or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse! - Page 7

post #241 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Sr. must be LIVID at JR.

Rove is Sr.'s man. HW got Rove in the game, IIRC
post #242 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Sr. must be LIVID at JR.

I really want to know just what he thinks beyond admiration for his son as a father. George W. Bush is just that different than his father. He has ruined international treaties, weakened coalitions, and lowered our standing among the world's other powers. He is unilateralist while his father is multilateralist. Most important to Wilsongate is that Bush Sr. harshly condemns intelligence leaks while Bush Jr. is all too willing to share classified date if it helps his administration politically- or use it to silence his critics. Someone in the Bush administration did it! Someone did it! Someone!
post #243 of 498
Thread Starter 
SR. probably is just resigned to the fact that JR is a son-of-a-bush...
post #244 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh, you're absolutely right. It backfired on whoever decided to leak the information. The leak, by some criminal twist of imagination, was intended to discourage other whistle blowers from coming forward. Wilson has stated all along that naming his wife has little to do with stopping him from coming forward since he already did. It certainly punished him, taking away his wife's job. But what about the CIA operative who is fairly high on the pay scale and has two kids in college? Will he be discouraged if he knew someone in the Bush Administration might blow his cover if he comes forward? Remember, once you're named, your career is over. It's over. There's a distinct political advantage to be gained from squashing dissent. I can't believe you don't see it.

I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.

I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.

The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #245 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.

I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.

The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.

Nick

You speak in the empty language of debate.

claims,
facts,
support,
refutation,
back-up.


What is my claim? You must show what my claim is-- not rattle off the technical terms for things you don't show.

It's clear that exposed CIA operatives will never work in the field again.
It's clear that exposing CIA operatives jeopardizes many things- including every project that operative worked on- every contact that operative worked with.

Jeopardizes is the key word. Not condemn- which is more certain- but jeopardize- which is more open to debate. You must certainly admit that revealing Valerie Plame as a CIA Operative jeopardizes the things I listed.

Remember, all breaches of "National Security" don't condemn the safety of Americans, but they certainly jeopardize their safety.
post #246 of 498
Thread Starter 
Guess Wilson was on Ted Koppel:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night...eak031001.html

Oct. 1 The former ambassador who accused the White House of leaking the identity of his CIA officer wife to the press says Washington reporters told him that senior White House adviser Karl Rove said his wife was "fair game."





And i do not have a link (anyone) but this:

Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):

CHRIS MATTHEWS:_ Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE:_ I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS:_ It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE:_ It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it._ It's not just politics.


RNC leader to American: It would be worse then watergate. Its not just about politics.

post #247 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.

I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.

The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.

Nick

And that is somehow acceptable? How so?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #248 of 498
Once again the Bushie denialists are calling this a "non-issue". Yeah, it's a non-issue until you investigate. That's why we need to investigate. Duh.

Amazing that the RNC chairman agrees that if it's true this is "bigger than Watergate", yet some moronic posters on this thread still have their heads so deep in the sand to call it a "non-issue".

Quote:
Posted by Trumptman:
"Ummm... ummm... ummm... lalalalala... lalalala... lalalala... not listening... lalalala... ummm... ummm... ummm... Bush Good... Liberals bad... lalala... lalala..."
post #249 of 498
Thread Starter 
I read elsewhere all the rightwignuts are starting to smear wilson as a liberal with an agenda

But what they fail to answer is, If he' was a macgovernite would that have made it somehow OK?


What they did was felonious.
post #250 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
And that is somehow acceptable? How so?

Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.

Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.

I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.

Nick

BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #251 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.

Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.

I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.

Nick

BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.

Well that's fine and dandy that "you have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed." Because none of us here feel like repeating things just for you. We could even list things for you and you would suggest that you haven't "seen anything."

"Oh what? That's nothing! Nope! What did you say? Didn't see it."
post #252 of 498
Thread Starter 
Some good counterpoints at http://www.calpundit.com



James S. Robbins
[Joseph] Wilson's purported influence has been inflated to the point where otherwise sensible people (and some not-so) are alleging that the inner circles of the White House had to resort to felonious leaking to discredit him.

Calpundit
That's exactly right. And isn't the fact that this whole sordid episode was launched "purely and simply for revenge" against a minor political nuisance pretty revealing about the fundamental ruthlessness of the Bush White House political operation?

