Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Frankly, my dear, ...

Published Letters: 1040

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 02:39 PM

What an absolute imbecile

shooter: I haven't read the letters yet,

Of course you haven't ... and you never will. Or if you do, you won't admit it.

but ask yourself these questions...

* IF the CIA was sure she was covert why was a criminal referral necessary?

Because the CIA has no law enforcement capability. Federal law enforcement is a function of the Justice Department. Hence the CIA asked the DOJ to invesitgate.

* Why did Fitzgerald avoid the covert aspect by stating he wouldn't address it.

Because the issue was irrelevant to the indictment. Libby was indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice; covert status and even whether there was an underlying crime are irrelevant. Prosecutors do not waste their time proving more than they have to to establish the elements of the offense.

* Why wouldn't the current CIA director testify under oath that she was covert?

Why should he? If a case had been brought against someone for outing a covert agent, he probably would have, but Libby's obstruction prevented the determination of whether a case could be brought.

* But mainly, why bring it up now regarding Libby's sentencing but not at trial? Libby wasn't convicted for ANYTHING regarding Plame's status, it wasn't a factor. But here is the prosecutor trying to present something he couldn't prove in court as evidence?

The level of your ignorance is simply stultifying. After a conviction, the defense is allowed to present matters in extenuation and mitigation, such as character witnesses or affidavits or other extenuating circumstances, and the prosecution is allowed to present matters in aggravation. Such matters may not be allowed to be introduced in evidence in the trial (for instance, matters in aggravation may include prior convictions for the same or similar offenses — not allowed during the trial phase but permitted during the sentencing phase).

It like getting a speeding ticket and when you go to court and plead guilty, the prosecutor tells the judge they also think your car is stolen so they should give you jail time.

No, it is like pleading guilty to speeding and having the prosecutor point out that the speeding was doing 60 mph in a school zone with children present. This is a matter in aggravation of the offense. Whether the vehicle was stolen or not is not relevant to the speeding offense. What the prosecutor is pointing out here is that if the CIA agent outed was covert then the obstruction of justice and perjury may have blocked the prosecution of a felony under 50 US Code. This is a matter in aggravation. Plame's status wasn't an issue in the trial, but Plame's status is a fact, attested by DCI, so it is a matter in aggravation for sentencing.

If this isn't misconduct by a prosecutor, it should be.

Ignorance is one thing; everybody is ignorant about some things, such as procedural jurisprudence. But such pride in willful ignorance is simply beyond comprehension.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 04:41 AM

L.W.M. said ...

Do you work for Benador associates, Pooty?

Probably not — presumably even they have some standards (although it's very difficult to tell where the line is). But they do seem to be a primary source of pooter's talking points.

That "Torricelli Rule" doesn't work...

It didn't stop us from listening to Curveball and working with Chalabi.

Actually the CIA wasn't paying attention to Curveball and Chalabi. They were smarter that. It was DOD and the "Office of Special Plans" under Doug Feith ("the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth" according to Tommy Franks) that was talking to Curveball and Chalabi. The "Torricelli Rule" doesn't apply to DOD. That's why we had such great intelligence going into OIL... er, OIF, stovepiped directly from Feith to Cheney.

Thursday, May 31, 2007 08:42 AM

Watch shooter ...

It's also a reflection of a party whose toughest guy, is a woman.

... as he sneaks in a reference to the Republican party and Ann Coulter.

Saturday, June 2, 2007 01:36 PM

If you're really concerned about long URLs ...

Quite a lot of the long URLs extend off into adverts of one sort or another and I frankly don't care to manipulate my cursor over the entire ridiculously extended string.
— Jonathan Hoag

... get Firefox and an add on that makes any URL in text into a clickable link. I use Linkification, but there are others available also (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/190). Copy and paste no more.

Most Active Letters Threads

423

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
206

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
56

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon