What Fitzgerald Didn’t Know Yet

In an effort to make these affidavits available as soon as possible so the wingnuts can start admitting they were wrong about Fitzgerald being a runaway prosecutor, I thought I’d catalog some of the things Fitzgerald didn’t appear to know by August 27, 2004 and September 27, 2004.

As of August 2004, Fitzgerald did not yet know that:

  • Rove may have talked to Novak on July 8, not July 9
  • There was a second phone call between Libby and Judy on July 12 (Fitzgerald notes just one phone call, a 3 minute phone call at 4:03 pm)
  • The source of the information in Novak’s column that Plame worked in CPD
  • The source of Plame’s name in Novak’s column
  • Pincus’ source (he considered Ari, Libby, and two other people likely candidates–note the discussion on page 21 of a Senior Administration Official calling from Africa to Pincus on July 9)
  • Whether Chris Matthews’ or Rove’s account of their "Wilson’s wife is fair game" conversation was correct (note Fitzgerald calls that conversation a "heated exchange" on page 32)
  1. looseheadprop says:

    Of course, they will retreat to their favorite â€no underlying crime†canard when they lose this one.

    You know, the Conrad Black lobby is starting that now too? Oh, they got him for obstruction and mail fraud, but not for any â€real†crimes.

    Jeebus! These ARE real crimes! Someone should check Title 28 United States COde (that’s where they keep all the crimesâ€

  2. freepatriot says:

    yo,lhp, I think you mean Title 18

    if you want some good news, consider this:

    A Democratically controlled Congress can suspend or eliminate any Statutes of Limitation that interferes with future prosecutions

    and if george bush pardons these criminal fuckers, he activates a clause of the International Criminal Court witch allows ANY COUNTRY to detain and extradite war criminals

    the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine

  3. Jodi says:

    Well, I am not impressed. I don’t presume to know what Mr Fitzgerald didn’t know and when he didn’t know it.

    And more importantly I don’t presume to know what he did know that isn’t public or semipublic or that only Marcy knows.

    I do think though that Mr Fitzgerald knew that he didn’t have a IIPA violation or he would have simply charged Mr Libby with it because he did have the goods on that gentleman.

  4. Anonymous says:

    From both affidavits: â€The call to Pincus was one of several calls Fleischer placed to reporters that day…â€

    The end of the paragraph is redacted in both cases.

    (*whistles innocently*)

  5. steve says:

    You really are dumber than a box of rocks, aren’t you Jodi?

    If you weren’t so stupid you’d see that EW is pointing out what he learned (and by backtracking, what he didn’t know in August) in September…

    And, you stupid stupid person, he didn’t, and never had the goods on Libby for an IIPA violation because he can’t prove state of mind…

    You know, trolls aren’t so bad, but you’re so ignorant and transparent that you’re not even a GOOD troll.

    It’s like your a caricature of what a troll is supposed to be. But at most sites, the trolls are taken somewhat seriously.

    No need for that here. You’re just a joke.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Here is food for thought: How will we know the difference between the real Jodi and William Ockham’s Jodi-Bot? If the post is from â€Jodi†but actually has a fact or two that is accurate does that automatically mean it should be considered to be from WO’s Bot instead of the real Jodi?

  7. Anonymous says:

    I knew you’d like that, Swopa. There’s also the part (I think from the August affy) that says Fleischer HAD NOT given Pincus a waiver.

    Whistle away…

  8. cboldt says:

    Thanks for making the affidavits available.

    The August affidavit has been public before, redacted. I have compared this one with the previous one to see what is newly published.

    This is the first I have seen the September affidavit.

    Without looking at them, my guess has been that they’ll show some new Rove stuff, and they won’t unequivocally show or state â€Plame was covert†or â€Plame was NOT covertâ€

  9. cboldt says:

    Make that I have not compared this release of the August affidavit with the previous one – except I see paragraph 4 is â€newly published,†and Libby was suspected of being a source to Pincus.

