or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Sandy Berger Stuffs His Pants
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sandy Berger Stuffs His Pants

post #1 of 65
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/20/berger.probe/
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3602929
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126249,00.html
http://cnn.law.printthis.clickabilit...partnerID=2013
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRe...d=134-07202004
http://interestalert.com/brand/sitei...ational%20News

Busted!
post #2 of 65
Maybe he was just trying to impress Jamie Gorelick.
post #3 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Maybe he was just trying to impress Jamie Gorelick.

"Are those Top Secret Documents in your pocket or are you happy to see me, Mr. Berger?"
post #4 of 65
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #5 of 65
That's it folks. We found a guilty Democrat. Bush and Co. get a free ride now (not that they already weren't).

The Republican controlled government will waste no time throwing the book at this guy while their guys continue to get off scott free. The news media will be relentless on this guy. Why? First, it's all Clinton's fault. Second, Berger's a democrat and we all know how easy the SCLM is on Republicans.

Plame? Nothing. 9/11 report? Nothing. 16 little SOTU words? Nothing. Cheney's connection to Halliburton? Nothing. Ken Lay? Nothing. The unread daily briefing? Nothing.

But, hey forget all that. Sandy Berger took off with some "copies" of documents. Start your engines and saturate the news channels! Because nothing's more satisfying than hanging a prominent Democrat. Yay!

So there you go. We found a prominent Democrat to blow the whistle on and in the meantime Bush and Cheney can continue their constant distortions and innuendo all the while convincing American's that voting for John Kerry is actually terrorist appeasement.

What a great country.
"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 #6 of 65
Quote:
But law enforcement sources told CNN that some of the papers he is said to have taken from the National Archives were stuffed into his socks as well as other parts of his clothing.

1) Naplesx: Good thread title. Good sources. Well done! I'm all for this one sticking around!

2) This is simply too stupid a thing to believe. I mean, seriously. How the hell stupid did Berger have to be to do this?

Even Josh Marshall, while rightly noting that the timing of this leak is awfully curious, is saing "Sandy! You got some 'splainin' to do!"
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #7 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
Berger blew it . . . . was he trying to hide something or is he a slob?

WHat were the documents anyway?

Action memos relating to foiled terrorist attacks during the millennium celebration. Wasn't there something about a plan to blow up the Golden Gate bridge?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #8 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
That's it folks. We found a guilty Democrat. Bush and Co. get a free ride now (not that they already weren't).

The Republican controlled government will waste no time throwing the book at this guy while their guys continue to get off scott free. The news media will be relentless on this guy. Why? First, it's all Clinton's fault. Second, Berger's a democrat and we all know how easy the SCLM is on Republicans.

Plame? Nothing. 9/11 report? Nothing. 16 little SOTU words? Nothing. Cheney's connection to Halliburton? Nothing. Ken Lay? Nothing. The unread daily briefing? Nothing.

But, hey forget all that. Sandy Berger took off with some "copies" of documents. Start your engines and saturate the news channels! Because nothing's more satisfying than hanging a prominent Democrat. Yay!

So there you go. We found a prominent Democrat to blow the whistle on and in the meantime Bush and Cheney can continue their constant distortions and innuendo all the while convincing American's that voting for John Kerry is actually terrorist appeasement.

What a great country.

You may have a point, but what did he expect when he did it.

There were original documents and the marking documents that refered to them missing. Something that Berger would know about. Why would he take and destroy original documents? Answer that question.
post #9 of 65
Were they originals? I've heard varying accounts of whether they were originals or copies. But yeah, this was either really stupid or he was actually trying to cover something up. If he really was trying to steal something to cover something up, he should be nailed to the wall. I guess he won't be getting that position in the Kerry administration that he was hoping for.
post #10 of 65
Seems he messed up for sure-- but I too echo Josh Marhsall's comments about the timing.
post #11 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Seems he messed up for sure-- but I too echo Josh Marhsall's comments about the timing.

Isn't it always a question of timing - on both sides?

I would question what was so damning on those documents over the timing, myself.
post #12 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Isn't it always a question of timing - on both sides?

