Posted on 10/25/2005 9:11:39 PM PDT by FairOpinion
The problem is that the narrative line being offered up by the press is almost entirely wrong. And it is almost certainly true neither of the statutes that might cover the situation -- the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 and the Espionage Act of 1917 -- was violated, at least by anyone in the administration.
Consider the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. To violate it, you must disclose the name of a covert agent who has served abroad within the last five years, while knowing that that person was a covert agent. It does not appear that Plame was a covert agent who had served abroad within five years of the disclosure of her name to reporters. She was a desk officer at CIA headquarters at Langley at that time. This law was narrowly drafted and intended only to apply to people who purposefully endangered covert agents abroad. That is clearly not the case here.
The Espionage Act is less narrowly drafted. But it does set out specific things that cannot be disclosed -- ''information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, Navy yard,'' etc. The list does not include identity of CIA agents -- there weren't any in 1917 -- which is why the drafters of the 1982 IIPA felt the need for a new law to protect a very limited class of covert operatives.
So it seems clear to me that an indictment under either of these statutes would be a gross injustice.
To visit the rigors of criminal indictment, trial and punishment on someone who has done nothing that is specifically forbidden is unjust -- the very definition of injustice.
But why should there be indictments if there was no crime?
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
LOL and noted.
An Arkansas grand jury was ready to indict Hillary Clinton and Ken Star Balked. He thought it was to political. Does Fitz want to follow the right or wrong path?
Thanks, that's where I am as well.
check this post out
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509335/posts?page=14#14
Telling him, 'don't print that story' would have been pretty clear confirmation, now wouldn't it?
Further, the CIA says they asked Novak not to publish it, and they've barred Plame from talking about what she did for national security reasons.
Sorry, I'm not buying the idea she wasn't undercover and the CIA and DOJ are just going wild with this whole thing.
Fitz is acting as if not remembering is a crime,if a Republican doesn't remember, but it was OK for Bill and Hillary to "not remember" things.
"Legal sources say he studied inconsistencies and forgotten facts from witnesses, including Rove, whose early testimony differed from Cooper's recollections. Rove, who spoke to the grand jury four times, changed his story after failing to mention that he discussed Wilson and his wife with the Time correspondent."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002579643_fitzgerald24.html
And all this from a grand jury leak on a leak case. I am confused as heck.
Another interesting article about how "covert" Valerie was --- NOT, examining the specifics.
How Covert Was Valerie Plame?
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was_.html
And no matter how you want to claim she was covert, the IIPA is very clear and definite and the FACT is that Plame was NOT serving abroad and haven't for at least 5 years.
"Intelligence Identities Protection Act. To violate it, you must disclose the name of a covert agent who has served abroad within the last five years, while knowing that that person was a covert agent. It does not appear that Plame was a covert agent who had served abroad within five years of the disclosure of her name to reporter "
You're wasting your time with that.
That one, IMO, is posting from either the CIA, the DNC, or Fitzgerald's office.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508920/posts?page=42#42
see post 42 here...
More like the DNC. ;)
Now that's interesting. During the Clinton investigation the media and Clinton's people made it a circus...now we just have the media filling that role. Behind the scenes there seem to be some top notch people...and I will not be at all surprised if they land in a different place than where the media expects to greet them.
He had lunch with Dan Rather.
remember this folks,, Barone was the only one who saw the truth on election night 2004,, the guy's sharp
he and Fred Barnes are the best
do we know who all has been called before this grand jury? wilson, cia people, others?
I think it was mostly Bush admin people -- they had Rove in front of the grand jury some four times.
It's a witch hunt.
[ Tonto voice ]
"Who's this we, White Man?"
[ / Jay Silverheels ]
There is an extraordinary amount of real, exagerrated, or fabricated leak stories being released by the MSM ahead of these indictments (or non-indictment). I believe these leaks may be intended to 1) put pressure on Fitz to indict or else look like he caved into pressure from the Bushies, and 2) create the false impression that Bush's people actually broke the law so that this case still damages Bush and the GOP if Fitz doesn't indict anyone in the Bush Administration. This looks like a major DNC propaganda campaign, and I find it interesting that crazy Howard Dean said he "wouldn't accept the prosecutor's decision" if Fitz doesn't indict anyone in the Bush Admin. This is a very strange Clintonesque case. I liked Washington politics more before the Klintoons showed up in Washington.
There's a strange story in the LA Times too about Fitz's people questioning Wilson's neighbors again TODAY about whether they knew that Plame worked for the CIA. That's strikes me as very odd--either Fitz toying with the MSM or perhaps Fitz is nervous about a weak indictment that he's filing. I hope he's just trying to confuse the MSM.
This is it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1508146/posts
Is Valerie Plame the new Deep Throat?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.