  10. oldtree says:

    I am stunned. Stunned I tell you. You have been trolled and I just don’t remember seeing any trolling that could follow a baited hook, not to mention the Wheel’s reliably detailed roadmaps to treason. I congratulate you on getting one so polite as to admit their lack of understanding. shock and awe.

  11. cboldt says:

    There is quite alot of new material – I’m up to about paragrpah 30 in the August affidavit, and entire paragraphs and footnotes are â€newly unredacted.†None of the material so far is notable, except quite a few assertions in the affidavit were not fleshed out at trial (Cathie Martin had undated notes of June that indicated awareness â€Wilson’s wife works at the CIA†(FN 6 on p 11).

    Paragrpah 30 has Libby conceding that it was possible that VP Cheney had had instructed him to tell the press about Wilson’s wife (I think this is in the GJ testimony played at the trial, so isn’t â€new†by being unredacted in this affidavit)

    The newly unredacted material includes a section â€Novak’s contact with Libby†on P19, including Libby/Rove interaction.

    Anyway, the point of my post is to say there is plenty of interesting minutia – there is a significant volume of newly unredacted material.

  12. Anonymous says:


    Yes, there is a lot of minutia in new context.

    As I’ve been pointing out since I first made some of this content available, what is far and away the most interesting is the affidavit makes clear that every person interviewed WRT the Novak leak had inconsistencies: Armitage, Rove, and Libby (and probably also Novak, though that’s not the form here). Which, as I’ve been saying, has to end the whole â€runaway prosecutor†myth.

    Other than that, the most interesting details are the Pincus stuff and the several redacted names that might be Cooper emails. I know that Armitage did not speak with Cooper that week, FWIW.

  13. cboldt says:

    The fresh context is fuel for lots of sepculation. Who do you think the third possible Pincus source is in paragraph 54? Whoever it is is the subject of still redacted paragraphs 57-64, a big chunk.

  14. Anonymous says:


    It’s two different people–26 characters or so with just last name. Plus, there’s a heading just before paragraph 57 and another (therefore another person) just before paragraph 62. If I had to make a wildarsed guess, I’d say it was Hadley and Armitage. But that’s just a wild guess–I’d have to put more thought to it.

    Hadley is almost certainly one, since he seems to be a source for the July 13 Pincus article.

    The other one might be someone in Africa, since there’s that July 9 call back to Pincus, though Fitz seems to think that, too, was Ari.

  15. Anonymous says:

    I haven’t done a close read yet either–but once I did the math and realized it wasn’t Armitage or Rice all spelled out, I figured out there had to be two.

  16. Anonymous says:

    though maybe the second Pincus source is Dan Bartlett. He knew of Plame’s identity at that point and was calling journalists along with Ari…

  17. cboldt says:

    Hehe at paragraph 87 .. â€The President has not asserted executive privilege to date.â€

  18. cboldt says:

    Paragraph 78 in the September affidavit says thet there are reasonable grounds to believe based on nonmedia sources that a crime has occurred – both the improper disclosure of national defense information to the media and perjury before the grand jury.

    FWIW, I don’t that as proof that Plame was covert per the terms of the IIPA – but I don’t have a qyuarrel with the CIA referral being taken as prima facie â€reasonable grounds.â€

  19. Kathleen says:

    Would really like to hear Marcy on the Diane Rehm show discussing her book â€Anatomy of Deceit†Please call or contact the Rehm show and make that request. It does work with the Rehm show.

  20. Jodi says:


    No IIPA charge because Fitzgerald couldn’t prove Scooters state of mind!!!

    That is funny!

    That is the biggest stretch yet I have seen on this blog.

    It even exceeds the one that said Libby couldn’t be charged because he wouldn’t tell who he got the information from.

    I can see the Courts of Law throughout the nation closing up now if that is the burden placed on Prosecutors.

