|
Quote:
Lighten up. It's not like the life of a communist left wing radical agent is worth anything anyway. If Rove is the source he should get a medal. Hell, maybe he should expose a few more pinkos! |
I hate America as much as the next guy*, but I simply don't see the logic** of "informant is heinous for informing and should be hanged" while "reporter of information (who gave potency to information in the first place) is a saint and should be granted immunity.)"
Which is not to say that Karl Rove shouldn't be hanged*** for other reasons... or this reason, for that matter. *I am very liberal **but also logical ***sentenced to life in prison |
Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.
SI |
Quote:
But she was the wife of a leftist! I do agree that they should have gone after him directly and left a few dead prostitutes in his tool shed or something, but by marrying one of those obnoxious, bloated, disgusting anti-american socialists she has opend herself up for any red-blooded, god-fearing american to expose her for what she is. |
Quote:
Yeah it bothers me. Here's the thing I've been trying to figure out: Is this how they were restoring the honor of the white house? Or are they trying to change the tone in Washington with this one? |
My thoughts are that while Plame's "outing" may or may not be a major issue, as said earlier (it's really unknown if it was anything more then a curosry "Never heard of her from the CIA), the part that bothers me more is about him (if true) lying to a grand jury on the issue. That part I have more problems with.
That's what they hung on Clinton, and it led a bit down the road on the way to impeachment. If he did lie to the grand jury and said he had nothing to do with it, I predict that he will resign.. Rove gives the Demos a nice big fat juicy target to ram down everyone's throat in the midterm elections, or for SJC fights.. especially since the liberal 9/11 comment he made. |
Quote:
It bothers me immensely. It was part of my earlier "banana republic" remark. This is the way we play politics in the US now? Someone disagrees with the party in charge so we go after their family? It's shameful. If this comes out as being true, the White House has lost all dignity. Lying about getting a hummer is one thing, lying about stuff that actually matters? Wow. Yet, some people seem to have no problem with this. Of course, if things were reversed, ie a democrat president outing a right-wing CIA agent (covert or not), they would be HOWLING bloody murder. Howling. Such things make me sad and unhappy. :( |
Quote:
even if the outting a CIA agent charges are hard to get, it should be pretty easy to nail Rove on perjury charges if it's him... you know... those charges "you" tried to impeach Clinton on. |
Most of what is coming out now (from Rove's lawyer) is that he spoke with the reporters the week before the story broke, but that he did not reveal any secrets and that he did not name Plame. Within this context I doubt he perjured himself.
|
what;s his lawyer going to say LOL
|
The article from the LA Times...
Quote:
|
We'll see when the Time documents are made public. A statement from Rove's lawyer is completely meaningless. Lawyers almost always deny publicly that their clients had any culpability at this stage of an investigation.
|
Quote:
no, the lawyer was going to say he did it :rolleyes: :p |
Quote:
Finally! You post a link with which I don't have to quibble! :p Quote:
Cheap suit, surely. ;) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think you, and others here, need to step back for a second and take a hard look at all the assumptions you're making about CIA standard operating procedures. A lot of you seem to be operating from assumptions based in the world of Alias or James Bond, where every criminal & terrorist is a mastermind who can sift through webs of associations to make direct links between people. Is this really realistic? Given that she's mentioned as potentially compromised due to Aldrich Ames in 1994, maybe the state of her "cover" in the beginning of this decade was deemed acceptable for the remaining former associations she had. The Vanity Fair article also notes that at the time of her outing she was getting ready to go back to a State Department cover which indicates to me, at least, that there was more going on here than meets the eye. Bottom Line: The basis for the attacks on Plame's "cover" or lack thereof seems to rest on the idea that if she had direct and current contacts with undercover field agents her "cover" was clearly insufficient, thus we must conclude from her "lack of cover" that she in fact had no such connections to jeopardize. I think that's far too simplistic and full of weak assumptions. |
Flere,
I was responding from a legal standpoint. If people are going to file charges against "the leak" then his comments need to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And that act is pretty specific on the items needed to have an agent's identity qualify. So, given she was not working abroad at the time (one potential qualifier) and that the CIA did not appear to be "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her identity given the fact she was stationed in Washington and had a very weak alias in Boston makes the case for these type of charges very weak. Now, I will certainly agree that the leaker and Novak should have used a little more sense and not released her name to the public if there was even a question about her status. But, that does not mean that their actions equate a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. |
Quote:
