Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (257723)	11/1/2005 6:33:50 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 1573720

re: And had the disclosure truly created a problem, Ms. Plame would have tried to minimize the damage, which clearly was not attempted. You can't be partially undercover. If you are exposed, then you don't know who knows and who doesn't know... your career is over. And remember, she didn't have a black passport, so she could be prosecuted in any unfriendly country for anything... and that can happen for the rest of her life. John

To: i-node who wrote (257723)	11/1/2005 10:17:45 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573720

"But there was nothing illegal about the disclosure (as the indictment clearly suggests)" It suggests no such thing. For one, this indictment may not be the only one, it is merely the first. Fitzgerald may have decided that these five charges are easier to prove at this point in time than whether or not Libbey knew that Valerie was undercover at the time at that point, which he should have. Other indictments could be issued, against Libbey and/or others, as the investigation continues.

To: i-node who wrote (257723)	11/1/2005 11:16:01 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573720

Bottom line -- IMO, the disclosure shouldn't have happened, but I don't see that anything illegal occurred (and most competent, unbiased attorneys would suggest that even the perjury lacked the motivation that is required for it to be prosecuted (as existed in the Clinton case, for example)). And had the disclosure truly created a problem, Ms. Plame would have tried to minimize the damage, which clearly was not attempted. For years, I have said lying about a BJ is nothing. You have come back and said that Clinton lied to a grand jury. Now ole Scooter lies to a grand jury.....forget the reason......and you say its nothing??? You're a partisan hypocrite. The truth is disclosing Phlame's name was not the worst crime in the world but lying about that disclosure is a lot worse than lying about a BJ. Furthermore, I suggest you wait before saying too much. There may be more to this than meets the eye.