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 10

post #361 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
She has lost no pay, no benefits, nothing as a result of this leak. Don't elude to the harm. Demonstrate it.

She will no longer be safe when traveling overseas. That's been demonstrated.

As for Rove, he has been pegged by people (reporters) other than Mr. Wilson or Mr. Novak.
"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 #362 of 498
Thread Starter 
My take away from the morning talk shows.


The Leak: 2 Senior Admin. Officials outed Joe Wilson's wife in an act of politcal revenge.

The Push: A week after the story broke in July, Karl Rove continued to push this story to reporters. Famous Quote by K-A-R-L "She's fair game."

If she was NOC (which eveyone short of bob nofacts) is hinting she is then this is a felony; whether or not bullets where or where not fired upon her or a kidnaping was or was not attempted is irrelevent.

Maybe she didn't even get a hang nail by being outed Phew! Looks like her fingernails where saved!!! She might have not even had her hair mussed and it still:

A) Could have resulted in the bringing down of networks charged with capturing terrorists or worse REAL weapons of mass desctruction.

B) A potential breach of national secuirty which was a direct effect of an act of political REVENGE from this administration in which 2 Senior Administration Officials potentially broke the law to wreak politcal revenge on a former Ambassador by proxy thru his wife.

C) Was a Felony.

D) Future cia opertaives may not speak up for fear of political REPRISAL LET"S ALL PUT THAT IN OUR THOUGHT PROCESSORS AND DWELL ON IT!

Two Senior Administration Officials spilled someone could have been killed.

Where's the Honesty and Integrity?
post #363 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
So tell me, Mr. Trump, if all your life you've wanted to be a doctor, and you trained for it, and you were good at it, and you loved what you did, then all of a sudden you were told you couldn't be a doctor any more, and that you had to sit behind a desk and be an administrator, but that your benefits, pay, everything else would stay the same, would you like that? Wouldn't your career have been damaged? You've obviously never done a job that you loved before.

I wouldn't take it as far as you have. Her intellect, and expertise will still be used for analysis here at home. It is obvious she had initiated this change before the leak.

So to fit your metaphor it would be more like working for the local hospital instead of being a medic for the military. You would still use your knowlege and expertise. However you just would choose to no longer travel and place yourself in harms way.

There are lots of men and women that make this decision because of life changes. The fact that she made her's shouldn't be attributed exclusively to the leak.

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 #364 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
She will no longer be safe when traveling overseas. That's been demonstrated.

As for Rove, he has been pegged by people (reporters) other than Mr. Wilson or Mr. Novak.

When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas. I have heard nor read any reports of there being danger involved. You are welcome to post some links to something I may not have read though. I will give it a read.

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 #365 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
My take away from the morning talk shows.


The Leak: 2 Senior Admin. Officials outed Joe Wilson's wife in an act of politcal revenge.

A charge made by Mr. Wilson based off the Washington Post piece. His information is from the papers which makes it as convincing as you or I going on a talk show and alleging it.

Quote:
The Push: A week after the story broke in July, Karl Rove continued to push this story to reporters. Famous Quote by K-A-R-L "She's fair game."

Also alleged by Mr. "Frogmarching" Wilson. He said he knows this information because it was told to him by a reporter. Is there any possibility the reporter would be playing him for a fool in hopes of getting an angry Wilson to spill some more information?

Quote:
If she was NOC (which eveyone short of bob nofacts) is hinting she is then this is a felony; whether or not bullets where or where not fired upon her or a kidnaping was or was not attempted is irrelevent.

Wrong again. It is a felony if the person who named her had clearance to obtain such information and then named her. If the person who named her had no clearance but happened to guess or name her anyway just because she worked for the CIA, then it isn't a felony.

Quote:
A) Could have resulted in the bringing down of networks charged with capturing terrorists or worse REAL weapons of mass desctruction.

B) A potential breach of national secuirty which was a direct effect of an act of political REVENGE from this administration in which 2 Senior Administration Officials potentially broke the law to wreak politcal revenge on a former Ambassador by proxy thru his wife.

C) Was a Felony.

D) Future cia opertaives may not speak up for fear of political REPRISAL LET"S ALL PUT THAT IN OUR THOUGHT PROCESSORS AND DWELL ON IT!

Those are possibilities if every allegation is true which it could be.

However consider the flip side for a moment. We are talking about unnamed sources and freedom of the press. Could it not put a damper on that as well? Bob Novak has been chastized for not naming his sources. However the Washington Post produced pieces naming two operatives without naming sources. By attacking the press, you could also put a damper on it and the information it passes on.