No matter how often nor how dramatically we disagree, sometimes you say something that actually makes at least a tiny bit of sense ;) What I'd answer on that point is that, minus any Bond contrivances, that there's still a long history of thorough tracking of those who go in & out of places such as Langley. Now, I'd say that the level of surveillance is lower now than during the Cold War, but that shouldn't be confused with it being non-existent either. I like seeing that you're thinking about this aspect of the whole situation though, seriously. I just strongly believe that you're underestimating what is/isn't common knowledge inside the global intelligence community (basically the opposite of what you wondered if some others are doing, i.e. overestimating it). It's actually a relatively small universe in some ways. |
Quote:
Ah, gotcha. I wasn't, really. I'm more concerned with the lack of circumspection shown by Novak & "the leaker", as well as the political goal of the action than trying to prove the technicalities of the case either way. By and large this is because I think Peter Fitzgerald will do what he can do vis-a-vis the law which, as you point out, may not be a lot. |
Quote:
I think something is wrong with people who draw generalities from assumptions based on frustration and anger. An attitude like yours makes it difficult to keep an open mind and have a dialogue. Of course something is obviously wrong with me, so take it all with a grain of salt. :p |
Quote:
A valid point. However, I think you're still neglecting two (at least) things: 1. I can't find any actual evidence that she was physically at Langley outside of what amounts to Washington gossip columns. 2. We have no idea what Plame did for the CIA. I see a lot of people suggesting that, given her "lack of cover" (a subjective measure at best, see above), she couldn't have been tied to anything very important. That's a silly assumption. We have no idea what she did. We have no idea to whom she was connected (if at all). We have no idea to what extent she needed cover. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that her level of cover was deemed sufficient to not arouse suspicion amongst those who may come across her name & her associates. Quote:
You're assuming that the significant actors in her CIA realm were all states and thus members of the global intelligence community. What if her work involved non-state actors? What if her work involved predominantly regional or even local actors? There are a lot of assumptions floating around, but the bottom line is that Novak & "the leaker" had the opportunity to err on the side of circumspection in an area where the intelligence community was involved, and they decided instead to forgo circumspection in the pursuit of political and, in Novak's case, career expediency. |
Quote:
I'd have to dig around for something beyond that, but it seems to have been a generally accepted stipulation AFAIK. If not, I'll withdraw it. Quote:
Agreed. But in order for any crime to exist here, it's a must that a need for cover to have existed. And that's the very core of any defense of the mention of her association with the CIA. And as I understand it, the burden of proof of that need lies within the government, not with Novak, Rove, or either of us. |
Quote:
Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
hahaha uh huh. so impeachment proceedings is a slap on the wrist? |
Quote:
Yeah, the Senate made sure it was. They could have called witnesses to testify and that would have made it less the sham than it turned out to be. Clinton got lucky by the 'Gentlemen's Club' not wanting to deal with voter fallout and the Senate wanting to sweep the whole thing under the rug. |
again I stand my point that no one at the White House ahs the right to simply decide someone isn't "under cover" enough thus we can release her name, which only served a political purpose of retaliation AND NOTHING ELSE!! It was not their right and it is a crime, hence the special investigation. If it is Rove that was responsible OR whomever else they deserve to pay the piper for this crime.
"OH, she wasn't THAT under cover." It's not their right to determine that and not under the designation of powers...it cannot be argued. |
Quote:
I'd point out Hillary and Bill were cleared of any wrongdoing in that case, along with the other 5,436 things right wingers think Clinton should be in jail for, but the truth doesn't seem to mean much to ole' Bubba. |
Quote:
What you're missing here, it appears at least, is that the degree of "cover" is a neccessary component of any "crime" -- no cover, or no cover that was subject to "affirmative measures to conceal" then there's no crime at all. |
every single report EVER that came form any independent news source as that she was Covert. It doesnt have to be today, it would in essence mean FOREVER since now she could never be covert again. Its not the White house's right to just decide this on a whim because they dont like her husband. Cover was already stated, and has been impressed upon at every corner of this entire story. Rove cannot decide today, since she is writing a report behind a desk, to "out" her. It is treasonous and Im surprised since you're so militant at heart, in regards to intelligence and armed forces that all of a sudden you're ok with this.
Perhaps it falls under your war against the left in this country...that you yourself have outlined as your heart and soul...so I guess IN THAT WAR its ok....but not in real life, there Jon. |
Quote:
and B) You really need to go read the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. You really seem to be drifting into "how you wish things were" instead of "how things really are". I'll stipulate that if Rove or anybody else violated it, then they should be prosecuted persuant to the terms of the Act. What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained. |
I think most people except those on the fringe would be appalled and shocked, LAW OR NO LAW, that our administration and its "advisors" would "out/blow cover" on ANYONE that works for the government based SOLELY on retaliation. THAT IS SLIMY AS HELL!!