James S. Robbins
The flap about the putative outing of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee is not the important story in this affair as far as I am concerned. The only reason this incident has any legs is the eagerness of the press to set themselves on scandal autopilot. "It seems like the good old days, doesn't it?" CNN's Aaron Brown said, hoping perhaps to bring back the good old ratings.

Calpundit
Look! It's the media's fault!

Although oddly enough, as we'll see, Robbins doesn't seem to actually follow the media very closely.

James S. Robbins
But the props have been knocked out from under this manufactured conspiracy. Robert Novak clarified that the information about Ms. Plame was not exactly leaked but arose in the natural course of his interview process.

Calpundit
The best way to leak is to make it look natural, isn't it?



James S. Robbins
In any case, this is old news. Novak admits that a top White House official did volunteer the information about Plame, whether "naturally" or not, and the Washington Post and others have already reported that several other journalists were also contacted. I guess Robbins doesn't read the Post.


It also appears that she was not an "operative" (a term that Novak innocently misused, implying she was a clandestine service officer), but an analyst, which there is no crime in revealing. So we are left with a leak that wasn't a leak, about a secret agent who was evidently neither secret nor an agent.

Calpundit
Not true: see here and here. Apparently Robbins doesn't read MSNBC or CNN or watch PBS either.

James S. Robbins
As for the explosive charge that Karl Rove was the mischievous mastermind behind the whole affair, the Honorable Mr. Wilson simply flat out lied about that one.

Calpundit
Wilson definitely went too far, but he had reason. As he's mentioned before, and repeated to Ted Koppel last night, a reporter told him back in July, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He tells me your wife is fair game." And the Guardian's Julian Borger says several reporters have already privately named Rove. We can add Nightline and the Guardian to the growing list of media representatives Robbins seems unaware of.

Calpundit is right! its the media's fault

Sorry Katie...
post #253 of 498
I don't get it? Are you saying outing a cia operative is a victimless crime? Or that we just don't know to what extent the victim has been harmed?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #254 of 498
Gagglepalooza Day 2!

Everybody go read today's partial transcript!

Great question:

When did the President know it, and what did he do about it?
post #255 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.

You didn't call it an attempt earlier. You said :"The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name." You agreed the damage had been made at LEAST to her name. Nice backtracking there.
Quote:
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.

Since you seem to claim, no harm no foul, the onus is on YOU to prove there hasn't been any harm, at any level from revealing the identity of a covert operative..which Mrs. Wilson appears to be. Otherwise why would the CIA ask for an investigation? Can't you see how -potentially- damaging this could be?
Quote:
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.

You aren't providing hard evidence to the contrary either. By the way, I'm a registered Republican too. 8)
post #256 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
hmmm... has he been convicted of something?

Are you purposefully being dense? We're talking about a hypothetical situation where he's guilty of the accusation. If you're going to be dense, don't bother to subtract anything from the conversation.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #257 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman.



Are you really not aware of the reason that this information is not being released?
post #258 of 498
Quadruple post...
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #259 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.

I grew up in a Republican household and originally registered as a Republican (the Reagan years). When I started disagreeiing with certain policies, I started using the excuse that perhaps I was more of a "moderate" Republican. That morphed into, "well I'm a fiscal Republican and a social Democrat."

Right around that time, about five years ago, I believe it was both Limbaugh and Hannity that started making statements that they really couldn't stand moderates in the Republican party because they couldn't be trusted to vote party-line (they drove this point home on numerous occassions). That coupled with a party hell-bent on overturning Clinton's presidency, which I felt was unconstitutional regardless if I believed Clinton had f*cked up (which he did), really turned me away fully. Plus, it took a dozen years or so away from the homestead to truly discover who I was, what I stood for and what I "honestly" supported.

No longer fearing my father's wagging finger, I am glad to report that I'm fully recovered and a registered Democrat. So, don't worry. You can easily label me a "liberal" and write me off now.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #260 of 498
Thread Starter 
White House 180 degree turn 4...3...2...1...

Quote:
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to journalists, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct1.html

Quote:
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll is based on telephone interviews with 505 randomly selected adults nationwide and was conducted Tuesday evening, Sept. 30.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ata100103.html

How long will the buffaloes rove?

I am amazed that the number got that high so soon* This is serious news for the folks in the white house.

*and by soon i mean since the story re-broke last week instead of 10 weeks ago when it should have...





