OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:57:15 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The last sentence doesn't clarify whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
name or identity. The last sentence simply says that Mitchell didn't
know
Plame's "actual role at the CIA and the fact that she had a covert role
involving WMD". But Mitchell knew that Plame was Wilson's wife and that
she did work for the CIA (she just didn't know in what capacity).

As I mentioned, the last sentence is very germane to the IIPA. It's also
quite important with regards to the classified nature of her employment.
Most, but not all, CIA employment is classified. The last sentence more
than the first addresses that point.

It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's identity
before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly states that
Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the CIA.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:25:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
identity before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly
states that Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the
CIA.

So what? I know Porter Goss's identity and that he works at the CIA. So
what? Plame had an identity, and it was well known. So what? The last
sentence addresses the *legal* issue, her *role* at the CIA, her
*covert/classified* status at the CIA. Leaking Plame's identity isn't a
crime. There's nothing to leak. She had a public identity. Leaking
Plame's *classified* employment status was.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 03:25:10 +0000, NOYB wrote:


It doesn't say one thing about whether or not Mitchell knew Plame's
identity before the Novak article. But the first sentence most certainly
states that Mitchell knew Plame's identity and that she worked for the
CIA.

So what? I know Porter Goss's identity and that he works at the CIA. So
what?

So what?!?

The Fitzgerald investigation began because somebody supposedly leaked
Plame's identity to the media.



Plame had an identity, and it was well known. So what? The last
sentence addresses the *legal* issue, her *role* at the CIA, her
*covert/classified* status at the CIA.

Libby isn't accused of lying about leaking Plames' role or status. He
stands accused of lying about leaking her *name* (which we now know isn't
even a crime).



Leaking Plame's identity isn't a
crime. There's nothing to leak. She had a public identity. Leaking
Plame's *classified* employment status was.

Show me where Libby is accused of leaking Plame's employment status. He's
accused of leaking her name, and the fact she worked for the CIA...but not
her status with them.

OT--A preview of Libby trial cross-examination
 

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:13:12 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The Fitzgerald investigation began because somebody supposedly leaked
Plame's identity to the media.

Wrong. She has always had an identity, and it has always been public.
Someone leaked her employment status, which was *classified* or, more
accurately, someone put Plame's public identity together with her
classified employment status.

Libby isn't accused of lying about leaking Plames' role or status. He
stands accused of lying about leaking her *name* (which we now know isn't
even a crime).

Come on. Her name has always been public information. The association of
her name, with her *classified* employment status was what is illegal.
Oh, and that is not what Libby is charged with lying about, but that's
another issue.


Show me where Libby is accused of leaking Plame's employment status. He's
accused of leaking her name, and the fact she worked for the CIA...but not
her status with them.

Uh, no, that's not what he is charged with. He's charged with obstruction
of justice, making false statements, and perjury. At this time, he is not
accused of leaking her name *or* leaking her employment status.