Quote:
Two Senior Administration Officials spilled someone could have been killed.

Where's the Honesty and Integrity?

Novak appeared to give full disclosure of all information short of naming the actual officials. He said it was mentioned off hand and no one handed him the information nor was it leaked to him. He asked who's idea it was to send Wilson and they said his wife. He called the CIA to confirm and they never mentioned the wife was any sort of national security risk. They mentioned they didn't want the story run. (Might be portrayed as cronyism to send a husband with no intelligence training to look for Uranium purchases)

Bob Novak and David Broder went into depth on this during Meet the Press this morning. They basically said the press needs to have a compelling reason to withhold the information. (you know that whole free speech thing) A particular agency or person not wanting a story run isn't a reason to withhold information. National Security is a compelling reason (when not abused) but was not named to Novak.

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 #366 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas.

Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.

Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
"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 #367 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.

Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?

Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.

The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?

One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?

The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.

So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.

It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.

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 #368 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.

The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?

One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?

The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.

So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.

It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.

Nick

This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.

Here's what I said:
Quote:
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgeable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?

You're ignoring this on purpose. That's weak.

Your Clinton analogy isn't good. There were hundreds of competing opinions on the subject. In this case we have one.

So I'll ask again, even though I imagine you'll spin and avoid again. But since we don't have any other prevailing opinions on the subject, if we assume this guy's opinion is correct, how would this effect your opinion of the situation? If he's right, and she's no longer safe to travel outside of the United States, what penalty would be strong enough for those that are responsible for the apparent leak?

We only have hypotheticals to work with at this point in time so don't hide from the issue. I can't believe you completely side stepped the issue the first time.
"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 #369 of 498
Quote:
If he's right, and she's no longer safe to travel outside of the United States, what penalty would be strong enough for those that are responsible for the apparent leak?

The problem is, that's not how we do it here. If someone violated the law, they should be prosecuted according to the law. But if they didn't, should they still be penalized even if she's unable to travel oversees?
post #370 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
The problem is, that's not how we do it here. If someone violated the law, they should be prosecuted according to the law. But if they didn't, should they still be penalized even if she's unable to travel oversees?

If no one broke the law, then no one broke the law. With all the evidence we have here to work with, it appears someone broke the law. I'm just trying to get someone to admit that the act was reckless and irresponsible and it should go punished. Admit it now, and if someone is ever found guilty we all know where we stand.

If it was Bill Clinton, I still say throw him in the slammer. Apparently some people around here are more worried about who might get caught rather than what the right thing to do to whomever is (potentially) caught.
"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 #371 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.

Your Clinton analogy isn't good. There were hundreds of competing opinions on the subject. In this case we have one.

So I'll ask again, even though I imagine you'll spin and avoid again. But since we don't have any other prevailing opinions on the subject, if we assume this guy's opinion is correct, how would this effect your opinion of the situation? If he's right, and she's no longer safe to travel outside of the United States, what penalty would be strong enough for those that are responsible for the apparent leak?

We only have hypotheticals to work with at this point in time so don't hide from the issue. I can't believe you completely side stepped the issue the first time.

My Clinton analogy is perfect. If there were more than this former classmates opinion supporting the contention, I'm sure the Times would have tossed it in as support. Even most newspaper articles toss in several quotes that support a position. Time found one. I don't know if they didn't seek opinion on the opposite perspective but if they didn't they didn't post an opposing quote. Hardly fair and balanced in my book.

If she is unable to travel outside the United States without safety concerns, I don't know what the punishment would be. How would you even prosecute that? In that line of work it is always an inevitability you would think and thus you must mentally be prepared for it. Even if her position weren't leaked as claimed by a White House Official, her cover could still have been blown at some time and that would mean no more travelling abroad.

So I guess you would need to determine to what degree the danger was unleashed early in a job in which that outcome was already a possibility and attempt to prosecute that. I don't know if that is the answer you wanted but it is sort of convoluted question. You are basically saying she is less safe and how do you prosecute someone being less safe?

Likewise if you were truly in deep cover cover, why would you send your husband with no expertise to research in the field in which you are both an expert and deeply undercover? It sounds like Plume is at least partially responsible for her own demise with her cronyism. If you are an expert on weapons of mass destruction and posing as an energy consultant, do you really send your husband who has no cover to Africa to ask about Uranium used for power being possibly used for weapons of mass destruction?

