Source A Exposed!

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Did we see anyone prosecuted for exposing Valerie Plame?

Yes, we did. Or do you just blot things out of your memory that do not serve your worldview? Scooter Libby anyone?

Ray

[gunter]

He was just a fall guy. Why wasn't his boss prosecuted? And why did your guy Dumbya commute his sentence? He was not procecuted under the law that Steve cited- (Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. § 421–426). He was prosecuted for perjury.

[Zep Tepi]

That there was a cover up is not in doubt. Past tense.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

He was just a fall guy.

You are stubborn, aren't you? The point is, I answered your errant supposition with the facts. While you don't have to acknowledge said facts, what would your philosophic heroes think about such behavior?

Why wasn't his boss prosecuted?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I would guess that there was a dearth of a little thing called evidence. It's been said that is pretty important to make a verdict stick. They would need evidence, beyond just Libby's heresay testimony, that Cheney revealed her identity. And also, there is no claim Cheney revealed it to the press, only to Libby. And that is heresay, not facts-in-evidence.

And why did your guy Dumbya commute his sentence?

Because he could. Why did Clinton pardon Marc Rich? Because he could. Stop acting like politics is only played on the right. It makes you look stupid(er).

He was not procecuted under the law that Steve cited- (Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. § 421–426). He was prosecuted for perjury.

Again...evidence is probably the culprit here. Judith Miller was clearly hiding behind her press credentials and doing everything she could to not identify her source, or implicate him. They did the best they could with the evidence they had. That is all one can expect from a prosecutor, unless you live in an ideal world, which you tend to like to spend a lot of time in.

Ray

[ryguy]

That there was a cover up is not in doubt. Past tense.

That's right - and that any of those names were or are involved in any sort of IC cover-up is just nonsense. There's not a lick of proof to support it. Security clearances? Many people across the country do contract work for the government and require security clearances - why are security clearances such a mystique throughout the UFO believer community?

-Ry

[gunter]

You really think the coverup is 'past tense?' Well- hallelujah! We've had disclosure. How could we have missed it? Someone oughta tell Rich Dolan he's wasting his time, eh?

[gunter]

They did the best they could with the evidence they had. That is all one can expect from a prosecutor, unless you live in an ideal world, which you tend to like to spend a lot of time in.

Well- just as I said- no-one was prosecuted for outing Valery Plame. The real reason had nothing to do with 'lack of evidence'- it was all about avoiding the discovery process. The government has a vested interest in protecting its secrets.

[Zep Tepi]

You really think the coverup is 'past tense?' Well- hallelujah! We've had disclosure. How could we have missed it? Someone oughta tell Rich Dolan he's wasting his time, eh?

Ever entertained the notion that there might be nothing to disclose wrt to aliens and alien visitation?

Do you honestly, hand on heart, think such a secret could be kept longer than 5 minutes? The end of WW2 and the start of the cold war are why there was any kind of cover up in the first place. The mass UFO hysteria of the time suited both sides for the secrets they really wanted to keep. They've even admitted as much!

[gunter]

I don't think the secret either could be or has been 'kept for longer than 5 minutes.' The facts are out there. What the IC has been able to accomplish is to introduce doubt in the minds of society and to marginalize the vast body of evidence by a systematic regimen of debunkery. They have created an alternate reality in which the very evidence of our own eyes, the evidence of high strangeness, is not only questioned but dismissed by 'rational men of good will.' Do you really doubt that such deceitful operations can be foisted on a trusting public? I introduce 'the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction' as exhibit A.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

Well- just as I said- no-one was prosecuted for outing Valery Plame.

And it is just as wrong this, the second time you said it, as it was the first. There WAS someone prosecuted for that. The fact that he was not convicted of the statute that Steve cited does not mean someone was not prosecuted for the affair. Again, you apply the rigor of philosophy and preciseness of words only when it suits your political arguments. Sad to see a mind go to waste like that.

The real reason had nothing to do with 'lack of evidence'- it was all about avoiding the discovery process.

Glad to know you are a connected insider. Can we call you Source Toon? And are you saying that a grand jury investigation does not do discovery?

The government has a vested interest in protecting its secrets.

News flash. Alert the media. I am sure there was a lot uncovered in that investigation. However, the fact that they do not have to reveal it to you, or others in the general public, seems to tick you off.

Ray

[gunter]

Incidentally- Cy has asked a couple of questions in the Source A thread at OMF that require answers by the investigation team since they go straight to the heart of the Dan Smith IC conspiracy theory that LCRT has been set up for a fall.

Pam... thanks for your feedback. Read as far as this part where you are saying:
- It has shown that RT has a Facebook Page (nothing to deconstruct here)

- It has shown that RT has a Myspace Page (nothing to deconstruct here)

Can you prove to us that RT actually set up those accounts? Is there any tangible evidence backing up those claims that those are his accounts that he set up himself?

[Zep Tepi]

The evidence strongly supports that he did.
I hope that helps.

[gunter]

What evidence do we have to that extent? It seems that it would be impossible to establish that the guy actually created the accounts- although I also presume he did. But my presumption and a buck will get me on a bus. Just to play devil's advocate here for a moment- would a bright intelligence agent not realize that an inveterate googlewanker like the Wiener would discover a couple a faked sites and then rush to judgment? If I know anything about Father Dan- and I know he reads this forum- that will be his next point of contention. (He gets all his good ideas from the cartoon syndicate, anyway.)

[gunter]

blah blah blah...etc. etc.

Ray

We disagree. So be it. I don't really want to see this thread derailed by a sideshow though. There are too many important issues to discuss. Maybe we can take this up again in the political thread...

best, k

[AussieMike]

In regards to the FaceBook account etc.
The use of "circumstantial evidence" is allowed in a court of law, and its what we have to work with here too.

So lets look at it.

The accounts had been established a long time ago
They contain photographs of Richard Theilmann, Photographs one could reasonably assume only he had access to being as they were of a "private" nature.
As soon as the source A story was busted wide open and his name revealed, some of those photos got deleted.

One does not need a smoking gun to draw a conclusion here, the circumstantial evidence is enough to allow us to form the reasonable conclusion that the accounts were his.
Those factors when weighed together allow us to draw that conclusion based on the "balance of probability"

Anyone arguing otherwise is either stupid, or deliberatly trying to avoid the obvious conclusion for other reasons ie vested interest in the source A story being true