Update:

From Calpundit

THE NOOSE TIGHTENS?....Via email:

Larry Johnson told Buchanan and Press that the person who leaked to Novak has an office in the EOB and that he is associated with the Vice Presidents office. He also said that when the name is released, people will recognize the name and that the individual is linked with past scandals.

Did anyone see this? Did it sound credible?

I can't find transcripts on msnbc to save my life. Its probably too soon.

Karl/Cheney->VP chief of staff->leak ?

Mr. Frogs wild ride?
post #261 of 498
From CNN:
Quote:
Bush said he welcomes the probe, calling leaks of classified information "bad things."

post #262 of 498
From the washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

He worked his way into better postings around Africa. In 1988 he was posted to Baghdad, and was running the embassy after Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

He recalled saying at the time, "The good news is we've been training for this all of our careers. The bad news is: Oh, [expletive], we're in charge -- what do we do now?"

Wilson may laugh now, but in the eyes of hostages, he was a hero. "He stuck his neck out in our behalf . . . He worked so hard to keep us from falling apart," recalled Roland O. Bergheer, 75, a Bechtel Corp. manager who was trapped in Baghdad.

A conservative who lives in Las Vegas, Bergheer added: "I love Joe Wilson. . . . I don't give a damn what his politics are."

Even though the White House has said Rove wasn't involved, Wilson made clear yesterday that he has no intention of backing off from his assertion that Rove at least condoned someone's making telephone calls to reporters about his wife. He said he took a call from a reporter who quoted Rove as saying: "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game."

Wilson said he and his wife have attended the same Episcopal church as Rove. Wilson quoted Valerie as saying, "Perhaps the next time we are taking communion I should introduce myself so he can see that I have a face and a name other than 'fair game.' "
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #263 of 498
Thread Starter 
You have to read this thread on calpundit

http://www.calpundit.com/mt/mt-comme...?entry_id=2312

It looks like the VP's office is involved, possibly. if you believe this jonhnson guy.

A poster:

Quote:
I watched (and TIVO'd it the whole interview when I saw what was happening). Johnson said he had a friend "who would know" and that it was multiple people at the Old Executive Office Building. When asked for the name he said he wasn't comfortable saying it. When asked by Buchannan if it was Libby he said no comment. When Press noted Rove worked in the West Wing not the OEOB Johnson confirmed that it wasn't him. After the commercial break Buchannan gave a theory that Libby was upset Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger and so told Novak that in fact it was his wife who sent him. Johnson said it was a good theory. Before he left Johnson said he had not spoken with the FBI, but Press told him he would be soon.

Elliot Abrahms?
Scooter Libby?
3 leakers?

Or are they taking the bullet for people in the WH?

Conspiracy?

The transcripts will appaer here soon:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/MSNBCTRANS...MAIN_Front.asp





Advice to Bush JUNIOR. Do NOT hire plumbers...
post #264 of 498
In these types of situations....someone usually takes the bullet/is sacrificed. This is getting interesting.
post #265 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Wilson's OP-ED in the New York Times blew the whistle on Bush's "yellowcake uranium" claim. Wilson went to Niger before the State of the Union address, found out that no sale occurred...

The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.
Quote:
... reported back to the CIA and Bush STILL USED THE CLAIM in his State of the Union Address (this time attributing it to British intelligence- our intelligence obviously contradicting his claims).

No, our intel COULDN'T SUPPORT the claim. It didn't contradict it.

For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #266 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.

This is not what i understood. Links? Thx.
post #267 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.No, our intel COULDN'T SUPPORT the claim. It didn't contradict it.;

It didn't have to be that thorough if it wasn't to begin with. The uranium consortium in Niger is very heavily monitored. The International Atomic Energy Agency was monitoring Iraq's nuclear facilities, including the famous one at Tuwaitha that was looted.Iraq didn't have the facilities to enrich uranium.We also sent a four star Marine General named Carlton Fulford to investigate:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
From the article:
Quote:
Fulford was asked by the U.S. ambassador to Niger, BarbroOwens-Kirkpatrick, to join her at the meeting with Niger's President Mamadou Tandja on Feb. 24, 2002. "I was asked to impress upon the president the importance that the yellowcake in Niger be under control," Fulford said. "I did that. He assured me. He said the mining operations were handled through a French consortium" and therefore out of the Niger government's control. Owens-Kirkpatrick, reached by phone, declined to comment.
Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true.

