Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Jul 3, 2007.
For the even more stupider peeps:
CIA to Justice Department: "Hello Justice Department....someone leaked the name of a covert operative to some reporters. We know she was covert because we are the CIA and we are now sending this matter to you the Justice Department."
Justice Department to CIA: "Okay, we'll put Mr. Fitzgerald on this"
There is a difference between the CIA definition of Covert (which is everyone who works for them and the definition of Covert as used in the LAw designed to protect the identity of field agents. Apparently you are unable to recognize this. The MSM is spinning to further the story.
Fitz's lack of indictiments of either Rove, Armitage or Libby for revealing her status speaks volumes and trumps a pathetic spin attempt.
YUnless you think Fitz is a Bush gofer.
Look who spins. The investigation was derailed by (surprise surprise) someone lying to a grandjury on multiple occasions and OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
Do you have a clue what it means to obstruct justice??? It means "throwing sand in the face of the referee". These are the reasons there was no indictment of the actual leakers.
BECAUSE LIBBY COVERED IT UP
Seriously, 13, you are so far out there its truly astonishing. This is basic stuff and you're willful ignorance aside...this aint going away.
There are different definitions of covert. According to what I've read anyway.
according to the CIA...its pretty straightforward.
Oh, but who do you trust? The CIA claiming someone was covert and the Bush appointed special prosecuter and several judges and a jury re-re-reconfirming it, or a couple of barely-capable-of-thinking-for-themselves Rush Limbaugh acolytes?
According to their definition I'm sure. I'm not disputing what they think. I'm merely stating that I've read that there are different definitions of covert.
I'm just curious for the point of discussion. What, and by whom, are the different legal definitions of covert, and which hold precedent according to the law. This seems to be the point of contention between both sides in this arguement, and I am curious about the facts. Like i've said before, I'm not as up to speed on this topic as most as I've been disenchanted by the banter on both sides. I have paid attention to it though.
No. Its only a point of contention because its been spun that way by some on the right. The same people BTW that have been WRONG ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING.
My Wife Works For The CIA, Don't Tell Anybody:singing: :singing:
That still doesn't help answer what the differences are, and why.
well, its been discussed here alot. Catch up and get back to us. Point of this presentation is that she was covert. Regardless of whether the knuckleheads want to believe it.
Its been verified on multiple occasions now.
I've seen other people state that she wasn't according to the law.
Yup, I too have heard and read both sides argue their points vehemently.
For example: The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning - and yes, I know that their editoral page isn't exactly the platform that delivers 'fair and balanced' views - repeated for the nth time this morning that she wasn't covert and ergo, no big deal.
Are they correct or are they ostrich's that have their heads deeply buried?
Rove, Armitage and Libby told reporters of Plame's CIA employment. None were charged by Fitzy under the statute covering Covert FIELD Agents.
This tells the story not the fevered wishes of Bush haters.
Oh, so now YOU are determining the level of her involvement? Im glad to see you finally admit she was covert. Thats a big step for partisan hacks.
But IMO, what tells the story is that Fitz claimed she was covert, but that the investigation into this treasonous act was derailed by a co-conspirator in the OVP, whether the Bush ballwashers admit it or not.
sand in the face of lady justice...just like when Clinton lied about a sex scandal and you had a conniption.
The reason nobody was charged was because Scooter OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE! he lied about all of this to block the investigation as to who leaked the name.
Thats why he was found guilty of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE.
Its so simple its complex.
Suppose Libby had say, been killed in a car accident before he obstructed justice? Would that have also killed any chance of anyone being charged? Why was that man so key to bringing any charges? I don't understand.
Separate names with a comma.