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 2

post #41 of 498
I swear, CNN is such total BS. Seriously. McClellan made a total ass of the white house this morning (OK, there's nothing new about this) and showed clearly that they have no intention of holding anyone accountable unless forced, but what does CNN do? They put the nice little whitewashed quotes and make it look like the white house actually cares. How sweet.

And this is on the heels of their little front page story last week about an evil little french man making cards of the Bush admin. Not only is that so 3 months ago, but in their quest to feed the anti-french lemmings they neglected to point out that it was initially done by someone who wasn't french.

Liberal slant.
post #42 of 498
Man, Josh is really on a roll:

Quote:
Plame's beat, if we can use that word, was weapons of mass destruction. And, of course, WMD is the big issue. It's why Iraq, why Joe Wilson, why Niger, why CIA referrals. That's what's at the bottom of all this stuff. Keeping WMD out of the wrong hands is, or was, Plame's job.

If that's her job you can figure that over the years she's been involved in various operations aimed at tracking proliferation, worked with various human sources, all sorts of stuff like that.

Now Plame's name has been splashed across papers all over the world. And the folks that leaked her name made sure that they used her maiden name, Plame -- the one she did most of her work under -- rather than Wilson, the name which I'm told she now goes by.

So now her name's out. And now every bad-actor and bad-acting government knows that anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are probably also CIA or at least work with CIA. WMD bad-guys now know to steer clear of them.

Let's say there's some operation Plame hasn't been involved with for a decade -- but it's still on-going. People will remember she used to be in on that operation and thus it's tagged as an Agency operation and it's useless. Everyone will know to steer clear.

Now, I have no knowledge of any operations Plame was involved in or covers she used. These are hypotheticals. But it gives you a sense of the sort of work she was involved in and the potential collateral damage of exposing her cover. And consider what her work was: protecting Americans from weapons of mass destruction. Chew on that irony.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#092903319pm

It really is something else, isn't it.
post #43 of 498
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.

(Scott, SDW, BR, Trumptman....if you all try to spin this, you WILL NOT WIN.)
post #44 of 498
Thread Starter 
Wow.

Big picture stuff here folks. We are talking about the endangering the safety of ANY and ALL americans just because some ass in the white house wanted to avenge a politcal embarrassment.

If Johnny walker was going to be tried for treason. Couldn't this person also be possibly facing this charge.

Take away:

The white house blowing the cover of this agent for political reasons may have put all of our lives in danger.

This is going beyond just more white house buffonery and entering Open hearings and accountability zone for the sake and safety of this country...

INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.


Update: Novak says its all a plot to bring down Bush.
post #45 of 498
Somebody get the transcript of what Novak says as soon as it's available. I wanna read what he said.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #46 of 498
Thread Starter 
What was more heinous in this episode was republican congressman kingston's response.

it was sickening, he claimed for all we know she was a gloried secretary, he claimed that since its been 10 weeks and she was not harmed then "no fuss no muss."

He ended by calling the Democartic Party a party of "Whiners..."

The current republican angle and the white house stonewalling is exactly the means to their own destruction.

Oh I forgot, this MUST be the "liberal media's" fault.
post #47 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
What was more heinous in this episode was republican congressman kingston's response.

it was sickening, he claimed for all we know she was a gloried secretary, he claimed that since its been 10 weeks and she was not harmed then "no fuss no muss."

He ended by calling the Democartic Party a party of "Whiners..."

The current republican angle and the white house stonewalling is exactly the means to their own destruction.

Oh I forgot, this MUST be the "liberal media's" fault.



Yup, there goes that liberal media again.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #48 of 498
Some strange things. I watched Crossfire, and Novak seemed to make two points:
1. It might not have been someone in the White House that leaked the information, and

2. she may not be an undercover operative, she might just be a desk analyst.

But here is Novak's original column that leaked the information.
Quote:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

1. Novak says it was two "senior administration officials," which may not be White House, but it certainly suggests a Bush appointee. How many "senior administration officials" aren't political appointees?

2. Novak uses the term "operative" which to me doesn't suggest "analyst." Furthermore, it was the CIA that requested the investigation, so they must believe it was wrong for her to be outed.
post #49 of 498
So that's going to be the spin...