Now the Washington Post has some quotes from the shows I mentioned yesterday so I will move on to those...

Washington Post

Quote:
Joseph Wilson, a seasoned diplomat in both Republican and Democratic governments, said President Bush's top political aide Karl Rove, while likely not the source of the leak, later "gave legs" to a newspaper column that revealed his wife's identity as a CIA operative.

"I do have a number of people, or a person in whom I have a high degree of confidence, who has told me that Karl Rove told him that my wife is 'fair game', and that was one week after the leak," Wilson told CBS "Face The Nation."

So now Rove isn't the leaker, but a pusher. How do we know? Well a number of people... well one person I trust told me she is fair game.

The guy is all over the place.

Quote:
Wilson said it now appeared his wife's name was actually leaked by someone outside the White House, as an act of revenge to stop him and others from questioning the intelligence used to go to war with Iraq.

"This administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife," he told NBC's "Meet The Press."

Nice language there Post. He didn't question the intelligence he wrote a column condemning the Bush position. Likewise I like how he can no longer claim the leak is within the White House but yet still claim it is the administration after him. This guy and his claims get weaker by the day.

Quote:
Wilson said he and his wife, a specialist in unconventional weapons who worked overseas, have become increasingly concerned she might be a target because of the disclosure and "as a consequence of that, have begun to rethink our own security posture."

Sounds pretty tame compared to the accusations made around here.

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 #372 of 498
Quote:
If she is unable to travel outside the United States without safety concerns, I don't know what the punishment would be. How would you even prosecute that? In that line of work it is always an inevitability you would think and thus you must mentally be prepared for it. Even if her position weren't leaked as claimed by a White House Official, her cover could still have been blown at some time and that would mean no more travelling abroad.

So I guess you would need to determine to what degree the danger was unleashed early in a job in which that outcome was already a possibility and attempt to prosecute that. I don't know if that is the answer you wanted but it is sort of convoluted question. You are basically saying she is less safe and how do you prosecute someone being less safe?

How is this the central issue?

Really, someone should get fired at the very least if the Bush admin had any integrity whatsoever, so all of this BS where the only options are felony charges or nothing is just a way for trumptman and blatantly lying OBJRA10 the [pretend] law professor to create an argument just to argue.
post #373 of 498
I've been watching Wilson in various interviews and he's very consistent... he's not "all over the place"...

also... it's irrelevant...

Plame... an Operative in the operations section of the CIA was outed. That's why there's an investigation.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #374 of 498
OUr friend Josh has put it perfectly:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100603141am
post #375 of 498
Quote:
If no one broke the law, then no one broke the law. With all the evidence we have here to work with, it appears someone broke the law. I'm just trying to get someone to admit that the act was reckless and irresponsible and it should go punished. Admit it now, and if someone is ever found guilty we all know where we stand.

I agree with this statement completely. It appears that someone did. Whoever that someone is, should be prosecuted if in fact it turns out that a law was broken.
post #376 of 498
Thread Starter 
Giant, you should have posted this part in case they do not click since your/joshua's post is directly relevent to the "if she didn't get hurt, you must acquit" mini thread...

It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.

Quote:
Look at all the chatter swirling around the Wilson/Plame scandal: the pros and cons of leaks, the difficulty of unearthing and prosecuting leakers, attacks on Joe Wilson, Novak's never-ending-story, back and forth about this, that and the other. Bill Safire has 701 words in Monday's Times all devoted to churning these points and covering for his friends with artful zingers and disinformation.

All of it is beside the point.

For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
post #377 of 498
Thread Starter 
Faux News (not part of the liberal media) strikes again...

From TPM:

And they were off to such a good start. Unless I'm mistaken Tony Snow led off Fox News Sunday this morning by calling Valerie Plame a CIA "analyst." In other words, rather prejudicing the question by introducing it packaged in a bit of misinformation.

-- Josh Marshal
post #378 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Giant, you should have posted this part in case they do not click since your/joshua's post is directly relevent to the "if she didn't get hurt, you must acquit" mini thread...

It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.

All of it is beside the point.

For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.

You have your own disinformation campaign. The allegations of two operatives and six reporters is from the same type of "anonymous sources" and a newspaper story. There has been no names named nor anything else corroborating that information.

For all you know that is nonsense and hearsay. No other reporters besides Novak have stepped forward and claimed to have been told the name of Wilson's wife. No reporter has stepped forward and said, yes I was called with a leak.