I would question what was so damning on those documents over the timing, myself.

Well, as Marshall points out, those are two separate issues: 1) What the hell was he doing/thinking/trying to hide and 2) This six-month old investigation getting leaked at the same time as the 9/11 commission's findings.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #13 of 65
An addendum to my earlier rant:

Yes, Berger is a big fat idiot for doing something like this. Unlike my conservative brothers on this board I will admit that this was stupid, a huge mistake and he should be punished for it.

But I have to agree with Josh Marshall here...the timing is suspicious. The media's big pounce on this story is equally suspicious. It's a SCANDAL when a Democrat does it.

Watch this cost John Kerry the election. Even though he had nothing to do with it. Why? The media will blow this completely out of proportion and it will suck all the oxygen out of the debate.

It's all Clinton's fault = Clinton was a democrat = Democrats are untrustworthy = Bush referendum.
"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 #14 of 65
I'll add my voice to the chorus of folks who see the leak timing as a bit suspicious; however, I believe the 9/11 commission report will overshadow the Berger-Gate incident (Copyright 2004).
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
Reply
post #15 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
An addendum to my earlier rant:

Yes, Berger is a big fat idiot for doing something like this. Unlike my conservative brothers on this board I will admit that this was stupid, a huge mistake and he should be punished for it.

Conservative brothers... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

That must be under the one drop conservative law...

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 #16 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Conservative brothers... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

Nick

His claim does have some truthfulness at least. Our current President isn't known to admit anything he's done wrong (even when directly asked as an open question, like during the big press conference a few months ago). And you can see here that the left-leaning members of this board all roundly criticized Berger-- practically indicting him. Contrast that to other known instances where something was wrong or totally off the mark: like the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the infamous 16 words in the SOTU, and most aptly for you: the outing of a CIA agent for partisan political gain. That last example constitutes a clear violation of federal law. IIRC, you argued strongly against any wrongdoing from anyone. Northgate wasn't talking about conservatives in general, but merely observing the behavior of conservatives on this board. When you look at past threads, I think he has a great point.
post #17 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
That's it folks. We found a guilty Democrat. Bush and Co. get a free ride now (not that they already weren't).

The Republican controlled government will waste no time throwing the book at this guy while their guys continue to get off scott free. The news media will be relentless on this guy. Why? First, it's all Clinton's fault. Second, Berger's a democrat and we all know how easy the SCLM is on Republicans.

Plame? Nothing. 9/11 report? Nothing. 16 little SOTU words? Nothing. Cheney's connection to Halliburton? Nothing. Ken Lay? Nothing. The unread daily briefing? Nothing.

But, hey forget all that. Sandy Berger took off with some "copies" of documents. Start your engines and saturate the news channels! Because nothing's more satisfying than hanging a prominent Democrat. Yay!

So there you go. We found a prominent Democrat to blow the whistle on and in the meantime Bush and Cheney can continue their constant distortions and innuendo all the while convincing American's that voting for John Kerry is actually terrorist appeasement.

What a great country.

Democratic response:

Step 1) Start dropping chaff (blinds the ethics radar) "But what about Bush".

Step 2) Launch decoys: "Look at the timing"

Step 3) Open up with flak: "Bush and Cheny are liars, constant distortion, blah blah".

Step 4) Write a memo to cover your ass: "Of course it might be serious".
post #18 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
His claim does have some truthfulness at least. Our current President isn't known to admit anything he's done wrong (even when directly asked as an open question, like during the big press conference a few months ago). And you can see here that the left-leaning members of this board all roundly criticized Berger-- practically indicting him. Contrast that to other known instances where something was wrong or totally off the mark: like the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the infamous 16 words in the SOTU, and most aptly for you: the outing of a CIA agent for partisan political gain. That last example constitutes a clear violation of federal law. IIRC, you argued strongly against any wrongdoing from anyone. Northgate wasn't talking about conservatives in general, but merely observing the behavior of conservatives on this board. When you look at past threads, I think he has a great point.

I think you both are wrong.

