My contention is the fact that Fitzgerald did not want Plame’s status as covert or not to be admitted as evidence. If Libby was being tried for outing a covert agent, Plame’s status should have been the basis for the entire trial. Instead, Fitzgerald avoided her status and turned it into a he said/he said between Libby and reporters so that Plame’s covert status was not even presented at the trial.

The Wilsons have 5 year old twins and Joe Wilson stated in his book that neither of them had been working as covert agents since 1997.–see link above.

Sorry, hoads, I missed your post about all that.

Her status was ruled irrevelant to the charges at hand.

Nothing in that says she was or was not covert.

Nothing in that says she didn’t travel outside the US under an official or unofficial cover. Meaning, she didn’t use her own passport, identification, or leave a trail back to her family.

Given that John rants about the ‘millions crossing the border everyday illegally,’ and the attorney with TB leaving and returning without being detained, is it possible a trained and semi-intelligent government employee could move over the border and back without a trace?

To put a fine spot on it, de jure vs. de facto.

I submit Plame was a de facto covert agent.

You’re submitting that Plame was not a de jure covert agent.

The CIA continues to maintain that Plame was covert and revailing additional details of her service would harm our country.

How about it?

high five

You’re looking however for limited and narrow definition of ‘covert.’ A legal techicality if you will.

The CIA is blocking Plame’s book on the basis of her being a covert agent.

You haven’t come back to me on my posts. Maybe you’re been busy like AL.

To add another question though, What reason did the court give for blocking evidence from the defendant?

As you know, defendants have a right of discovery. That right flows at trial from the judge, not from the prosecutor.

What were the documents being “blocked” as you say, and what were the objections from both sides?

Dipping into court TV and the O.J. trial … what did THEY say in that sidebar????

MD

p.s. Nice show of class towards All-American Liberal, aka AL

There aren’t enough hours in the day, but reviewing the Libby trial and presenting to you and everyone else here the reality of all this is on the to-do list.

Before that though, I’ve got a 12 slide project to finish, and hopefully enough spark left in my brain for this “covert” nonsense once that is done.

Stay tuned. Ask anyone here…ask John Konop about when I’m wrong, what I do. I ADMIT IT! Always have, and at least a 2-3 times on this site.

That said, I’m not losing any sleep over having to come up with references of “covert” within the transcripts or PRE-SENTENCING materials. I know it’s there.

DEFENDANT I. LEWIS LIBBY’S OPPOSITION TO
THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ITS PROPOSED SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS
Defendant I.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070531_defense_presentencing.pdf

Pg. 6 “1. It Is Not Clear That Ms. Wilson Was a Covert Agent Under the
IIPA
The government has refused for years to take a position regarding whether
Ms. Wilson was a covert agent as defined under the IIPA. For example, in his October
28, 2005 press conference, in response to a reporter’s question, the Special Counsel
stated: “I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert.” Special
Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald’s Press Conference, Oct. 28, 2005 Tr. at 8.
Early in discovery, Mr. Libby sought discovery of documents relating to
whether Ms. Wilson’s status as a CIA employee was classified. See Mot. of I. Lewis
Libby To Compel Disc. of Rule 16 and Brady Material in the Possession of Other
Agencies at 2 (Jan. 31, 2006) (Dkt. 32). The government refused to provide the
requested discovery on the ground that it was irrelevant. It noted (correctly) that
Ms. Wilson’s CIA status was “not an element of any of the three statutory violations
charged.” Gov’t Consol. Resp. to Def. Mots. to Compel Disc. at 28 n.11 (Feb. 16, 2006)
(Dkt. 36). In fact, according to the government, it was “irrelevant whether Mr. Wilson’s
wife actually did work at the CIA” at all. Gov’t Resp. to Def. Third Mot. to Compel
Disc. at 11 (April 5, 2006) (Dkt. 80).

On June 2, 2006, the Court issued a discovery order “set[ting] forth what
this case is and is not about.” Order at 1 (June 2, 2006) (Dkt. 112). After noting that
Mr. Libby had not been charged with illegally disclosing Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with
the CIA, the Court explained that “the only question the jury will be asked to resolve in
this matter will be whether the defendant intentionally lied” to the grand jury and the FBI
about his conversations with three news reporters. Id. at 2. The Court made clear that the
actual status of Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment had nothing to do with answering that
question.” See (cont. in link)

Par for the course for the Democrats’ attempts at hyping Republican “scandals”. As always, they care nothing about the truth—the headlines tell the story and the details don’t matter and considering that most of America still get their news from MSM, it is proving to be an effective strategy for Dems.

What if being covert meant not advertising international trips and dates?

Might you consider that while AL makes more popcorn for me?

Hoads, man, you’re arguing about the language in the legislation. Not at all about status within the CIA.

Could it be that what Plame has done in covert ops remains secret? Could our national and international security be damaged by giving locations and dates of her covert service?

Give it a think, will ya?

AL’s putting sea salt on the popcorn.

Pssst. AL didn’t say pre-trial. He said pre-sentencing hearings. That comes after the verdict.

You’re on stage!