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 #379 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

For all you know that is nonsense and hearsay. No other reporters besides Novak have stepped forward and claimed to have been told the name of Wilson's wife. No reporter has stepped forward and said, yes I was called with a leak.

Nick

I saw an anchor on CNN yesterday reporting on the story. He mentioned that 6 reporters were told about Plame, including one that works for CNN.
post #380 of 498
Thread Starter 
6 plus the number of people (unknown but at least 1) that K-A-R-L, one week after the original story was published, "pushed" and kept "pushing" this story to reports to give the story "legs" and where he told a report that "she's fair game".

Oh. Mission accomplish K-A-R-L, this story has legs...
post #381 of 498
Go back and read the Washington Post's article that came out last weekend.

Wlison has said that after her name was put out there by Novak... a reporter called him and said I just talked to Karl Rove and he said she was ''fair game". And Wilson said he would tell any investigator that asked who that reporter was. Sure doesn't sound like KARL was opposed to her name being leaked... he was trying to pump the story. Very patriotic don't you think? Better to hurt a dissenter than to protect a CIA operative. Why wasn't KARL pissed that the name was leaked? Someone was pissed... and it wasn't Karl... it was the person who gave info to the Post.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #382 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I saw an anchor on CNN yesterday reporting on the story. He mentioned that 6 reporters were told about Plame, including one that works for CNN.

If true then just tell him to come forward. Wouldn't it be beneficial to just name the leaker?

In news that would be a major league win the rating for the week, justifiable scoop. I can't imagine they would sit on such info.

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 #383 of 498
Thread Starter 
Trickle, Trickle, swoooshhhh!

?????????????


http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/10/04_novak.html

WOODRUFF:All right.

Separately from all that, we know the Justice Department is expanding the investigation. New e-mails sent out to the White House employees today. Have you, Bob Novak been contacted yet?

NOVAK: I'm going to give you an answer I don't think I ever give in my life. On advice of counsel, I am asked not to answer that question.

WOODRUFF: So you cannot say whether you have been contacted by investigators?

NOVAK: On the advice of my counsel.

WOODRUFF: All right. We will leave it there and duly noted.

Looks like bob hired a lawyer. I wonder if its just to handle the justice inquiry basic questions or for something deeper.

Crossfire should be interesting today if he is the host...

The transcripts have not been updated so i can't confirm ....
post #384 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Go back and read the Washington Post's article that came out last weekend.

Wlison has said that after her name was put out there by Novak... a reporter called him and said I just talked to Karl Rove and he said she was ''fair game". And Wilson said he would tell any investigator that asked who that reporter was. Sure doesn't sound like KARL was opposed to her name being leaked... he was trying to pump the story. Very patriotic don't you think? Better to hurt a dissenter than to protect a CIA operative. Why wasn't KARL pissed that the name was leaked? Someone was pissed... and it wasn't Karl... it was the person who gave info to the Post.

Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
6 plus the number of people (unknown but at least 1) that K-A-R-L, one week after the original story was published, "pushed" and kept "pushing" this story to reports to give the story "legs" and where he told a report that "she's fair game".

Oh. Mission accomplish K-A-R-L, this story has legs...

Don't you both get the point. Wilson said....

Wilson said is not independent confirmation. Wilson declared Karl the leaker but now has backed down to saying the leaker wasn't Rove at all. Likewise Wilson's claim isn't even based off first hand information. It is based off what he claims a reporter said to him about what that reporter claims Rove said to him.

Convoluted enough for ya?

In otherwords hearsay...

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 #385 of 498
Thread Starter 
Just heard on CNN during interviews with keyan president...

CNN: For the first time Mr. Bush refered to it as a criminal matter...

80 days late...

Interesting. Did they find there scapegoat? Is he going to fish and cut bait? How many people in the world are now left that no NOT think of this as a criminal matter? 4?
post #386 of 498
As much hearsay as what Novak is saying...

Wilson says he believes that Rove must have known about the leak... and yes he did back off saying Rove was responsible... everyone knows Rove is in control of what info comes in and out of the white house... so it wasn't exactly a stretch for Wilson to think Rove had something to do with the leak... and after the leak... he did get a call from a reporter saying "ROVE SAYS YOUR WIFE IS FAIR GAME"... so while he may believe the Rove had alot to do with the leak and the spin after... he was right to back off of saying it was actually Rove that leaked the info to Novak.

