Naughty Scooter...

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Dixie

The FBI interviewed her neighbors. They had NO IDEA she worked for the CIA. Where on earth did you hear that? One of the neighbors was later on the air, he stated they all thought she was a private consultant for some business firm.

...if you have not heard and read, endless times over the last two years, that Plames identity was a 'worst kept' secret and that most people, expecially reporters, knew who she was long before any Whitehouse involvement, you can not honestly say you've been following the story.

I did here the one neighbor on TV say that he told the FBI he had no idea. I have also heard and read coutless times, starting with Novak in the original column two years ago and including an ex CIA agent on MSNBC the other day that Wilson introduced her at parties, regularly, as his "Secret Agent Wife" or words to that affect.

The facts about this will come out but in the mean time, it is common knowledge that it is said and claimed by those who testified that they thought her identity was common knowledge.

Right now, the fact that NO ONE has been indicted for expsoing her, the original intent of the investigation if you will recall, is proof enough that Fitzgerald is convinced that her outing is a non-issue in his mind.

[vraiblonde]

FLASHBACK:

Clinton commits perjury.

Democrats proceed to rip everyone involved (except Clinton) to shreds, calling them stalkers, trailer trash, perverts, etc.

Clinton confesses because there is physical evidence supporting the charge.

Democrats say it's no big deal - everyone lies.

Democrats say we shouldn't be engaging in "the politics of personal destruction" while "our troops are in harm's way".

Clinton is found guilty and impeached, but receives no punishment.

Democrats take that as a sign that no crime was committed.

[FromTexas]

Ok, say we take Wilson at his word:

Wilson tells Bradley, contrary to reports that many knew Plame was in the CIA, that only he and three other people knew. “Well, very few people outside the intelligence community [knew she was CIA]. Her parents and her brother, essentially,” says Wilson.

Top Secret includes keeping it from your parents and your brother.

[tirdun]

Originally Posted by FromTexas

So how come all her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA before she was "outed"?

I keep seeing this and I'd really like to know the source. According to the indictment, she was still covert as of 2003.

Indictment, section 1 part f:
Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At
all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Since the idea of a "commonly known covert operative" is somewhat of an oxymoron and would seriously undermine any attempted prosecution, where exactly is this information coming from?

[FromTexas]

Originally Posted by tirdun

I keep seeing this and I'd really like to know the source. According to the indictment, she was still covert as of 2003.

The source was Fred Rustmann, CIA agent who supervised Plame for a year at the beginning of her career. He said she worked under extremely light cover and a lot of the problem is the agency never changed her cover status to what it should have been (it was left higher than it really was). He stated that her friends and neighbors all knew she worked for the CIA.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

Right now, the fact that NO ONE has been indicted for expsoing her, the original intent of the investigation if you will recall, is proof enough that Fitzgerald is convinced that her outing is a non-issue in his mind.

THIS is the reason I think the whole thing is just crap. No one is being charged with "outing" her - they're being charged with lying to investigators about something that apparently isn't a crime. So my question then is, how can someone obstruct justice or be guilty of perjury regarding material that is in no way connected to a crime?

I mean, it's one thing to "cover" for someone when they did something *WRONG*. But to give false or incorrect information about something that ISN'T a crime is not a crime, period.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by FromTexas

The source was Fred Rustmann, CIA agent who supervised Plame for a year at the beginning of her career. He said she worked under extremely light cover and a lot of the problem is the agency never changed her cover status to what it should have been (it was left higher than it really was). He stated that her friends and neighbors all knew she worked for the CIA.

I lived next door to a CIA worker when I was in high school. I have no idea what she did for them, but I learned about it when they came around asking questions (I presume) for her security clearance. *WE* knew who she worked for. Now, the *NSA*, at one time - THEY were the super-secret ones.

Originally Posted by SamSpade

THIS is the reason I think the whole thing is just crap. No one is being charged with "outing" her - they're being charged with lying to investigators about something that apparently isn't a crime. So my question then is, how can someone obstruct justice or be guilty of perjury regarding material that is in no way connected to a crime?

I mean, it's one thing to "cover" for someone when they did something *WRONG*. But to give false or incorrect information about something that ISN'T a crime is not a crime, period.

From what I've read/heard, the obstruction charge is the reason no one has been charged with "outing". They haven't reached that conclusion because it is believed the truth is was blocked, hence the obstruction charge.

[2ndAmendment]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

THIS is the reason I think the whole thing is just crap. No one is being charged with "outing" her - they're being charged with lying to investigators about something that apparently isn't a crime. So my question then is, how can someone obstruct justice or be guilty of perjury regarding material that is in no way connected to a crime?

I mean, it's one thing to "cover" for someone when they did something *WRONG*. But to give false or incorrect information about something that ISN'T a crime is not a crime, period.

I think lying to a grand jury is perjury and is a crime all by itself.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Dixie

From what I've read/heard, the obstruction charge is the reason no one has been charged with "outing". They haven't reached that conclusion because it is believed the truth is was blocked, hence the obstruction charge.

Actually, I've heard the opposite - that, if they can't get them on the outing, they'll get them on the obstruction part. See, I don't see how someone can CHARGE someone with obstruction without at least KNOWING what they obstructed.

Just *try* to charge someone with lying about something while having NO CLUE what the "truth" is. Doesn't work.