If she wasn't an "agent" of the CIA... why has the CIA asked Justice to look into it.

He's trying to say it wasn't a "white house" staffer... which is irrelevant... Senior Administration means the same thing...

Is he playing it off as no big deal no harm done?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #50 of 498
This scandal is now the lead story on all the corporate news networks. Is it conceivably possible, maybe, perhaps, (?) that the US media is going to behave the way one would expect of a media in a democracy...ie rigorously inquiring, skeptical of government intent and honesty, with tough no-compromise reporting? Up until now, the media networks have been reminiscient of the Chinese or old Soviet media, namely echoing the government line without question, and not daring to offer any counterpoint. We saw the investigative side of the media in overdrive mode during the Lewinsky affair, a comparatively trivial incident, blown up out of all proportion mostly due to its sexual innuendo. Now we have a case of a CIA agent's life being placed in danger because the White House got piqued about their lies and propaganda re. Iraqi imporation of African uranium being exposed as such.

What is more damning? (a)Lying under oath about a sexual dalliance? (find me someone hasn't done that at some point in their lives), or (b) lying to the nation to start an illegal war, and now possible complicity in an act of treason? C'mon US media, get down'n'dirty.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #51 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Some strange things. I watched Crossfire, and Novak seemed to make two points:
1. It might not have been someone in the White House that leaked the information, and

2. she may not be an undercover operative, she might just be a desk analyst.

But here is Novak's original column that leaked the information.
1. Novak says it was two "senior administration officials," which may not be White House, but it certainly suggests a Bush appointee. How many "senior administration officials" aren't political appointees?

2. Novak uses the term "operative" which to me doesn't suggest "analyst." Furthermore, it was the CIA that requested the investigation, so they must believe it was wrong for her to be outed.

Novak is bullshitting.

This from the washington post on sunday:

Quote:
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep27.html

This goes beyond novak, and it's obvious that the identities of the two individuals are known.
post #52 of 498
http://the-hamster.com/

"In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on amb. Wilson's report when he told the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of an undercover operatives"


Note he doesn't say, "The White House called me." Novak instead says,
"I was interviewing a senior administration official."

David Ensor (national security reporter) on CNN disputes Novak and just said that she was a CIA operative and was in charge of some operations (will post the transcript when it's available).

The problem with Novak's mighty "confidential source at the CIA" is not everyone in the CIA is on the same page. There are security clearances and Novak's source may not have had access to the credentials of Plame. Novak's source could have been completely wrong. Further, notice that Novak doesn't use the adjective "senior" in describing the CIA source. How much information was Novak's source privy to?
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #53 of 498
as a matter of law... it's important to distinguish a couple of things.

1. It is important to determine whether or not she is in fact a covert classified operative of the CIA. If she is, it's further important to determine if the individuals who released her name knew that she was a covert classified agent.

2. the only person who has said that Karl Rove is involved here is Wilson, the man who hates the administration. Even the individual who reported the leak has indicated that it most likely did not even come from the White House.

3. The CIA routinely passes along these sort of inquiries to the Justice Department (as many as 50-60 a year).

4. If someone had malicious intent in compromising the identity of a covert agent of the CIA, they should be prosecuted.

5. The Justice Department is in fact the agency responsible for this task, and is adequately equipped to undertake it.
post #54 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by chu_bakka
According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of an undercover operatives"

But wait, novak! Look what you said before:

Quote:
his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.

Hmmmmm.....
post #55 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Even the individual who reported the leak has indicated that it most likely did not even come from the White House.

No, no, no. Look at the washington post article:

Quote:
Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.

'Senior admin offical' means cabinet sec. or deputy.

This is very detailed, and there is a reason this person is putting it out. Our friend Josh points out why it is unlikely this 'Senior admin offical' is anyone other than tenet.
post #56 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.

(Scott, SDW, BR, Trumptman....if you all try to spin this, you WILL NOT WIN.)

Who wants to spin, it's more fun to watch all of you salivate, rant, and scream for blood.