    Hey stevie boy can I use that one next time I’m in traffic court. ~You can’t prove my state of mind when I ran that light.~

    God, I don’t usually stoop to denigrate, but the rest of you please allow me a little leeway, because I am not usually so flabbergasted or entertained as by stevie boy.

  21. Pete says:

    No IIPA violation proved because the Bush administration sat on its butt and rejected calls for an investigation. This allowed several months before any investigation started, crucial months which allowed the perpetrators to devise cover stories, and which allowed Novak to change his story from â€they came to me and gave me the name. I did not did it upâ€.

    In addition to Libby’s obstruction and Bush’s obstruction via commutation, the biggest obstacle to justice has been the running out of the clock. No wonder Bush wants us to â€move onâ€.

  22. Pete says:

    Oops should be – Novak:â€they came to me and gave me the name. I did not dig it upâ€.

  23. Anonymous says:

    The amount of corruption and dysfunction is almost over our heads!

    I wrote this letter to my Senators and House Rep. today and ask others to do the same, regarding the problems with the Office of Special Counsel and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

    July 16, 2007

    Dear Senator_________________ (or ) Representative_________________

    I have been reading about the ongoing problems with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

    I have been researching issues for some time involving whistleblowers and the corruption that causes them to become whistleblowers and have blogs on this topic to help share information and encourage people to stand up to wrongdoing. I also have a family member who found themselves being labeled a whistleblower just because they responsibly and ethically did the job they were hired by the federal government to do.

    It would appear there is an extremely poor track record of the OSC and MSPB for about 30 years, and that no reforms or changes made have helped. It does not appear to me at any time, but particularly now, that these organizations should be under the wing of the Executive branch, where they may be easily prevented from accomplishing their intended mission.

    Since we seem to be having such a crisis at this time all throughout government, and in severely hampered if not corrupted federal agencies and offices across the country, and the Justice Department is just about non-functional, due to influence and manipulation coming from the Executive branch, I think the only real solution is to pass the laws protecting all whistleblowers including federal and defense department (S.274 and others) and then putting the investigations of allegations of wrongdoing under the legislative/Congressional branch. It appears the best efforts are being made through Congress right now in the various committee investigative efforts. Abolishing the OSC and the MSPB as the agencies under the Executive Branch, moving their mission to Congressional oversight, cleaning up the Justice Dept. and their deadening affect on all of the various criminal investigative agencies, and seeing to the very careful screening of any further Executive Branch appointed judges (Prevent any more appointments of constitutional revisionists and those who put partisan policy/politics ahead of the U.S. Constitution!) would go along way to helping to straighten this out.

    The new Congressional entity will need to be adequately funded, and must have the funds restricted for use by this mission, not be able to be siphoned off to other things. The funding currently sent to OSC and MSPB should be dedicated to the new Congressional mission of overseeing the process of whistleblower complaints, and seeing that they are handled in an ethical manner. I personally have more faith in Congress right now than the other branches, and feel if there is a problem with someone in Congress not doing their job I would have more ability to address that problem, than I do dealing with trying to change the puppeteer masters, from three steps away, the way it is now.

    Please sponsor a bill which will address these issues, and vote to get these changes implemented and help the many federal whistleblowers and others who are suffering never ending retribution due to the total dysfunction of these Executive branch controlled agencies.



    For more information about current whistleblower issues see:

  24. Neil says:

    God, I don’t usually stoop to denigrate, but the rest of you please allow me a little leeway, because I am not usually so flabbergasted or entertained as by stevie boy.
    Posted by: Jodi | July 16, 2007 at 20:33

    Is that what you come here to do, denigrate people? It’s not entertaining.

  25. Anonymous says:


    Send a copy to Senator Grassley(IA)–he’s actually one of the more pro-whisteblower Congresscritters…

  26. Boo Radley says:


    IIPA violations are different than traffic court.