The fact that there is a law wirtten to protect these people is bonus, BUT if you need that law to have some ethics than that is your weakness to begin with. |
Newsweek's released it and CNN.com has picked it up.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/co...ove/index.html |
Quote:
That's funny, not only do you need to read the Act but also read several books on how the federal govt really works (p.s., I think you would be appalled in reading a book like ""Master of the Senate" - LBJ years). You may want things were different but you would be wishing for something that never have been, nor will ever be. I would venture to say that we don't know (or more accurately, don't care to know) 90% of what goes on inside the Beltway and the numerous laws that are broken, gross ethical lapses and the blackmail/back-biting/extortion that goes on every single day. It's no different now than it was 10 years ago, or 40 years ago (and actually a lot better now than it was 100-140 yrs ago) - nor will it be any different 10 or 40 yrs from now. One can always chose to prosecute or censure or something- it's just a matter of blindly throwing a dart and see who it hits. |
Quote:
Along those same lines is what I find funny also. People talk about how Clinton's blowjob and Bush's speaking skills have ruined the great history of the White House, the political parties are divided worse than they ever have been in the history of the country, Dick Chaney should be charged with murder... Our fucking first vice president murdered a political opponenet in a duel! Our country was involved in a civil war! (The Republican/Democrat name calling is the worst point in history? Worse than a civil war?) Slaves. Face it, the past is not nearly as pretty as any of us ever remember. So everyone needs to quit talking about a return to those values. They aren't really there. |
I agree. Senators/Politicians/Beltway Boys are basically proffessional cock-blockers nowadays, but at least they aren't talking about civil war every 15-minutes like they did in the 1850's and 1860's (and finally had to have one to get everybody to shut up about it).
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak. Quote:
|
Quote:
Is this really a good standard to hold ourselves to? "Well, we aren't starting a civil war so things must be good" SI |
This thread begs the question: what will the Bush apologists get outraged by? Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq. 'It's just politics!' 'Just those crazy liberals blowing up charges!' 'He's only an advisor.' Whatever. At least the American people are finally paying attention.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Jon, shouldn't you be outraged? Does politics trump religion? |
Quote:
hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003556 Quote:
|
Lawrence O'Donnell isn't exactly the best source given his numerous partisan meltdowns over the past 2 years. Plus, it appears the newsweek story does NOT say "It's Rove!" based on the CNN story posted by Scott above.
But, let's say Looney Lawrence is right and the article names Rove. Then, if the information provided the Grand Jury shows that Rove was the leak, his actions will need to be investigated. But, again, I still fail to see how the facts as they have been presented to this point show a violation of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" - which is what counts here. The issue has been skirted around by everyone from CNN to the NY Times to the Washington Post to even Fox News. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Novak and the leaker making this type of a statement about a CIA agent, but that doesn't make it illegal. |
While I am not a fan generally of Arles analysis, I happen to agree here. I know that DOJ guidelines say that reporters aren't supposed to be pressured to compromise sources unless there is a good case to be made, but frankly I think this is much ado about nothing.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
While I'd love Karl Rove to be implicated in this, I think what we have is some wishful thinking. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
and once again Arles falls on the "If Rove doesn't write something admitting to it, it isn't true?" camp. Unreal, what the ehll do you think they were talking about Arles? Where to go get sushi!! Unreal, you do this on EVERY single topic. If you add them all up you still get nothing!? Unbelievable, how much stuff do you have to have!! Ill tell you what...since it's the way you think anyways, 6 years from now when everything comes out, WRITTEN by people other than the horse themself, and the entire world believes its true....you can still go on thinking we didnt walk on the moon. Arles, for our gov't. to retaliate against a dissenter is undemocratic. doncha think? That is the reason she was outed....sounds a lot like Castro to me. Whoeever released her name commited a crime, obviously, but I love how you are digging for a loophole...for shame. and to respond back to the people speaking on lack of morals...I say: That is not okay. Just because people have been slimy in the past should not give carte blanche so that we accept it now. Every 4 years while voting people always say, "It doesnt matter who I vote for, theyre all crooks anyways." Inferring that things should be different....but now youre saying thats just the way it is, so it's ok. |
Act:
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. |
welp, seems pretty easy to me, pick one, she had the access, the CIA said she was covert, and someone "disclosed any info. id'ing her"....
even on (c) whomever spoke to the reporter couldve worked the old fumblerooski and been guilty, "There's a girl, she works 8-430 on the 5th floor at cubicle 19. She also happens to be involved in communications with Al Qaeda operatives in the wabash region. Perhaps it would be interesting if you did some research to find out who she is." thats a illegal action too but, Arles, that horse didn't say much either so I guess it didnt happen....maybe I should use the your daughter example again, since you wont believe something until it Comes from the actual person who did it....so many criminals running around free in your world, Id venture to guess. A child molester denies it and only the child is there to accuse, welp, sorry son guy is going free eventhough 13 other children claim something too....darn now if only one of you kids would video tape it while it were happening (didnt work with arles when Rumsfeld got caught lying on mett the press). |
Quote:
Umm ... I'm confused with your post, for several reasons. 1) I'm not a big politics & religion guy. That's more BW's gig than mine. 2) The most obvious bit of "false witness" I've seen related to this case are those who insist that a law has been broken when it seems pretty clear to this point that none has been. 3) What have you got right now? A story from some member of the Loony Left claiming Rove said x,y, and/or z? And I'm supposed to get bent about that? Sorry Biggles, but it's going to take more than that for me to get even perturbed, much less "outraged". So far, this doesn't even merit a sneeze, much less an explosion. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.