Quote:
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.

Well, poeple may be looking at past history and Rove has been a leaker in the past. I don't know who is at fault here, but I think the investigation should be fair and meticulous and the guilty parties should deal with the legal consequences.
post #268 of 498
Thread Starter 
Yep.
post #269 of 498
BOOYAH!

Courtesy of Atrios via Liberal Oasis.

John Ashcroft Flashback!

Quote:
October 4, 1997
CNNs Evans & Novak"

JOHN ASHCROFT: The truth of the matter is that if the law's been violated, we should be able to ascertain that.

We can, if we have an independent person without a conflict of interest

ROWLAND EVANS: The attorney general has shaved down all the allegations that Vice President Gore apparently down to one single allegation -- which telephone he used to make these fundraising calls from.

Do you really think that alone is worthy of a special prosecutor?

ASHCROFT: you know, a single allegation can be most worthy of a special prosecutor.

If you're abusing government property, if you're abusing your status in office, it can be a single fact that makes the difference on that.

So my own view is that there are plenty of things which should have caused [Attorney General Janet Reno], a long time ago, to appoint a special prosecutor, an independent investigator.

We asked for that on March the 13th of this year in letters from Republican members on the Judiciary Committee. And she's in a bad position

The man who signs her check is the man that she's investigating, and she hasn't been very aggressive about it.

*dances*
post #270 of 498
Thread Starter 
Farmer Bush: Can you guard this hen house for me?
Ashcroft the Fox: You bet.
Rover Hen: Phew! I thought i was plucked for sure...

Hold the phone...

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 Deep political ties between top White House aides and Attorney General John Ashcroft have put him into a delicate position as the Justice Department begins a full investigation into whether administration officials illegally disclosed the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/po...partner=GOOGLE





WTF?? This is just sick.

Atrios.blogspot.com

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2003_09_2...05425381725151

"They may try and recover deleted email files for certain dates..."

"The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?"

Nina Totenberg, on NPR this evening.

This really is absolutely unbelievable. Where is the outrage? We need some answers to those questions.

UPDATE: Digby adds:

One would have thought that the Commander in Chief would have personally ordered his staff to preserve all e-mails and documents relating to a possible felony and breach of national security during wartime on the morning after the leak was revealed in Robert Novak's column.

That's what a leader does. He doesn't depend upon legal technicalities and partisan firestorms to make him do the right thing. He takes the bull by the horns and demands that anyone under his watch who commits such an act, or knows who committed such an act, comes forward or he'll know the reason why. He would make it crystal clear that there will be zero tolerance for political games with national security. He would immediately put in place safeguards to ensure that it never happens again. He would fire the perpetrator and send all evidence to the proper authorities.

Of course, strutting around in a fighter pilot costume is good, too.
post #271 of 498
Can any lawyers in the crowd get a copy of the 1982 statute in question and paste it in this thread? Particularly interesting would be a definition of a "covert agent".

If Mrs. Wilson meets the definition of a 'covert agent', AND, if the column by Novak meets the criteria of the statute, then someone, it would seem, is indeed, in Trouble.

Until that time, it seems that no one knows for sure what Mrs. Wilson does at CIA. Is she a receptionist, an analyist, or a fire-eating Marta Hari?

Lot of questions to be answered (and rather easily I should think) before the Monty Pythonesque Mob Burns The Witch.

Aries 1B
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #272 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.

Scottalicious!

For the most part you've been good so far. That is, open minded. But I have to say that at least around here people don't seem to 'want' to pin it on Rove so much as Rove seems to be the right guy. I mean, all the Bush haters, given a choice, would probably wish that Bush himself could be proven to have broken the law. That would be the best option. People are pegging Rove because the evidence points to Rove.

I know I'd rather this get pinned on Bush himself, rather than Rove. I'd say 10 years in the slammer for GBII would be worth it all.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #273 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Until that time, it seems that no one knows for sure what Mrs. Wilson does at CIA. Is she a receptionist, an analyist, or a fire-eating Marta Hari?

The only people calling her anything but an operative (including the counsel to the white house that used the term "undercover") are that republican congressman from georgia that suggested she might be a "glorified" secretary and novak who called her an "operative' then an "analyst" who knows what he will claim what she is tomorrow.

