If there is "reasonable doubt" you go free... or you're supposed to go free. Isn't that more about certainty than probability?
It is on the first couple of pages with the link that I posted. I've referred you to it several times. You may look it up now, or continue to ignore the facts that don't jibe with what you wish to be true. C'est Existe
from the page you linked to on the second page of this thread, offering it as *proof* that a "felony" had been committed: and from the article i posted a page back: "proof?" non, "poof" is more like it. clearly, you have a rather existential view of "exist."
As I said the CIA says one thing and the article you had a page back has one of the authors of a law from '82 saying another. Here is the part which says that Plame wasn't the one who suggested Wilson go on the mission. Here we have the officials that say she indeed was a covert operative. So if you choose to believe on of the authors of a 1982 law, while I think it likely that these officials and the CIA which already investigated the matter and would have probably been able to tell if Plame wasn't an undercover operative seem to disagree with the author you quote from 1982. Like I said you are free to choose to believe whoever you would like, as is everyone else. The fact that the author of the law says one thing doesn't in any prove that a felony wasn't committed.
if plame was a cia operative, and tenet says the cia suggested wilson for the role, how are those two statements in opposition. clearly plame, acting for the cia, could have suggsted wilson. secondly, whether plame was undercover, while perhaps significant, isn't necessarily germaine. first, she would have had to have been posted abroad w/in the past 5 years. second, the cia would have had to have been taking "affirmative" steps to conceal her identity. third, the leaker would've had to have known that items one and two were true, and lastly, such a leak, assuming it met the first three tests, would've had to have been done w/ the intent of harming the security of the US. don't take my word for it- read the statute and the author's own words as to its intent. that's quite a high bar and i fail to see how you can continue to maintain, w/o a shred of coroborating evidence, that the leak(er) meets all those tests. loudly and continually suggesting that the sky is green, against all imperical evidence, doesn't make you a visionary. it just means you're color blind.
I'm not the one ignoring evidence. Like I said you can believe the co-author of a something passed in '82 if you like. But don't claim that me believing the CIA who investigated and determined that it should move ahead towards prosecution wouldn't know that Plame didn't qualify as an undercover operative. You are the one hasn't shown anything that said Plame hadn't been out of the country in the past five years. The CIA's willingness to prosecute is evidence that she had been undercover and out of the country in the past five years. Where is your evidence that she's been domestic the entire time? As I said it pretty much clear that Plame meets the requirements since the CIA would know more about her status than the the author of a 1982 statue that you are pinning your hopes on. Like I said you are free to believe which evidence you want.
That's not the way that I meant it. I was more referencing the 5-year standard that has been referred to... as in she was formerly a covert operator.
the CIA can send a referral saying there was a leak, and it identified a previously undercover agent, however that's not enough to show that a crime ocurred. although i don't have a link to it, the vanity fair article on the plame/wilson said she was in brussels in 1997 and was reasigned stateside that same year. novaks article was written the summer of 2003, well outside the 5 year window. remember, this is only one hurdle to establishing a crime, there are several others as outlined above.
The CIA did more than just lazily send a referral. They did their own investigation. But you are arguing about just one of the possible felonies that could have been committed. You are referring to the '82 Intelligence identities protection act. There is also the espionage act. I will use the Vavity Fair article you mentioned which would seem to indicate that she could be assigned to work state side, and and do work abroad. Apparently people in her position have to work 2 jobs at times to carry off their duties. There is more in there including a statement about Bush talking about the leak coming from a senior whitehouse official. So I think I have the right to claim a 'felon in the whitehouse'.
once again, a leak doesn't equal a crime. -but let's examine what we do know about valerie plame's overseas career. According to Wilson's biography which was posted on the Web site of the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute, and which listed him as a "media resource," his last overseas assignment, as political adviser to the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces in Europe, ended in 1997, six years prior to novak's column. (Wilson's bio also listed his wife's supposedly secret maiden name.) -the Washington Post reported in 2003 that Wilson and Plame have three-year-old twin sons. -Maureen Dowd reported that Wilson and Plame met at a Washington cocktail party six years (in 2003) ago. Wilson's bio also said he worked for President Clinton as a special assistant between June 1997 and July 1998, which means he was based in Washington when he met Plame. If their kids were three years old in 2003, they would have been born in 1999 or 2000, and it seems reasonable to surmise that she was not stationed overseas as an expectant or new mother. If she has been stationed overseas during the past five years, then, the Wilson-Plame romance would have to have been a long-distance one at least during its first two years. is there any evidence that it was?
This is a joke. You are the only one not laughing. I posit that we should be examining what we don't know about Valerie Plame.
do you have anything to offer to the debate other than ill-formed snap judgements? i've offered an examination of the law, a time-line, and the opinion of the author of the law in question. you? not so much...
You are offering a truth marshalled by a prejudiced, partisan view. What we do not know is the salient facts presented to the Grand Jury. Absent of that, we are all guessing. You are guility of dressing up your guesses as something that they are not. We may never know what was or was not presented to the Grand Jury. We may find out after the fact what violations the special prosecutor was pursuing. From that we then could know whether the 1982 law was in play or not.
Again they could meet in Washington and get married, have kids etc. That doesn't mean she was never in the field over seas during that time.
