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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (102242)	7/9/2007 1:22:20 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Based upon the facts it would not appear that she is covert within the meaning of the relevant law...and the fact that Fitz never charged anyone seems quite compelling.... Now you're just being dishonest. Fitzgerald said in his own words that he believed she was covert. He filed a CIA summary of her employment which also claimed she was covert. The summary was part of Fitzgerald's request for a stiff sentence for Libby. The judge gave Libby a stiff sentence. So that would argue the judge found that Plame was covert too. Fitzgerald said himself that Wilson was covert but he couldn't establish motive for the outing and that's why no charges were filed. So when you argue otherwise, when you say, "if Plame was indeed covert and Fitz thought he could prove it...he would have filed charges against Armitage...he did not," you're being dishonest. You know Fitzgerald considered Plame covert, that he submitted a filing establishing that fact and that Fitzgerald didn't file charges against any of the multiple leakers because he couldn't establish motive. Why not be straight up about this? The facts are there for all to see? SD