    â€Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.â€

    Bold is mine. That’s what Steve meant by Scooter’s â€state of mind,†Scooter’s intentions are critical to prosecuting the IIPA violation.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Re: â€state of mind,†this from Fitzgerald … FN15 on Page 28 of his August 27, 2004 affidavit (this FN has been knocked around alot, Byron York and others hit on it soon after this affidavit was made available)

    In order to establish a violation of Title 50, United States Code 421, it would be necessary to establish that Libby knew or believed that Plame was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who has carried out cover work overseas within the last 5 years. To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.

  28. Steve says:

    Wait Boo and Cboldt, are you telling me that there’s a difference between revealing something accidentally and revealing something intnetionally?

    And that it would require the prosecutor to know the accuseds state of mind to tell teh difference.

    Well what do you know…

    Face it Jodi, you can’t even denigrate another poster who knows diddly squat about this case…That’s how smart YOU are…LOL…

    Everybody else understood exactly what was meant. But no, not the stupid little troll…

    You’re a joke. As far as I can tell, nobody takes your posts seriously…So why stick around?

    So you can be made to look even more foolish?

  29. Steve says:

    And, you ignorant stupid dumbass (and no, I’m not being redundant)
    Your problem with this:

    ~Hey stevie boy can I use that one next time I’m in traffic court. ~You can’t prove my state of mind when I ran that light.~

    You’re too fucking dumb to realize that traffic laws having nothing to do with intent. It doesn’t matter what your state of mind is (although if your posts here are any indication, your permenent state of mind is â€emptyâ€) it only matters whether you ran the red light or not.

    In case this is all too much for your little mind to handle, compare it to murder and manslaughter/negligent homicide. In both cases there’s a dead body, but you know the difference?

    Intent you dumb ass. The prosecutor has to decide if he can present evidence about the defendants state of mind…

    It’s simple. For everybody but you, you dumb effing troll…

  30. Rayne says:

    looseheadprop called that, right on the money. The Jodi-thing fell back to the â€no underlying crime†immediately, in spite of LHP’s comment to that effect. Heck, I really can’t tell if it’s WO’s bot or not because it reverted to type so doggone quickly.

  31. Jodi says:

    Pete, that is a reasonable possibility for not having enough to prosecute on IIPA.

    Neil you should read the sentence again more carefully. esp. â€don’t usually stoopâ€

    Boo I agree with what you say about the IIPA.

    Lets not go over what was proved in court. Most know that.
    I have said Mr Fitzgerald didn’t charge Mr Libby with a IIPA so there was no violation.

    Yes, this could be because there wasn’t obtainable proof, ..==>>

    But he didn’t need to know what was on Mr Libby’s mind. i.e. say as a journal entry, or a chat with a friend, or a confession or something.

    Mr Fitzgerald need only convince the Jury and the Court that Mr Libby violated the IIPA. He didn’t even try..

    ==>>…, therefore in our land and in our Court System, there was no IIPA violation.

    That is how the law works.

    Steve you seem upset. You seem out of control with your language and manners. Try to be less emotional and your logic will get better.

    I am curious about this Bot. Where is it?

    Perhaps it is my long lost twin?

    : )

  32. Neil says:

    I have said Mr Fitzgerald didn’t charge Mr Libby with a IIPA so there was no violation.

    But he didn’t need to know what was on Mr Libby’s mind.

    therefore in our land and in our Court System, there was no IIPA violation. That is how the law works.
    Posted by: Jodi | July 17, 2007 at 02:57

    Fitzgerald said he was unable to determine if there was a violation because Libby lied and obstrcted the investigation. If you want to take that as exoneration or proof that no crime occurred be my guest. That would not be accurate but who am I disavow you of your false beliefs?

    Your argument rests on the false premise that a prosecutor will always charge a crime if it occured. That is not true.

    Sometimes, justice is served when a lesser crime is charged and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not my claim, that is Fitzgerald’s claim.

