Cheney sued in CIA identity case

[Nash]

Figures.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

There ya go.

But at least TRY to be original. If you didn't like my response, you shouldn't have used it yourself. Since you apparently felt it to be beneath you.

[Nash]

lol..... knew it.

Cry me a river.

When you're over that, and these ridiculous "figures" comments, hows about you getting back on topic?

Show me the definition of "covert agent."

And then try to explain why Plame was not one, even though the CIA, prosecution, courts, and defence say differently.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Nash
I'll link you and Capt. Virgil up when you two tell me what you guys think legally constitutes a covert agent.

Kinda tired of the convertible/parking spaces rebuttle.

No.....

Link to me what actually constitutes a covert agent, and then I'll hook you guys up.

   As her weirdly self-obsessed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a "clandestine officer" and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only "leak" her name in the way one can "leak" the name of the check-out clerk at Home Depot or the busboy at Denny's.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050717-094452-4542r.htm

(Steyn column..love the guy)

[Bronk]

This thread is teh funnay.



Bronk

[Nash]

Nice job, bj.

Posting a commentary....

Hell, we here do that all the time. The only difference is that we don't get paid.

And that's the only difference.

So what is that supposed to actually mean?

[oboe]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
YOU are making the assertion that she was. Prove it if you can. I believe john9001 has already posted a link that states CLEARLY that Plame was recalled in 1997, because the CIA believed she was compromised by Aldrich Ames, and assigned to a desk. Look it up, Ames compromised dozens of agents, maybe more, some of whom were killed, and Plame was likely compromised or they would not have brought her home.

link

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

This is testimony by a CIA employee before a grand jury, confirming the fact that Plame's status was undercover.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Nash
lol..... knew it.

Cry me a river.

When you're over that, and these ridiculous "figures" comments, hows about you getting back on topic?

Show me the definition of "covert agent."

And then try to explain why Plame was not one, even though the CIA, prosecution, courts, and defence say differently.

What's it like to be a squeak toy? (copyright DD)

You've given your own legal definition of "covert agent".

And I've shown you that according to the CIA she was compromised in 1995 and recalled in 1997, and as such her status as covert was not actually valid, since the majority of the spy world knew who she was and what she did thanks to the Russian cultivated traitor Aldrich Ames. Sure, they could call her covert. But if everyone knows who you are, then your iedentity ain't no secret, is it?

I do not give a damn how many times you ask the same stupid question, or how you phrase it, the answer remains the same.

And you're STILL a squeak toy.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by oboe
link

This is testimony by a CIA employee before a grand jury, confirming the fact that Plame's status was undercover.

You, or anyone else, can claim whatever status suits you.

This is real simple. The CIA can declare they employ, directly or indirectly, anyone to be covert.

However, for the CIA to recall her, and do so because they know her to be compromised (because another federal agency found out half the freaking CIA had been compromised) and then keep her at a desk for 6-7 years because they knew she was compromised, and still declare her a covert agent, is absurd.

If you want to fall for that silly B.S. notion, then be prepared for it to be used by any agency, for any purpose, against anyone.

Further, it has been shown several times, in numerous publications, that Valerie Plame DID in fact use her desk jockey position at the CIA to get her husband the assignment in question. So therefore, the CIA spokesperson is in fact lying, and perjuring himself saying she didn't. Perjured testimony is pretty much invalid.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Bronk

This thread is teh funnay.



Bronk

Ain't it though?

[Nash]

No Virgil, I haven't given my own definition covert agent.

I've linked you to the, you know, actual definition of covert agent via the United States Code, Title 50, Section 426.

Why are you in such complete denial?

The law is sitting right there in front of you. Are you afraid to look at it?

I guess so long as it does not mention convertible Jaguars or name plates on parking spaces it may come as some sort of shock to you.

But there's nothing you can do about it.

And there's nothing that the CIA, prosecutor, courts and defendants are doing about it.

Only you.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Nash
No Virgil, I haven't given my own definition covert agent.