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 #57 of 498
What is also interesting is that Novak was asked NOT to use Plame's name... but he couldn't understand why and used it anyway...

hello! she works for the CIA... name one reason someone who works for the CIA woudn't want that name revealed... take a wild guess...

She's a spy! geeeze.

Suddenly Bob Novak knows the status of every employee at the CIA.

And nobody seems to care that her name was leaked to Bob Novak because they wanted to hurt WIlson... because he DISAGREED with them (AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION). He remained quiet until the Bushies started blowing the British INtelligence horn. Also... he wasn't just a Clinton appointee... he was a BUSH 1 appointee too.
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #58 of 498
Thread Starter 
All good points. taken

Quote:
1. It is important to determine whether or not she is in fact a covert classified operative of the CIA. If she is, it's further important to determine if the individuals who released her name knew that she was a covert classified agent.


Does anyone know if the law forbidding disclosure distinguish a CIA "operative" vis a vis a "analyst" Kinda doubt it but i'd love more detail.

Quote:
3. The CIA routinely passes along these sort of inquiries to the Justice Department (as many as 50-60 a year).

Very true. the problem in this case was it looks like there was a clear and present link between the "16 word lie" and political revenge. I highly doubt the other 49-59 inquires involve things of this nature.

Quote:
5. The Justice Department is in fact the agency responsible for this task, and is adequately equipped to undertake it.

True. But but mcclellonds(sp) own words state the justice department, in 10 weeks to date, has not taken any steps toward that end.

I think point 5 will be what the "right" and the WH is going to use over and over. Its the sort of "define sexual relations" type of non-denial denial of this scandal.

During the clinton 8 years there were calls from the right for and independant counsel whenever Clinton sneezed incorrectly. They are now saying Justice can do that job but balked at Janet Reno saying she could not be objective. Yet John ashcroft can be? Not.

Getting back to the waiting for Justice thing. My point would be, Shouldn't any Admin that came into washington stating the restoration of "Honesty and Integrity" be the first to investigate OR at the very least start asking those within the WH point blank. Did you leak this yes or No?

Doesn't take a Justice Dept. to do that...
post #59 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Who wants to spin, it's more fun to watch all of you salivate, rant, and scream for blood.


Nick

You imply that people in the Bush Administration who either leaked the information or condoned the leaking of the information or covered up the leaking of the information should not be screamed at for blood? Worse you derive sick pleasure from some of us who are legitimately concerned that Valerie Plame's career is over- that Valerie Plame's contacts' lives are in danger because Wilson had the nerve to criticize the Bush Administration? Tell me you were just kidding and you too are outraged. Tell me you have a sliver of credibility left.
post #60 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10

5. The Justice Department is in fact the agency responsible for this task, and is adequately equipped to undertake it.

I think you should go check out the white house press conference:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#0929031203pm
post #61 of 498
Thread Starter 
ShawnJ, I think another talkingpoint post explains it all too well:



As the lawyers say, when the facts are on your side, bang the facts. When the law's on your side, bang the law. When you've got neither, bang the table.

When you don't even got a table, it would seem, you bang yourself.
post #62 of 498
Quote:
Does anyone know if the law forbidding disclosure distinguish a CIA "operative" vis a vis a "analyst" Kinda doubt it but i'd love more detail.

yes it does.... I'll get you the reference...


Quote:
Very true. the problem in this case was it looks like there was a clear and present link between the "16 word lie" and political revenge. I highly doubt the other 49-59 inquires involve things of this nature.

the key here is that you say it "looks" like.... this is yet to be determined. if in fact you are correct, then my earlier point still stands... there will be a prosecution.


Quote:
During the clinton 8 years there were calls from the right for and independant counsel whenever Clinton sneezed incorrectly. They are now saying Justice can do that job but balked at Janet Reno saying she could not be objective. Yet John ashcroft can be? Not.

Almost a fair point. The important distinction here is that those illegal activities were by the President of the United States... not an as yet anonymous white house staffer....

there is certainly a potential conflict of interest when the President of the United States is suspect, but the Justice Department is quite capable of invesitgating staff members...
post #63 of 498
here's today's transcript...