    You seem unable to grasp the â€frame of mind†element of the crime for an IIPA violation. If others smarter than me are unable to help you absorb that concept why should I try?

    Here’s a thought experiment for Jodi. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to witness it, does it make a noise?

  33. Pete says:

    Jodi said: â€Mr Fitzgerald didn’t charge Mr Libby with a IIPA so there was no violation.â€


    That is like saying that the prosecutor did not charge anyone with the murder, so it could not have been a murder and the person despite multiple gun wounds must have died of natural causes.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Heh. Makes me think of the surrealist Magritte and his work, La trahison des images.

    Neil: ce n’est pas un arbre tombé.

    Pete: ce n’est pas un homme assassiné.

    Ce n’est pas un espion.
    Ce n’est pas une acte de trahison.
    Ce n’est pas un crime.

  35. steve says:

    Jodi- I’’m not near out of control in language or manners. I’m not ’upset’ and my logic is fine. Calling you dumber than a box of rocks isn’t an insult (except to the rocks, it’s the truth.

    Take your last post here…

    If you can’t tell the difference between a violation and being able to prove that violation, you’re dumber than I thought.

    Which would make you INCREDIBLY stupid. But from reading your posts here, I’m willing o give you the benefit of the doubt and concede that you possess incredible stupidity…

    Anybody with the most basic knowledge of this case and the IIPA knows that intent/state of mind is a requirement in proving a violation. For you to state that Fitzgerald didn’t need to know what was on Libby’s mind just shows how far you’re willing to go to willfully misunderstand simple points.

    I can’t believe that you’re really that dumb. Which leads me to believe you’re a troll…

    And there’s 2 effective ways to deal with a stupid troll.
    #1 Ignore it.

    #2. The Bilbo method. Expose the troll to sunshine. Expose the trolls stupid stupid arguments to examination, so EVERYONE can see how ignorant your weak-assed arguments are…

  36. Jodi says:


    actually that is garbage. It is like Mr Fitzgerald saying something like ~~well the Murderer wouldn’t confess and he lied and therefore obstructed the investigation, so we can’t try him for the murder.~~

    I’m going to try that in Traffic Court also.

    What is so hard about proving an IIPA case that we have to have a confession? If the law is ineffective, then it should be changed or struck from the books.

    Further about the tree falling in the forest, we know Ms Plame’s name came out, but has the CIA ever adjudicated officially that Ms Plame was covered under IIPA. Last I heard from people more knowledgible than I am, is that they had not.

    If the CIA has presented that case, then please someone present that document here.

    Makes a difference just like the tree falling in the forest. Was it a beaver, loose soil, a storm, lighting, God’s divine right, or a axeman?

    Of course honestly, I would no more expect the CIA to know about that tree than I would expect good intelligence from them, but still they should know about their own employee.

    And finally to make my point a bit clearer, I believe that if Mr Libby had not lied about telling the reporters about Ms Plame, that he would never have been charged with anything.

    That is what everyone else did, and they are seemingly without blame.


    just so you know, I am of that school that thinks that if people have the law and the facts on their side, then they argue the law and the facts, and if they have neither, then they beat their chest, and slam the table, get red faced, and call people names.
    Is that clear enough?

  37. P J Evans says:

    Troll, we read you loud and clear.
    You’re beating the table and calling people names.

    The CIA has said, as clearly as they can, that Valerie Wilson was in fact covered by IIPA.
    You keep avoiding that, or saying that she wasn’t covert, using some definition that no one but the Libby lobby understands.

  38. steve says:

    Jodi, except for troll, I don’t believe I’ve called you names. As I said, i’ve been in control. Want out of control? Here’s a sample…

    You’re so fucking stupid, you asswipe douchebag fuckstick. that for the sake of humanity I can only hope you’re incapable of breeding.

    The only problem, if I adressed you the way I’d like to, I’d probably get banned…And I enjoy reading EW’s posts on this subject, along with the many seemingly-knowledgable commentators on this site.