I've linked you to the, you know, actual definition of covert agent via the United States Code, Title 50, Section 426.

Why are you in such complete denial?

The law is sitting right there in front of you. Are you afraid to look at it?

I guess so long as it does not mention convertible Jaguars or name plates on parking spaces it may come as some sort of shock to you.

But there's nothing you can do about it.

And there's nothing that the CIA, prosecutor, courts and defendants are doing about it.

Only you.

I read your link, 5 minutes after you posted it.

A zebra fits the description of a horse. If I declare a zebra to be a horse does that make a zebra become a horse? No.

She's a former covert agent, compromised over ten years ago. Or, if you go by the fact this started in 2003, then she was compromised 8 years before Novak published his column. She was still a former covert agent assigned to administrative duties at HQ. See the definition of former, the operative word here. Covert is only covert if everyone you're trying to conceal your identity from doesn't know your identity. If she was actually a covert asset in 2003, she wouldn't have been at HQ performing administrative duties and getting her husband a vaction in a foreign country disguised as an "assignment".

[Nash]

Exactly WHAT are you trying to tell me that the courts haven't already heard and ruled on as being bs?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Nash
Exactly WHAT are you trying to tell me that the courts haven't already heard and ruled on as being bs?

Exactly how many times are you going to ask me the same stupid question and expect a different answer?

There is NO CRIMINAL TRIAL with anyone charged with revealing Plame's "covert" identity. The CRIMINAL trial is about obstruction of justice.

The REASON no one has been charged with revealing her "covert" identity is that the grand jury wouldn't indict, and the prosecutor knew he couldn't make it stick. Why? Because nearly everyone on the planet knows Plame was a desk jocckey at spy central in 2003, and not a covert super spook.

The CIVIL trial has not begun. The suit has been filed. Anyone can file a suit about anything. So what? Hell, the state of California couldn't convict OJ, but the family sued him. Do you have ANY idea how low the threshold for a civil action is? Still the suit has been filed. I have seen nothing about a hearing on whether the case will even hold up to a civil proceeding. It only got filed because they had to beat the statute of limitations. So they filed, if they had this killer air tight case, they'd have gone to trial a year ago. Or at least filed by then. They filed so that just in case they DO eventaully came up with a case, provided it doesn't get thrown out before then, they can go to trial. It's an election year, and they want political hay, and if they can't get that, they want money, and if they can't get that, they want noteriety.

You keep screaming "the courts accepted it, the courts accepted it". Well, look. The prosecutor has not charged anyone with anything but lying to him and the grand jury. The grand jury has not indicted any one for any thing but lying to them. NO ONE has been charged with or indicted for revealing the identity of the former covert agent V Plame. Mostly because she was compromised 8 years before and even the CIA admitted that. That fact and the fact that no one in charged or indicted means the charges won't stick.

See, you asked the same question, and I gave the same answer. And still, despite your constant pronouncement that she was a covert agent and she had her cover blown in 2003, everyone else, including the special prosecutor AND the special grand jury , knows she was so far from actually being a covert agent that the charges would never stick.

And guess what? Those facts won't change. Not if you ask again, not if you ask a thousand more times. And not if you phrase it ten different ways. And you can link to Find Law a dozen more times as well.

One more thing. If revealing their identity put them in so much danger, why did they appear in Vanity Fair? Why do their endangered kids tell people their mommy is a spy? They seem terribly concerned about it don't they? That's why half of D.C.'s social circle knew them as Joe Wilson and his wie Valerie Plame, who used to be a "spy" in the nineties.

[Nash]

BLAHHHHH.....

There..... I feel better.

Answer me this....

Why would the CIA refer the outting of one of its covert agents over to the Justice Department for investigation if she was not covert?

Because you said she wasn't covert?

A fact simply overlooked by the CIA?

Or because covert agents don't drive convertibles?

Really, Capt..... Why are you so right when the CIA itself, and the entire legal system is so wrong?