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/29/cf.00.html

he makes two very lame points...

one is NO HARM has come to Plame... so what's the big deal?

and the second was... my sources say she's an analyst... which is after the fact.... he originally reported she was an operative. This has been disputed by the washington post which investigated and says she is indeed an operative...
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #64 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
there is certainly a potential conflict of interest when the President of the United States is suspect, but the Justice Department is quite capable of invesitgating staff members...

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

I apologize for yelling, but you're clearly spinning the actual situation.
post #65 of 498
Thread Starter 
Almost a fair point. The important distinction here is that those illegal activities were by the President of the United States... not an as yet anonymous white house staffer....


yep. As I was watching crossfire bugala brought up the fact the republicans wanted to investigate the sec. of agri. (espy?) over some football tickets given to him. My memory fails but i also think there was also calls into Sec. of Commerce Rob Brown's activities. And for a lower level WH official, let's not forgot poor vince foster.

there is certainly a potential conflict of interest when the President of the United States is suspect, but the Justice Department is quite capable of invesitgating staff members...

I only wish those in congress during the clinton presidency also felt that way. The pollution of their frequent calls and refusal to take Janet Reno at her word make it very difficult to do that IMO.
post #66 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Who wants to spin, it's more fun to watch all of you salivate, rant, and scream for blood.


Nick


Is that the best you can do?

This must really have you worried!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #67 of 498
Quote:
SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS.

I apologize for yelling, but you're clearly spinning the actual situation.

I'm not spinning anything. I was simply responding to how there is a difference between investigating the President and investigating White House Staff.

So, I'm still not sure why you are yelling, or even what you are yelling about.
post #68 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I'm not spinning anything. I was simply responding to how there is a difference between investigating the President and investigating White House Staff.

So, I'm still not sure why you are yelling, or even what you are yelling about.


True.

But do you really think it's going to stop there?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 498
Quote:
Is that the best you can do?

This must really have you worried!

If that's not flamebait I don't know what is?! Why don't you actually comment on the situation and not attempt to antagonize others who apparently don't care to join in. Is that not equally their right?
post #70 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
If that's not flamebait I don't know what is?! Why don't you actually comment on the situation and not attempt to antagonize others who apparently don't care to join in. Is that not equally their right?


What do you think he was doing? Quit trying to turn this into something else!


He dosn't care to join because he has nothing to say other than thumbing his nose at us.


When all else fails that always seems to be the tactic. Distraction. Sorry your attempt didn't work.


A lame attempt at that!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #71 of 498
Quote:
True.

But do you really think it's going to stop there?

I believe that as a matter of law, it should go as far, and only as far as necessary to adequately prosecute those individuals who have violated the law. In order for that to happen, the Justice department must determine who, if anyone has actually broken the law, and then prosecute them.

Remember, we don't know that anyone has broken the law yet... all we see are media stories, et al. If someone has broken the law, then they should certainly be prosecuted.

However, it would be a tragedy to see the process hindered by either political party, be it those in the White House, or those Democrats who have already attempted to use this as a political sounding board. Just look at "the other" Senator from New York. He's been all over this. Do you think he cares about Justice, or attacking the President?


(edit: The point is that justice is politically neutral.)
post #72 of 498
Folks, let's not forget the bigger here. There aren't any WMD and people who spoke against the Bush regime were threatened.

Bush is clearly worse than Nixon by lieing to star a war for oil and contracts.

I'm going to be the first here to say the I-word: impeachment!
post #73 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I'm not spinning anything. I was simply responding to how there is a difference between investigating the President and investigating White House Staff.

So, I'm still not sure why you are yelling, or even what you are yelling about.

You recognize no difference between "white house staffers" and "senior administration officials?" Mr. Prosecutor, with all due respect, I think you're being intentionally vague here.
post #74 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I believe that as a matter of law, it should go as far, and only as far as necessary to adequately prosecute those individuals who have violated the law. In order for that to happen, the Justice department must determine who, if anyone has actually broken the law, and then prosecute them.

Remember, we don't know that anyone has broken the law yet... all we see are media stories, et al. If someone has broken the law, then they should certainly be prosecuted.

