SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (126153)7/19/2005 2:38:08 PM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (2) of 793916
 
I still can't fathom how anybody could have "exposed" Valerie Plame's employment when it was obviously already public knowledge, whatever her status on the CIA books might have been.

Beats me.

I have until now assumed that the DOJ's initial questions to the CIA concerning the matter would have been designed specifically to determine whether an investigation was in the first instance justified. That one commenced has been a sign to me that it was a proper probe.

Silly me.

The publishers' amici brief is very illuminating in this respect and in others. First, the questions asked by the DOJ are described as pro forma only. Some sort of stock questionnaire was used. I have obviously underestimated the ability of DC bureaucrats to spend tax money wildly while chasing a wild goose. In any event, it appears that no significant thought was given to determining Plame's covert status before the whole stupid thing started.

Not how approach lawsuits, but I obviously live in a different planet.

Secondly, the brief contains as attachments not only the questionnaire but also documents suggesting that Ames and the Cubans were aware of her status. Unfortunately, the copies of the brief I read do not contain the attachments. Otherwise, I would link them here.

Finally, the brief outlines the legislative history of the statute in a manner which makes is quite clear that it was intended to apply in very narrow circumstances.

What a tempest in a teapot.

I think that W is playing with the Dems now, talking about firing anyone found guilty of a crime. I think that the truth of the matter is gong to be a lot stranger than the fiction we have thus far read about it.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News