Quote Originally Posted by bairdi
I have no problem having an honest debate grim. I believe I understand why you have come to the conclusions you have on this matter. I have only one question for you.

Why do you think Libby did not tell the truth to the Grand Jury?
Because he was worried that he had leaked classified information to the press, whether the intent was there or not. Not her name necessarily, but everything about Wilson's trip. When the investigation started, it was over divulging classified information period. Not just her name. He was trying to protect his job I assume.

*

Your answer to #6 was "Nothing that Libby said could have prevented an employee from the CIA from testifying that the administration was informed about Plame's status. Once again I remind you that Libby was not on trial for violation of the IIPA statute."

What we were talking about, and what we read was not just on the Libby trial, but on the entire grand jury investigation. To imply that such evidence is irrelevant in the trial is fine, but such evidence was exactly what was being sought during the nearly 3 year investigation.

Here is what we both agree on:

This 3 year investigation's main function was to investigate if a crime was committed in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity. For a crime to have been committed, they needed to establish who leaked her name, if her status qualified under the IIPA statute, and if those who leaked her name knew her status was classified.

The only thing that was never established was that the administration knew her status was classified. This could have easily been established by presenting any document from the CIA to the administration stating such. Apparently, no such document was ever presented. This could have been established by the testimony of any CIA employee stating the administration was informed of her status. Apparently, no such person existed who could testify that the administration was informed.

We agree on all of the above, including that nothing Libby could have said or done, could have prevented any document or testimony being introduced to establish that the administration knew that Plame's identity was classified.

From all of the above, it is clear that the administration was never informed by the CIA that Plame's identity was being protected, but to be sure I hadn't missed anything, I asked you what evidence you might have read that led you to the conclusion that the White House did in fact know of her status. Your reply was, "Nothing".

Fitzgerald's public excuse that they needed to know the truth and Libby hadn't given them that, holds no water at all, and your answer to my questions establish that. Yet, you still hold the belief that the administration knew of her status?

bairdi, it is apparent that your belief that the administration knew of plames status, is the product of partisanship, not based on the evidence this 3 year investigation produced. You claim that my belief is speculation, but every single piece of evidence introduced, along with what evidence was not produced concur with my belief.

I was truly hoping that your public proclamation that the White House purposely outed Valerie Plame knowing she was a cover agent for the CIA, and that it was some sort of conspiracy to inflict revenge on Joe Wilson, had some sort of basis in fact, but it is clear that isn't the case here.

Thanks again for the debate bairdi. I have my answers, so I can officially say I'm done with this debate. I just wish it would have led to a conclusion that would have told me that the accusations you and others on your side of the fence were making, were based on fact, rather than simply partisanship. Unfortunately, that isn't the case.

.