However, it would be a tragedy to see the process hindered by either political party, be it those in the White House, or those Democrats who have already attempted to use this as a political sounding board. Just look at "the other" Senator from New York. He's been all over this. Do you think he cares about Justice, or attacking the President.

Be honest now.


Look, to anybody but someone with the brain of a lung fish sure the president had a hand in this.

-------------------------------------------------------------

" Remember, we don't know that anyone has broken the law yet... all we see are media stories, et al. If someone has broken the law, then they should certainly be prosecuted. "

-------------------------------------------------------------

Even Dubbya?


I have a really good feeling that the truth's going to come out on this and it isn't going to be pretty. Given everything he's done for this country it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

If it doesn't I'd be ok with him being damaged politically by this and not being president next time.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 498
Quote:
You recognize no difference between "white house staffers" and "senior administration officials?" Mr. Prosecutor, with all due respect, I think you're being intentionally vague here

Actually, I didn't call them "white house staffers" I merely commented that the Justice Department is perfectly capable of intestigating White House Staff. I further indicated that when matters of criminality involve the President of the United States, I would agree that a potential conflict of interest may exist.

You don't know who leaked the story. You don't even know that it came from the White House. You also don't even know that the comment was in violation of any law.

You believe certain things based on what you have read, however my point is that the prudent thing would be to allow the matter to be investigated since those individuals will have access to much more information than you or I.

Additionally, in case you care, I no longer serve in the US Attorney's Office... I took a position teaching at the University of Michigan Law School. Yes, it's true, they actually hired a conservative law professor!

It would have been improper for me to comment at all were I still working for the Justice Department
post #76 of 498
Quote:
Look, to anybody but someone with the brain of a lung fish sure the president had a hand in this.

You're opinion notwithstanding, do you have any evidence to this effect?
post #77 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
You're opinion notwithstanding, do you have any evidence to this effect?

Do you have any to the contrary?

Taking into consideration what's happened regarding Bush and CO. in the last year ( no WOMD etc. ) it would seem to be the next logical step.

That might be the way things work in the legal world but in another investigative venue in the world of science things are postulated before proven.

Give it time.

I think this story has legs.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 498
Weirdly... I agree with OBRJA..

All we know is what reporters are telling us... and what the White House is and isn't saying.

The Post has it's sources and Novak has his... and they're conflicting to an extent. Novak is apparently honing his story so as not to directly implicate anyone in the white house.

But the Post reported that Plame was indeed an operative.

So there's more questions then answers... did Novak's source not know... wasn't sure? And in terms of breaking the law... does it matter if they didn't know.

And it is quite possible if her status is not classified that no law was broken...

To me the bigger deal is that this was a move to punish Wilson through his wife... because he spoke out. Novak's glibness is nauseating. He takes part in trying to discredit WIlson... doing White House dirty work... and acts like "what's the big deal?"
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
A Fair and Balanced Liberal

John Kerry for President
Reply
post #79 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You imply that people in the Bush Administration who either leaked the information or condoned the leaking of the information or covered up the leaking of the information should not be screamed at for blood? Worse you derive sick pleasure from some of us who are legitimately concerned that Valerie Plame's career is over- that Valerie Plame's contacts' lives are in danger because Wilson had the nerve to criticize the Bush Administration? Tell me you were just kidding and you too are outraged. Tell me you have a sliver of credibility left.

You imply...(long winded rant from self-deluded, self-important SPJ.)

Then you wonder why I said what I did.

The view is very nice today.

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 #80 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I believe that as a matter of law, it should go as far, and only as far as necessary to adequately prosecute those individuals who have violated the law. In order for that to happen, the Justice department must determine who, if anyone has actually broken the law, and then prosecute them.

And the white house is saying that until someone can pin a charge on them, they are going to continue breaking the law. It's exactly like mobsters that were clearly engaged in illegal activities and got away with it because of technicalities, except here we have the office of the president of the country doing it. The fact is that we KNOW that this happened, that it is wrong from every angle right down to putting the american people at risk (read: doing the exact OPPOSITE of what the office of the president should be doing) and the Bush admin has said, 'we will keep doing it as long as we can get away with it, even though what's happening is totally out in the open.'
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!