Comments on: The Questions Not Asked About Valerie Plame http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/ Beating Them With Their Own Sickle And Hammer Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:36:57 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: The Loft » Blog Archive » Media and Democrats dragging out of Valerie Plame leak investigation turning on themselves http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38932 The Loft » Blog Archive » Media and Democrats dragging out of Valerie Plame leak investigation turning on themselves Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:36:24 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38932 [...] Worldnetdaily.com reports that Plame revealed to Wilson on their 3rd or 4th date (while he was still married to his second wife) that she was a CIA agent. Not exactly someone who seems that concerned about their secrecy, as well as a violation of CIA rules. Furthermore, when she married him publicly, prior to his trip to Niger, any cover she had at that point would have been blown, more evidence she was not trying to keep her identity a secret. [...] [...] Worldnetdaily.com reports that Plame revealed to Wilson on their 3rd or 4th date (while he was still married to his second wife) that she was a CIA agent. Not exactly someone who seems that concerned about their secrecy, as well as a violation of CIA rules. Furthermore, when she married him publicly, prior to his trip to Niger, any cover she had at that point would have been blown, more evidence she was not trying to keep her identity a secret. [...]

]]> By: jcb http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38931 jcb Wed, 02 Nov 2005 20:23:19 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38931 You're overusing "criminal intent". In theory, you can NEVER prove the thoughts of someone else. So therefore, there is no such thing as a criminal. What an absurd proposition. You’re overusing “criminal intent”. In theory, you can NEVER prove the thoughts of someone else. So therefore, there is no such thing as a criminal. What an absurd proposition.

]]> By: Adam http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38930 Adam Wed, 02 Nov 2005 19:13:44 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38930 Bravo John! You took an obviously paraphrased description and slammed it because the verbage didn't match up. I was actually taking your side on that point. On the Clinton deal I was talking dollars not days hense the word spent which you know asa a word smith could refer to either. Point is if there was no criminal intent the outing charge isn't valid and it just always seems too damn hard to prove what someone was thinking doesn't it? Bravo John! You took an obviously paraphrased description and slammed it because the verbage didn’t match up. I was actually taking your side on that point. On the Clinton deal I was talking dollars not days hense the word spent which you know asa a word smith could refer to either.

Point is if there was no criminal intent the outing charge isn’t valid and it just always seems too damn hard to prove what someone was thinking doesn’t it?

]]> By: John Bambenek http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38929 John Bambenek Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:26:22 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38929 Why do we allow open comments again? So we can provide an outlet for lies? If you read the statute here are the elements that are necessary to show there was a crime: 1) The person's status was classified. 2) The agency took affirmative steps to protect the agent. 3) The leaker let it out anyway knowing the above. Harmful intent is nowhere in the statute... AT ALL. And for reference, Fitz spent 2 years... unless you suggest we spent 80 years trying to take down Bill Clinton starting at about the time his Grandfather was a fetus, then your math is off. Libby apparently lied, and he'll rightly go down for it. But all you lefties have is ad hominems. Why do we allow open comments again? So we can provide an outlet for lies?

If you read the statute here are the elements that are necessary to show there was a crime:

1) The person’s status was classified.
2) The agency took affirmative steps to protect the agent.
3) The leaker let it out anyway knowing the above.

Harmful intent is nowhere in the statute… AT ALL. And for reference, Fitz spent 2 years… unless you suggest we spent 80 years trying to take down Bill Clinton starting at about the time his Grandfather was a fetus, then your math is off.

Libby apparently lied, and he’ll rightly go down for it. But all you lefties have is ad hominems.

]]> By: Adam http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38928 Adam Mon, 31 Oct 2005 21:55:06 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38928 That was one of the worst and full of misinformation acticles I have ever read. Just to clear this up for everyone. He was not indicted for the original charge of outing the Plame because that change requires you to show a harmful intent not just that you did it. Fitz couldn't prove the harmful intent so he charged him on the other counts. Not because he had to (he's only spent 1/40th of what was spent trying to take down Clinton) but because Libby lied his arse off trying not to get caught which got him caught. Same thing that happened to Clinton except Clinton lied about a personal matter like you Mom asking you if you masterbate and Libby (along with the rest of them) lied about things that could potentially effect national security. Peace That was one of the worst and full of misinformation acticles I have ever read.

Just to clear this up for everyone. He was not indicted for the original charge of outing the Plame because that change requires you to show a harmful intent not just that you did it. Fitz couldn’t prove the harmful intent so he charged him on the other counts. Not because he had to (he’s only spent 1/40th of what was spent trying to take down Clinton) but because Libby lied his arse off trying not to get caught which got him caught. Same thing that happened to Clinton except Clinton lied about a personal matter like you Mom asking you if you masterbate and Libby (along with the rest of them) lied about things that could potentially effect national security.

Peace

]]> By: Thomas http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38927 Thomas Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:24:35 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38927 <i>I just used FBI as an example because ...</i> Please, just say "I MADE A MISTAKE". I just used FBI as an example because …
Please, just say “I MADE A MISTAKE”.

]]> By: Mover Mike http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38926 Mover Mike Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:46:43 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38926 <strong>Valerie Plame Outed?</strong> So what did "everyone know" about Valerie Plame and the CIA?Here's a shot of Who's Who from Wizbang: "Copyr... Valerie Plame Outed?
So what did “everyone know” about Valerie Plame and the CIA?Here’s a shot of Who’s Who from Wizbang: “Copyr…

]]> By: EyeDoc http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38925 EyeDoc Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:29:22 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38925 What's idiotic about this whole charade is that Fitzgerald knew about a year and a half ago that nobody violated the law by outting a covert agent, and the investigastion really should have stopped then. Why in the world did it contine at taxpayer's expense when the prosecutor already knew the law had not been broken? What’s idiotic about this whole charade is that Fitzgerald knew about a year and a half ago that nobody violated the law by outting a covert agent, and the investigastion really should have stopped then. Why in the world did it contine at taxpayer’s expense when the prosecutor already knew the law had not been broken?

]]> By: jcb http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38924 jcb Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:19:12 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38924 I know Fitz is selling, I'm not buying. He can say that all he wants, but he has converstaions, he has Libby who managed to figure out the Wilson's wife sent him on the trip, but didn't bother to ask what she did? I know Fitz is selling, I’m not buying. He can say that all he wants, but he has converstaions, he has Libby who managed to figure out the Wilson’s wife sent him on the trip, but didn’t bother to ask what she did?

]]> By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator http://www.stoptheaclu.com/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/comment-page-1/#comment-38923 Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:05:08 +0000 http://stoptheaclu.dreamhosters.com/archives/2005/10/28/the-questions-not-asked-about-valerie-plame/#comment-38923 <strong>Wilson: There Have Been Threats</strong> In his first interview since the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Joe Wilson tells Ed Bradley that ther Wilson: There Have Been Threats
In his first interview since the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, Joe Wilson tells Ed Bradley that ther

]]>