The usual gaggle of libs won't let it go at just a simple condemnation of behavior - you must condemn everything that was ever done (exaggerating for emphasis). Not only that condemnation seems to have to occur long before the actual facts are presented.

I will give you and example:

The usual suspects called me all kinds of names because I would not condemn the army, the US or the president over the Abu Graib scandal. I repeatedly stated that I would wait until all the facts are in. Although ALL of the facts are not yet in, enough are and I will now side with those that say it was wrong and some changes and charges need to be made. I now agree with their argument but not the pervasive knee jerking and blanket condemnations.

Does anyone else see how that works?
post #19 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
His claim does have some truthfulness at least. Our current President isn't known to admit anything he's done wrong (even when directly asked as an open question, like during the big press conference a few months ago). And you can see here that the left-leaning members of this board all roundly criticized Berger-- practically indicting him. Contrast that to other known instances where something was wrong or totally off the mark: like the failure to find WMD in Iraq, the infamous 16 words in the SOTU, and most aptly for you: the outing of a CIA agent for partisan political gain. That last example constitutes a clear violation of federal law. IIRC, you argued strongly against any wrongdoing from anyone. Northgate wasn't talking about conservatives in general, but merely observing the behavior of conservatives on this board. When you look at past threads, I think he has a great point.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The point is that he is a "true conservative" who is willing to say Berger is a big, fat idiot. (Secret liberal code for being like Rush Limbaugh. ) Well this is what you would expect someone who is conservative to do. So that is nothing big. But he is also willing to criticize, more like relentlessly post several topics a day about, how bad all conservatives are at pretty much everything.

Northgate resembles someone with a conservative viewpoint about as much as I resemble a female stripper. He claims to be a conservative so that he can criticize all he wants and not have his motives called into question. I've never seen him take a single conservative position on ANYTHING he has ever posted. Northgate seems left of even you Shawn, yet calls himself a conservative. He can label himself whatever he likes, but his actions define who he is, and what he believes much better.

North can criticize whoever he wants, but the reality is that he should not expect a pass on his motivations just because he attempts to adopt a label.

BTW, you are obviously a bit behind on some of these matters. Especially with regard to the Plame matter. They have presented and shown the memo where Plame recommended her husband go.

Here it is even from the Washington Post so don't have to kill the messenger so to speak.

So it would appear that the "crime" committed in outing her was as claimed, to call Wilson into question, rather than outing his wife. It would also appear that Wilson has had his credibility shredded on several matters and that the White House was fully justified.

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 #20 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The point is that he is a "true conservative" who is willing to say Berger is a big, fat idiot. (Secret liberal code for being like Rush Limbaugh. ) Well this is what you would expect someone who is conservative to do. So that is nothing big. But he is also willing to criticize, more like relentlessly post several topics a day about, how bad all conservatives are at pretty much everything.

Northgate resembles someone with a conservative viewpoint about as much as I resemble a female stripper. He claims to be a conservative so that he can criticize all he wants and not have his motives called into question. I've never seen him take a single conservative position on ANYTHING he has ever posted. Northgate seems left of even you Shawn, yet calls himself a conservative. He can label himself whatever he likes, but his actions define who he is, and what he believes much better.

North can criticize whoever he wants, but the reality is that he should not expect a pass on his motivations just because he attempts to adopt a label.
Nick

He was referring to the "conservative" fellow members of humanity, not that he, himself, is conservative.

Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman

BTW, you are obviously a bit behind on some of these matters. Especially with regard to the Plame matter. They have presented and shown the memo where Plame recommended her husband go.

Here it is even from the Washington Post so don't have to kill the messenger so to speak.

So it would appear that the "crime" committed in outing her was as claimed, to call Wilson into question, rather than outing his wife. It would also appear that Wilson has had his credibility shredded on several matters and that the White House was fully justified.

Nick

That has no legal bearing at all. A federal crime was clearly committed and you refuse to even admit it, nevermind hold anyone responsible for it (or speak out against its unknown perpetrators). Northgate's point is proven.
post #21 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
He was referring to the "conservative" fellow members of humanity, not that he, himself, is conservative.



