Six Days of the Condor.
 

Can I point to an operative poisoned by a radioactive pellet? No.

Was there a CIA front company that is no longer secret? Yes. If you had provided information to the Agency through that company, would you be concerned? Even if no one is killed, sources are compromised and may no longer be able to provide us with information. This is just politics as usual to you? Clinton and Louis Freeh *hated* each other, and Freeh cut the legs out from Clinton whenever he could. Had Clinton outed some Klan informant, or NLF informant, to fuck Freeh (hey, because he thout that Louis was hurting America in some way), that would have been ok with you? Just cricket?

The change has come, she's under my thumb.
 

Have I been asleep? Did new facts come out? I thought that the whole problem with Fitzgerald is that he knew who the leaker was early on in the investigation (hint: it wasn't Libby - it was Armitage), but still proceeded forward. That why they could only convict him of perjury.

Answer me this - if this leak was such a blow to national security and for the purposes of discrediting Wilson/Plame, then why wasn't Armitage (who was no friend to the Administration) put on trial?

Commuted.
 

No. I'm hardly a huge Libby supporter, but the reasoning isn't that bad.

The issue as articulated is the proportionality of the sentence/punishment taking into account in the context of the individual's life and history.

The history of public service should count for a lot. (In this case, the court held it against him, I think.) When you are dealing with a first-time offender and a non-violent felon, that reasoning is defensible.

S_A_M

Ty's candidate
 

(A) the Bush administration is replete with traitors.

(B) "Needs" is a strong word, requiring in-person inspection to evaluate. But, they wouldn't hurt.

S_A_M

Ty's candidate
 

here is what is absurd to me..... all of this crying about outing a supposed CIA agent and how devastating it is to our interests. And most of the people crying about it probably read the NYT article outing the international bank supeonas and thought it a piece of good journalism.

Six Days of the Condor.
 

Here's my reply: Marc Rich. Were you as angry then?

Six Days of the Condor.
 

Those damages are speculative, counselor. I grant the defense's motion for a directed verdict.

Six Days of the Condor.
 

Because LBJ, Kennedy and Nixon were so forthcoming about the debacle they kept us in. I see how juxtaposed against those fine examples Bush would look like the lowest degenerate.

There's nothing this guy is doing others didn't do. He's just ballsier and stupider about it. That a guy gets caught a lot more doesn't make him more malevolent. It means he's bad at it.

Ty's candidate
 

I can see why you'd consider that juxtaposition absurd. I disapproved of both.

Whether you'd think that article was good journalism depends a lot on your view of the role and responsibiltities of the press.

S_A_M

Ty's candidate
 

So, in your world, the Democrat-controlled CIA got upset that the White House outed one of its spies, and connived with the Democrat-controlled Department of Justice to have a Democrat-appointed prosecutor go after Scooter Libby, and he was successful only because he drew a judge appointed by a Democrat, whose ruling was then affirmed by an appellate court with two Democrat-appointed judges.

Ty's candidate
 

This is your world Ty. In this world a prosecution can be a political hatchet job, completely without merit, even with a guilty verdict from a jury.

Ty's candidate
 

She was the chief of operations for the CIA's Joint Task Force on Iraq (more), which may make her a nobody in your book, but not in mine.

Ty's candidate
 

No, Libby's defense at his trial was that he was leaking stuff.

Not just "different time frames," but good job -- this is the closest I've ever seen you come to acknowledging what he did.

Ty's candidate
 

I'll take my high level CIA operative with a blown cover to any two white house interns with a ... uh... well...

Six Days of the Condor.
 

No, a couple GOP senators put an inaccurate account of that episode into their portion of the report, and would not let the CIA correct it. Obviously, for the express purpose of giving conservative wingnuts (present company excluded) "facts" to draw on later.