    Unfortunately, along with the good, I’m forced to also read your tripe. THAT’s what pisses me off. Because I can’t beleive that somebody is stupid enough to post the crap you post and believe it. So it must be an act…

  39. steve says:

    And if you don’t believe you’re incredibly stupid, riddle me this…

    From your post:but has the CIA ever adjudicated officially that Ms Plame was covered under IIPA

    Well no schitte. They don’t classify employees as to whether they’re covered under the IIPA, their concern is whether she’s covert, classified, under non-official cover, etc…

    It’s up for the legal system to decide if she qualifies under IIPA, not the CIA. The CIA can start the ball rolling, like they did, by making a criminal referral to the DOJ, but at that point, it’s up for the Justice Department to examine the law, examine the circumstances, etc and decide if an IIPA violation occured, and IF THEY CAN PROVE IT.

    Just because they can’t prove it, (and Libby’s lies make it where they can’t) doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Butthen were back to the murder/manslaughter or tree falling in teh forest analogies, both of which you’re already proved you’re too obtuse to understand…

  40. Anonymous says:

    â€I do think though that Mr Fitzgerald knew that he didn’t have a IIPA violation or he would have simply charged Mr Libby with it because he did have the goods on that gentleman.â€

    Bullshit. Lets have a group â€duh†here.

    Fitz went with the proof he had of the crime he could prosecute. If you think he does not believe the IIPA was violated, you must not have been listening through your own cacaphonous mindset.

    If he didn’t believe the IIPA violation had occurred, he would not have pursued the perjury case. But you apparently don’t want to accept what the entire professional intelligence community knows and has known all along, and has verified and repeated exhaustively.

    Plame was an iipa protected agent. Just say it quietly to yourself a few times, and see how good it feels to let the truth sink in. Plame’s protected identity status, despite neocon attempts to the contrary, is not a bone of contention or the subject of dispute, it is just a simple fact.

    And that fact is much like our American Constitution. You can deny it, spin it, or even spit on, and you can’t change the truth there-in.

    Riddle me this? If she wasn’t protected, then why are they fighting so hard to make us believe it? What is the penalty they would potentially face if it is ever proven they DID out a protected agent?

    â€Methinks thou dost protest too much†is quite appropriate to quote here. They are so rabid about preventing the public from landing on that branch of truth it is clear the fear the consequences of that simple truth.

    Because the day they admit that truth, they also admit that Plame was outed treasounously, not casually, or even just plain politically.

    I believe Cheney knowingly ordered Rove and Libby to out Plame, a protected agent and thereby commit treason, not just for revenge, but to shut up all the other agents who wanted to tell the truth about Cheney’s fixing of intelligence around the facts. The only objective was getting us into the Iraq War, and damn the potential consequences. The disaster we now face in Iraq is a sad testimony to this larger truth.

    But I suppose if you own stock in Halliburton or Carlisle group, you probably think this war has just been dandy. You probably think, like Billy â€The Hack†Kristol, that Bush has done quite well.

    Success is so relative.

  41. Anonymous says:

    â€just so you know, I am of that school that thinks that if people have the law and the facts on their side, then they argue the law and the facts, and if they have neither, then they beat their chest, and slam the table, get red faced, and call people names.â€

    Sounds like Cannon, Lungren and the rest of the fatherly Repubs, trying to protecrt the likes of Goodling and Doan from having to reveal the truth…

  42. Jodi says:

    Well, I’m not from Missouri, but will someone please show me the legal/CIA/(some kind of) document indicating that a IIPA covered person was exposed.

    steve, I imagine that as you get more flustered and redder in the face you actually feel more in control. Well I will do you a favor, and tell you, it isn’t so.