So quit pretending that Wilson is somehow making sh!t up... or is a loose canon.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #387 of 498
Thread Starter 
Here's a cliff notes version of this whole deal i found at dailykos:




Plame Affair primer

For those who argue it is complicated.
Plame is an undercover CIA agent.

She was outed by senior administration officials in the White House.

Outing a CIA agent is a felony.
Hmm, not so complicated, after all...

What was the motive? Her husband, Ambassador Wilson, criticized the administration for Yellowcake lies.

But wasn't he a partisan Democrat? No. He donated money to Bush's presidential campaign in 2000. But even if he was James Carville, see numbers 1 and 2 above.




Period. Everything else is chaff.
post #388 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If true then just tell him to come forward. Wouldn't it be beneficial to just name the leaker?

In news that would be a major league win the rating for the week, justifiable scoop. I can't imagine they would sit on such info.

Nick

If true?! Man, you have a serious case of denial.
post #389 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Don't you both get the point. Wilson said....

Don't you get the point? Every other person it could be is more senior than Rove. What part of cabinet deputy or higher don't you understand?

So it looks like Rove and/or Libby. Go down the list of possible leakers and point out which ones you think it is and why.
post #390 of 498
Thread Starter 
Anyone still think Ashcroft can be any part of this investagation in any way shape or form?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101031013/story.html

Quote:
A TIME review of federal and state election records reveals that Ashcroft paid Rove's Texas firm $746,000 for direct-mail services in two gubernatorial campaigns and one Senate race from 1984 through 1994.
post #391 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
If true?! Man, you have a serious case of denial.

Denial? Right if CNN had known who Deep Throat was during the Nixon era they would have sat on the story.

That is the nature of what you are claiming. The information CLAIMED could blow a legal leak wide open and be a ratings bonanza that would make Fox News look like your local news affiliate in terms of ratings.

And they would sit on it...

Pure bull...

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 #392 of 498
But Novak IS sitting on it... and he works for CNN.

Are you claiming that Novak is the only one that knows who the leak came from?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #393 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Denial? Right if CNN had known who Deep Throat was during the Nixon era they would have sat on the story.

That is the nature of what you are claiming. The information CLAIMED could blow a legal leak wide open and be a ratings bonanza that would make Fox News look like your local news affiliate in terms of ratings.

And they would sit on it...

Pure bull...

ooohhh. I see where you are coming from.



Does anyone else out there want to explain to him why this would be a rediculously stupid idea?
post #394 of 498
Thread Starter 
Why in the world would a jounralist rush to expose their sources?

It would end their career!

Its possible no source would trust them again and then they're unemployed.

Hmmmm......

Journalist Hari-Kari!

Yahhhh think that might be part of it?

But hey now! at least their employer would get a "temporary" bump in the ratings that week!!!


The washington post still has not told the world who Deep Throat was!!!

Slime and defend. Slime and defend. Let's turn this into a demos vs republican thing so in the noise the american people will lose focus as to the real crime.

Two Senior Admin. Officals spilled. Someone could have been killed.
post #395 of 498
Speaking of Deep Throat....does anyone know why Novak talks like that?
post #396 of 498
Doesn't Novak always sound a little bit liquored up? He can be kinda slurry.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #397 of 498
Thread Starter 
, there were indications that the administration planned to claim executive privilege and block access to some material.




http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...tml?cmp=EM8706

Quote:
CBS/AP)_As a deadline neared for White House staffers to turn over documents in the probe of a possibly illegal leak of a CIA officer's identity, there were indications that the administration planned to claim executive privilege and block access to some material.


Shame on you mr, "president"

INDEPENDENT SPECIAL COUNSEL NOW!

Quote:
The Times reports the Wilson family is considering a civil lawsuit over the affair. Wilson has claimed the move to identify his wife has put her in danger.

Good for them.
post #398 of 498
Reuters

Now the president is saying that the leaker may never be found. \
"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 #399 of 498
Thread Starter 
Isn't it convient? He's going to claim ignorance since he purposely only recieves information from his staff.

reading? Me fail english? That's unpossible.


Go ahead and claim ignorance mr "president". That's probably your best AND MOST BELIEVABLE excuse...
post #400 of 498
Though apparently he still wants to " come to the bottom of this" !?
Plus his spokesman has already cleared Rove et al, so that's OK.

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply

"Wankers talking about other wankers and wanking." XamaX

I'll never get back the time i just wasted reading that post." Miami Craig
" It's like you've achieved some kind of irrelevance zen, or...

Reply
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!