There really is no more "dancing around" what she was.

A) The CIA would not have brought it up if she was a "janitor"

and

B) Multiple sources reported today that she did indeed work for the "Directorac(sp) of Operations" basically the "super secret" part of the CIA that falls under the statute.

So posting the statue really doesn't matter any longer.

The law was broken. A CIA operative was "outed" and 8 people know at least, exactly which "senior administation official" committed this felony.
post #274 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
to 'want' to pin it on Rove so much as Rove seems to be the right guy

Egg-sactly..

Thanks bunge.

Based on his past and the stories we have heard about him and this white house we might find out Libby,Libby,Libby, is the fall guy but I would still find it very hard to believe K-A-R-L did not (as the political operations officer of a very political white house) have at least some tacit part in this Felony.
post #275 of 498
Quote:
Are you purposefully being dense? We're talking about a hypothetical situation where he's guilty of the accusation. If you're going to be dense, don't bother to subtract anything from the conversation.

you sure didn't sound hypothetical. you asked if anyone thought that Karl Rove should get less than 10 years for this? Where's the hypothetical part? You've already assumed that he's guilty based on the irresponsible assumption that he was behind this. There isn't any evidence to that end beyond the conjecture of an admitted Bush-hater.
post #276 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
you sure didn't sound hypothetical. you asked if anyone thought that Karl Rove should get less than 10 years for this? Where's the hypothetical part? You've already assumed that he's guilty based on the irresponsible assumption that he was behind this. There isn't any evidence to that end beyond the conjecture of an admitted Bush-hater.

You could only truly believe this if you were ignorant (hadn't read the thread) or were lying. Take your pick.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #277 of 498
someone asked for this:

Quote:
TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
(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.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982, Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)

A case to prosecute would require the following elements:

1. "intentionally discloses" It would have to be shown that the release of information identifying the covert agent was intenetional, and not accidental (ie: leaving a file on your desk that someone who shouldn't be looking at did. - that would be reckless but not intentional.)

2. "not authorized to receive" The person receiving the information would have to be someone not legally cleared at a classified level.

3. "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent" You have to prove that the disclosure actually identifies the covert agent. Simply saying that Wilson's wife was a covert agent wouldn't meet this standard.

4. The individual actually has to be a covert agent, and the person would have to KNOW that they were a covert agent as accorded wherein it states: "and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States"

The fourth would be the most difficult to prove at this point since it appears that it was common knowledge around Washington that Amb. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Even if she had "covert" status, but it was reasonablly well known that she worked for the CIA, it would be a defense to a charge under this act that the United States wasn't taking affirmative measures to conceal her relationship.

Additionally, there would have to be mens rea, whereas the individual intended to violate the law.


edit: I should say, in all fairness, that just because you can't make a case doesn't mean that what happened was wrong. I'm not passing judgement on that, but I am saying that this is what it would take to rise to level of a criminal conviction.

You could further have someone who did in fact violate the law but still not be able to make your case on the elements, in which case there would be no conviction. I only posted that, and made those comments because someone asked for the information. Each is still obviously free to disgusted at the actions of those who may have broken the law. If in fact they have, whoever they may be, they should be prosecuted.

I would only stipulate that we actually have to discover if 1. the law was actually broken, and 2. who broke it.
post #278 of 498
Quote:
You could only truly believe this if you were ignorant (hadn't read the thread) or were lying. Take your pick.

Quite an arguement... only give me two choices to choose from. And such unpleasant choices at that. Perhaps there is another reason that stems from your zealous hatred of Bush and all things Bush, and because of the comments you make here.
post #279 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Quite an arguement... only give me two choices to choose from. And such unpleasant choices at that. Perhaps there is another reason that stems from your zealous hatred of Bush and all things Bush, and because of the comments you make here.

You've got a whole world of choices, but I'm going to guess that most of them aren't correct. Luckily there's a clear answer in this thread, a few posts prior to your original post so feel free to go check it out.

I don't think my supposed belief of anything has anything to do with your lack of understanding.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #280 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
"The White house asked for and got permission earlier this week to wait a day before issuing a directive to preserve all documents and logs which led one seasoned federal prosecutor to wonder why they wanted to wait a day, and who at the justice department told them they could do that, and why?"

This just in: The Bush Administration has just hired Fawn Hall to serve as a 24-hour temp.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!