    JEP, I find it interesting that you used the term â€Methinks thou dost protest too much.â€
    In my mind I feel that when I raise a question by pointing out a failing to prove or even charge a IIPA violation, and hear this verbally loud but logically weak complaint that an evil villain Mr Libby lied and so the supposedly valiant and superb Prosecutor Mr Fitzgerald couldn’t prosecute him properly, I think that the â€protest too much†is coming from most of you.

    Mr Libby, a good and longtime public servant erred and lied to the authorities because he wished to conceal that he was leaking to the press and perhaps even was dallying at a long breakfast meeting in beautiful surrounds with, as emptywheel more or less put it, a ~superbly preserved woman~ and is paying a terrible penalty for it.
    That is all there really is to this story.

    I am not one that is saying that lying under oath is not important. It is. I believe that his penalty is just, and his wife should check on the length of his reins.

    True Mr Libby isn’t serving out his time shackled to the oar in some ancient ship, but his life is changed for the worse forever.

    Just as Valerie Plame’s life is changed forever because her husband Mr Joe Wilson decided to make a political attack on the Bush Administration.

    Politics is always a dirty business. People that thump tables, get red in the face and start calling other people names and saying vile things about them make it such. I am trying to keep it on a higher plane.

  43. Neil says:

    It is like Mr. Fitzgerald saying something like ~~well the Murderer wouldn’t confess and he lied and therefore obstructed the investigation, so we can’t try him for the murder.~~

    Yep, you got it. Except Libby’s lies were so notoriously false that it was apparent he was doing so for a purpose other than trying to protect himself.

    The facts Fitzgerald knew to be true as compared to Libby’s lies led Fitzgerald to conclude Libby was lying to cover for the others’ involved in leaking the covert identify of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

    I’m still deciding whether you argue your points in earnest or facetiously. You are either quite dense or a troll.

  44. Jodi says:

    Neil, I argue the facts and the law.

    And I am quite ready to listen to your counter arguments without impugning either your virtue or your mental abilities.

  45. Pete says:

    Jodi said: It is like Mr Fitzgerald saying something like ~~well the Murderer wouldn’t confess and he lied and therefore obstructed the investigation, so we can’t try him for the murder.

    Not quite. Mr Fitzgerald said: â€We suspect who commited the crime (There is a cloud over Cheney’s office), but we do not have evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason we cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt is because of perjury and obstruction by Libby. And the perjury and obstruction by Libby is a crimnal act which can be proved beyond a reasonable doubtâ€.

  46. Pete says:

    Jodi said: â€Well, I’m not from Missouri, but will someone please show me the legal/CIA/(some kind of) document indicating that a IIPA covered person was exposed.â€

    For starters the CIA referred the case to the DOJ. Which would be impossible to do if a IIPA covered person had not been exposed.

    Can you imagine Ashcroft (who insisted on being briefed about minute details this case) allowing this case to proceed if an IIPA covered person had not been exposed.

  47. Anonymous says:

    Good gravy, it’s still going at it?

    It’s beyond me how one can continue to willfully be this stupid. What if disclosing the documents that clearly outline Plame’s status is a breach of security? Why is it that the CIA’s referral to DOJ about a known breach of security that in CIA’s estimation violated security rules and regulations isn’t enough? Why isn’t the unanimous and highly detailed opinion of the DC Federal Appeals Court of any merit in weighting the existence of an underlying crime, since they obviously felt a crime had been committed that both Miller and Cooper had witnessed, obligating them to testify?

    Is it because, as Elliot Abrams pointed out, that the CIA had to be kept out of any covert ops being run out of the OVP, and must therefore be continuously be discredited?

    Jodi, are you really comfortable with providing cover for illegal activities run by the OVP with your constant undermining of the CIA’s position that Plame was covert and that there was a crime? How are we not supposed to see your activities as being tantamount to aiding the coverup?

  48. jodi is a complete tool says:

    will you please shut the fuck up, jodi ??

    you are an ignorant asshole and we are all frankly quite tired of your juvenile bullshit.

    please, just go away, far away.