Libby indicted

Keep dancing, parados.

Your claim that revealing Plame's classified status with the CIA isn't covered under a law that makes it a crime to reveal classified information has to be the funniest dance I have seen yet.

Who the hell cares who made what claim when to whom and why?????????????


The point is who fabricated the paperwork in Italy purporting to show that uranium was being sought in the Niger by Saddam.

Taking bets, does the last name start with "L"????

Taking bets, does the last name start with "L"????

parados wrote:

Your claim that revealing Plame's classified status with the CIA isn't covered under a law that makes it a crime to reveal classified information has to be the funniest dance I have seen yet.

Please show me where I made that claim.

parados wrote:

Tico,

You wrote

Quote:

My remarks, both then and now, are accurate. Yours, both then and now, are strangely bizzare, and lacking both in common sense and logic. There is absolutely nothing in Fitzgerald's remarks at his press conference, or contained in the indictment, which states that the disclosure of Plame's identity, whether by Libby or anyone else, is a crime -- any crime. I defy you to point to anything that says otherwise.

Perhaps you can explain the following and tell me how it shows that Plame wasn't covered by any federal law.
Page 2, section b.

Quote:

As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.

Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Quote:

Page 2, section d

Quote:

The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified.

Another statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Quote:

Page 3 Section f

Quote:

Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.

Again, "classified" does not equal "covert."

Quote:

The indictment pretty clearly cites the relevent law about revealing classified information and pretty clearly states that Plame's status as a CIA agent was classified.

The indictment goes in circles around the issue. It would have been helpful if it had been succint, if the intent was to say what you claim it does. Did the indicment ever claim that the disclosure of Plame's status as a CIA agent was criminal?

As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.

Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Your claim that revealing Plame's classified status with the CIA isn't covered under a law that makes it a crime to reveal classified information has to be the funniest dance I have seen yet.

Please show me where I made that claim.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Tico,

You wrote

Quote:

My remarks, both then and now, are accurate. Yours, both then and now, are strangely bizzare, and lacking both in common sense and logic. There is absolutely nothing in Fitzgerald's remarks at his press conference, or contained in the indictment, which states that the disclosure of Plame's identity, whether by Libby or anyone else, is a crime -- any crime. I defy you to point to anything that says otherwise.

Perhaps you can explain the following and tell me how it shows that Plame wasn't covered by any federal law.
Page 2, section b.

Quote:

As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.

Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting
the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the
information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to
the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over,
or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft,
work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling
station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad,
arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or
signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or
other place connected with the national defense owned or
constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or
under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers,
departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time
of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the
subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement
with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or
with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on
behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated
by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of
national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy,
or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored,
information as to which prohibited place the President has
determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or
reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to
copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance,
document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national
defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or
agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from
any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book,
sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map,
model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with
the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the
time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or
disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this
chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book,
signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint,
plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the
national defense, or information relating to the national defense
which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used
to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any
foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or
causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to
communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated,
delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to
receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it
on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled
to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or
control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or
information relating to the national defense which information the
possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the
United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully
communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated,
delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver,
transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains
the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the
United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or
control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the
national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to
be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in
violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or
destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both.
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the
foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such
persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment
provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Quote:

Quote:

As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.

Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

My mistake was calling it a statement of fact. Please show me where in Section 793 you believe it states the rule you enunciated:

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.

Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

My mistake was calling it a statement of fact. Please show me where in Section 793 you believe it states the rule you enunciated:

I didn't enunciate any rule. I quoted from the indictment. Are you now claiming that Fitzgerald is wrong?

Your dance is starting to be out of step with the music now Tico. First you claim there is nowhere that Fitzgerald cited a law, then you dance and claim it has no bearing on Plame, now you try to claim that the quote from the indictment has no bearing on the law.

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

Quote:

Quote:

As a person with such clearances, Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18 United States Code Section 793 and Executive Order 12598 not to disclose classified information to persons not authorized to recieve such information.

Statement of fact. Perhaps you can explain why you have concluded this applies to Plame.

My mistake was calling it a statement of fact. Please show me where in Section 793 you believe it states the rule you enunciated:

I didn't enunciate any rule. I quoted from the indictment. Are you now claiming that Fitzgerald is wrong?

Your dance is starting to be out of step with the music now Tico. First you claim there is nowhere that Fitzgerald cited a law, then you dance and claim it has no bearing on Plame, now you try to claim that the quote from the indictment has no bearing on the law.

As I said before, Fitzgerald implied there was a law broken. He tries to say A = B, and B = C, and thus A = C. But were that the case, he would be able to charge a crime. He implies a duty by Libby to not disclose Plame's identity to anyone not authorized to receive that information. Yet if he believes there is a crime he can prove, explain why he was not able to get the Grand Jury to charge that crime. I think it's very likely that part of the indictment will be stricken before this case reaches trial.

And rather than adopt Fitzgerald's words, I'm asking you explain why you feel the Espionage Act applies to Plame, and thus to Libby.

As I said before, Fitzgerald implied there was a law broken. He tries to say A = B, and B = C, and thus A = C. But were that the case, he would be able to charge a crime. He implies a duty by Libby to not disclose Plame's identity to anyone not authorized to receive that information. Yet if he believes there is a crime he can prove, explain why he was not able to get the Grand Jury to charge that crime. I think it's very likely that part of the indictment will be stricken before this case reaches trial.

There is absolutely nothing in Fitzgerald's remarks at his press conference, or contained in the indictment, which states that the disclosure of Plame's identity, whether by Libby or anyone else, is a crime -- any crime. I defy you to point to anything that says otherwise.

More juking and jiving on your part Tico. Read the first part of 793. It requires "intent." Because Libby lied, Fitzgerald can't ascertain Libby's intent.

Libby DOES have a duty not to disclose classified information not just because of 793 but also because of Executive Order. If he does it without intent then it may not rise to the standard of a crime. We have several instances of people being prosecuted for mishandling classified information in the last few years. Just because Libby has not yet been charged with violation of 793 doesn't mean he never will be. Nor does the failure to charge Libby make the release of classified information not a crime.

Ticomaya wrote:

As I said before, Fitzgerald implied there was a law broken. He tries to say A = B, and B = C, and thus A = C. But were that the case, he would be able to charge a crime. He implies a duty by Libby to not disclose Plame's identity to anyone not authorized to receive that information. Yet if he believes there is a crime he can prove, explain why he was not able to get the Grand Jury to charge that crime. I think it's very likely that part of the indictment will be stricken before this case reaches trial.

This completely contradicts your earlier statement that caused me to bring up the part where Fitzgerald cites 793.

Ticomaya wrote:

There is absolutely nothing in Fitzgerald's remarks at his press conference, or contained in the indictment, which states that the disclosure of Plame's identity, whether by Libby or anyone else, is a crime -- any crime. I defy you to point to anything that says otherwise.

He can't prove a crime involving the disclosure of Plame's identity, so he cannot state directly in the indictment that Libby committed that crime.

Quote:

He can't prove a crime involving the disclosure of Plame's identity, so he cannot state directly in the indictment that Libby committed that crime.

Because he would have to prove intent, right?

Which he cannot do b/c of lies that Libby told, correct?

I think it is not at all likely that this indictment will be removed before trial. But we shall see.

I don't see how you can make this claim, and that's why I've asked parados to try and explain why he believes it to be the case. Intent is an essential element of the crime. Under the facts as alleged in the indictment, as I said in my last post to parados, I don't see how you or parados (or Fitzgerald) can assert that it was Libby's alleged lies that prevented the GJ from knowing what Libby's intent was. Care to try and explain?