House Will Hold Plame Hearings

Azure said:
My problem is that Libby got involved because Fitzgerald thought he could get information from Libby ...
Click to expand...
Shockin'. Simply shockin'. This Fitzgerald chap shouldn't have been trying to get information from people, he should have ... er ...

... no, you explain.
 
Azure said:
Not for perjury, but for leaking the name in the first place.

Fishbob...Fitzgerald was not brought in to investigate the lies, he was brought in to investigate the leak.

Common sense would tell you indicting Armitage would be the first place to start. Unless of course, leaking her name isn't the federal crime people make it out to be.

And for the billionth time, I know Libby is guilty of lying, of perjury, and obstruction of justice. But Fitzgerald should have dropped the case after he decided there was not enough evidence with which to find Armitage guilty. Why go head-hunting after that?
Click to expand...

Because it's REALLY hard to investigate things like a possible illegal leak when people are lying to you.
 
Azure said:
And for the billionth time, I know Libby is guilty of lying, of perjury, and obstruction of justice. But Fitzgerald should have dropped the case after he decided there was not enough evidence with which to find Armitage guilty. Why go head-hunting after that?
Click to expand...
Because Libby obstructed the investigation, for the billionth time.
Libby interfered with the investigation by lying. This is illegal.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the hearings with include Armitage?

I wonder if he will have a trial? I wonder when Novak will be brought before the judge. Miller was, Cooper was, why hasn't the same happened to Novak?
 
pgwenthold said:
Because it's REALLY hard to investigate things like a possible illegal leak when people are lying to you.
Click to expand...

No **** Sherlock.

Maybe investigating the leak would have gone a bit better if he would have investigated the proper people.

Or perhaps not.

Whatever.
 
Azure said:
I wonder if the hearings with include Armitage?

I wonder if he will have a trial? I wonder when Novak will be brought before the judge. Miller was, Cooper was, why hasn't the same happened to Novak?
Click to expand...
Since we seem to be at loggerheads quite often, I just wanted to note that I agree with you 100% regarding Novak.
 
SezMe said:
Since we seem to be at loggerheads quite often, I just wanted to note that I agree with you 100% regarding Novak.
Click to expand...

Aye. Its all good though, sometimes I need the criticism to keep me in line. ;)
 
Azure said:
Proper people.

Armitage...
Click to expand...
I seem to recall a news account describing Armitage's admission to his boss, Secretary Powell, that he had mentioned Plame's role to Novak shortly after the story broke. Why that was held close to the vest I am not sure. An Armitage investigation would yield . . . what? That he admitted to a screw up? He has resigned. Bush can't fire him anymore. Fitzgerald or Wilson himself could have filed charges against Armitage. They didn't, for whatever reason.

Powell could have charged him. He didn't. He too resigned, though I think it was over more substantial issues.

None of that relieves Libby, Rove, or much of anyone else of the responsibility to act with integrity when testifying before a grand jury.

None of that relieves anyone else of the requirement to obey the law, or uphold the law, and basically keep their damned mouths shut about Plame's involvement with the CIA.

DR
 
One good thing we got out of this is we can lay to rest the right wing lie that Plame was not undercover. The head of the CIA said she was. Who to believe, the Head of the CIA or Rush Limbaugh? Tough one....

Lurker
 
Darth Rotor said:
I seem to recall a news account describing Armitage's admission to his boss, Secretary Powell, that he had mentioned Plame's role to Novak shortly after the story broke. Why that was held close to the vest I am not sure. An Armitage investigation would yield . . . what? That he admitted to a screw up? He has resigned. Bush can't fire him anymore. Fitzgerald or Wilson himself could have filed charges against Armitage. They didn't, for whatever reason.

Powell could have charged him. He didn't. He too resigned, though I think it was over more substantial issues.

None of that relieves Libby, Rove, or much of anyone else of the responsibility to act with integrity when testifying before a grand jury.

None of that relieves anyone else of the requirement to obey the law, or uphold the law, and basically keep their damned mouths shut about Plame's involvement with the CIA.

DR
Click to expand...

Actually it relieves all of them.

Remember, the case is now closed, and not a single person was charged with the actual crime. Great job by Fitzgerald and the rest of the people involved.

Someone outed a CIA agent, who by her own words said she was still covert when it happened, but nobody can get charged under the intelligence act?

Color me a tad bit surprised, but someone is lying.
 
Last edited:
SezMe said:
I agree, Azure, but my BS detector goes off whenever it is pointing at the White House.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Its obvious someone from the White house leaked her name, and frankly, I don't really care if she is/was covert or not. Well she isn't anymore, because she quit, but since the trial is now over, and Fitzgerald didn't have have the balls to drag everyone into court, we're stuck with this.

"All of them understood that I worked for the CIA. And having signed oaths to protect national security secrets, they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer," she added.
Click to expand...

Truth be told, but where is the integrity of the people who have access to information like this?

Absolutely pathetic.
 
Azure said:
Actually it relieves all of them.
Click to expand...
Nope. The responsibility comes with the job, and with the oath taken when appearing before the grand jury. The lack of prosecution does not relieve anyone of the responsibility to uphold the law when a member of the government.

DR
 
Oh, and...

The CPD reports officer told Committee
staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy
Chief of the CPD on February 12,2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband
has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to
mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activitv.”
Click to expand...

From..

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf
 
Darth Rotor said:
Nope. The responsibility comes with the job, and with the oath taken when appearing before the grand jury. The lack of prosecution does not relieve anyone of the responsibility to uphold the law when a member of the government.

DR
Click to expand...

Right.

And the lack of prosecution relives them of being found guilty of breaking the oath they swore.
 
Azure said:
http://voanews.com/english/2007-03-16-voa31.cfm

Maybe thats why Fitzgerald couldn't charge anyone for outing her.
Click to expand...


Seriously, did you watch the hearing? Toensing looked like a shill. Her point was that Wilson may have been covert, may have been undercover, but not "covert under the act". Maybe that's true. But that is the result of a poorly written law, not some sort of mitigating fact for the perpetrators.

The incontrovertible facts, now in the public record, are that Valerie Plame was a covert CIA agent until the day Novak outed her, who had undergone secret missions overseas as late as 2002, and her cover was blown by the Bush White House.

Maybe that's not illegal.

But it's disgraceful.

Maybe disgraceful but not illegal is enough for you, but for most Americans, it's nauseating.
 
Oh, so now the law is poorly written?

Great reply. I already said it was disgraceful, perhaps you missed that part.

I do love it how the Senate committee said Plame recommended her husband to be sent to Niger, but Valerie denies that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom