. Either or both are possible.

tico: You're going to have to be more specific, because I've no idea what you're talking about. What is the lie?

Within two or three days of the initial revelation (the passage from McClellan's book), McClellan, through his publisher, added that he [McClellan] didn't think that Bush had knowingly deceived him but he did not include Cheney in that exculpatory remark. There's Billo's lie.

You sound like someone desperate to accuse someone of not having fidelity to truth. Yet I don't recall you accusing the media of lying when they erroneously assumed what McClellan was saying in his promotional excerpt was to implicate Bush et al. in some leak and cover up. Yet you are quick to accuse Bill O' of lying when he extends (properly or not) McClellan's recant to Cheney.

One thing is clear -- you are lock-step with the rest of the looney left on this issue: "The vast right wing conspiracy machine is out the get McClellan, just like it went after O'Neill, and many before him."

Do you suppose Bush had McClellan waterboarded to get him to back of his earlier statement?

Quote:

O'Reilly, like Coulter, is an ugly human and a destructive force in your polity. He is without integrity, intellectual or otherwise.

Then why do you care about him? What is the deal with you leftists being so obsessed with Coulter and O'Reilly? Mention O'Reilly's name and Olbermann's mouth forms spittle.

0 Replies

Quote:

You sound like someone desperate to accuse someone of not having fidelity to truth.

This is not a period of time and not an administration which would make anyone desperate for reason to make such accusations. We'll talk again after more of them get indicted and found guilty. Though the Libby case suggests your single criterion for establishing guilt may well be party affiliation.

Quote:

Yet I don't recall you accusing the media of lying when they erroneously assumed what McClellan was saying in his promotional excerpt was to implicate Bush et al. in some leak and cover up.

They weren't lying. Nor were the conservative media outlets which read the passage in the same way. Outside of the later statement from McClellan, it was the only reasonable way to read the passage.

Quote:

Yet you are quick to accuse Bill O' of lying when he extends (properly or not) McClellan's recant to Cheney.

He was lying. Or, as I said, he's an idiot. Or both.

Quote:

One thing is clear -- you are lock-step with the rest of the looney left on this issue: "The vast right wing conspiracy machine is out the get McClellan, just like it went after O'Neill, and many before him."

At this point you can list all the people who have worked in this administration who have left and who have then gone on to make public statements which criticized the administration or its policies who then escaped broad and sustained attacks from the right. Begin now. I'll wait up to see your list.

Quote:

Quote:
O'Reilly, like Coulter, is an ugly human and a destructive force in your polity. He is without integrity, intellectual or otherwise.

tico: Then why do you care about him? What is the deal with you leftists being so obsessed with Coulter and O'Reilly? Mention O'Reilly's name and Olbermann's mouth forms spittle.

As I said, both O'Reilly and Coulter are without integrity, intellectual or otherwise. They are destructive forces in your polity. They exaggerate, they lie, they wield logical fallacies as their chief weapons, they bully and they clearly do not care whether they speak truth or not. Read some thoughtful and careful conservatives who have integrity. Or don't.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
You sound like someone desperate to accuse someone of not having fidelity to truth.
This is not a period of time and not an administration which would make anyone desperate for reason to make such accusations. We'll talk again after more of them get indicted and found guilty. Though the Libby case suggests your single criterion for establishing guilt may well be party affiliation.

My criteria for establishing guilt involves more than mere accusation.

Quote:

Quote:
Yet I don't recall you accusing the media of lying when they erroneously assumed what McClellan was saying in his promotional excerpt was to implicate Bush et al. in some leak and cover up.

They weren't lying. Nor were the conservative media outlets which read the passage in the same way. Outside of the later statement from McClellan, it was the only reasonable way to read the passage.

Bullshit. I didn't read it that way, and I chastised some on this forum for leaping to the rash conclusion that he had. Some people will read what they want into anything. Point is what they said was wrong. If what Bill 'O said was wrong, it doesn't mean he was lying.

Quote:

Quote:
Yet you are quick to accuse Bill O' of lying when he extends (properly or not) McClellan's recant to Cheney.
He was lying. Or, as I said, he's an idiot. Or both.

You believe that merely because he is on the opposite side of your political ideology.

But I agree he often is idiotic, and that's probably a better explanation here.

Quote:

Quote:
One thing is clear -- you are lock-step with the rest of the looney left on this issue: "The vast right wing conspiracy machine is out the get McClellan, just like it went after O'Neill, and many before him."

At this point you can list all the people who have worked in this administration who have left and who have then gone on to make public statements which criticized the administration or its policies who then escaped broad and sustained attacks from the right. Begin now. I'll wait up to see your list.

Sounds like a job for the looney left. I'm sure you got a link somewhere in your bookmarks/favorites.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
O'Reilly, like Coulter, is an ugly human and a destructive force in your polity. He is without integrity, intellectual or otherwise.

tico: Then why do you care about him? What is the deal with you leftists being so obsessed with Coulter and O'Reilly? Mention O'Reilly's name and Olbermann's mouth forms spittle.

As I said, both O'Reilly and Coulter are without integrity, intellectual or otherwise. They are destructive forces in your polity. They exaggerate, they lie, they wield logical fallacies as their chief weapons, they bully and they clearly do not care whether they speak truth or not. Read some thoughtful and careful conservatives who have integrity. Or don't.

But as you said, they are forces in my polity. Why do you let them get your panties in a wad? And why do you post them here, as if anyone cares what they have to say?

Answer: because you feel threatened by the both of them.

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know