That has no legal bearing at all. A federal crime was clearly committed and you refuse to even admit it, nevermind hold anyone responsible for it (or speak out against its unknown perpetrators). Northgate's point is proven.

You yourself have said the important words - unknown perpetrators - how do you speak out against them. Apparently you condemn the whole administration. Makes sense to someone, I suppose.
post #22 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You yourself have said the important words - unknown perpetrators - how do you speak out against them. Apparently you condemn the whole administration. Makes sense to someone, I suppose.

Easy.

"Whoever committed this crime deserves punishment according to federal sentencing guidelines."
post #23 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Easy.

"Whoever committed this crime deserves punishment according to federal sentencing guidelines."

I wouldn't argue with that, anyone else here have a problem with that?
post #24 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxParrish
Democratic response:

Step 1) Start dropping chaff (blinds the ethics radar) "But what about Bush".

Step 2) Launch decoys: "Look at the timing"

Step 3) Open up with flak: "Bush and Cheny are liars, constant distortion, blah blah".

Step 4) Write a memo to cover your ass: "Of course it might be serious".


I haven't heard anyone do that.

He just brought up the point that the conservatives will probably want to use this incident to their advantage ( which you just sort of proved ).
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 #25 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
I haven't heard anyone do that.

He just brought up the point that the conservatives will probably want to use this incident to their advantage ( which you just sort of proved ).

I'm particularly a fan of pointing out that pointing out that something that was used as a distraction is apparently a distraction. From something. Not sure what, since everyone here seems to think Berger is clearly in the wrong.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #26 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnJ
He was referring to the "conservative" fellow members of humanity, not that he, himself, is conservative.

That has no legal bearing at all. A federal crime was clearly committed and you refuse to even admit it, nevermind hold anyone responsible for it (or speak out against its unknown perpetrators). Northgate's point is proven.

Try reading the article please.

Quote:
Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The whole point of the investigation was to prove that the administration intentionally named her and blew her cover. They did this by claiming cronyism and saying that Wilson, was not fit to go, but was recommended by his wife.

Those pushing for the investigation claimed that Wilson had been recommended, and that the charge of cronyism was nothing more than a guise to cover for the fact that they were intentionally naming the wife, blowing her cover, and thus blowing her career.

But the REALITY is that they produced the very memo where Plame recommended her husband.

Quote:
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Also add this...

Quote:
The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

So not only do we have a memo, we have a pattern.

So the point is to be a crime, they had to intentionally know she was an undercover agent. The relationship between Plame and Wilson is clear enough, and she was indeed the person who recommended him. Naming her was simply naming the facts regarding what happened. There was no clear intent to break the law anymore than me saying that your mom made you lunch would be breaking the law.

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 #27 of 65
No it doesn't matter if they were saying she recommended him. There's a law against naming her, regardless of the reason. And from what I understand, the CIA itself said she didn't initiate a recommendation of him, but instead they asked her to provide information about him after they decided to ask him to do the job.
post #28 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
No it doesn't matter if they were saying she recommended him. There's a law against naming her, regardless of the reason. And from what I understand, the CIA itself said she didn't initiate a recommendation of him, but instead they asked her to provide information about him after they decided to ask him to do the job.

The law clearly tikes into consideration the intent.
post #29 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
No it doesn't matter if they were saying she recommended him. There's a law against naming her, regardless of the reason. And from what I understand, the CIA itself said she didn't initiate a recommendation of him, but instead they asked her to provide information about him after they decided to ask him to do the job.

I'll have to disagree with you for now BRussell.

Quote:
To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

Naming the fact that Plame was Wilson's wife, and the person who recommended him is not the same as intentionally naming her for no other reason than to expose that she was a covert officer.

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 #30 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The law clearly tikes into consideration the intent.

You're probably right, but it's still against the law. The sentence might be lighter if the motive was less nefarious. Or it might be "treason in the second degree" rather than "treason in the first degree." But it's still against the law.
post #31 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll have to disagree with you for now BRussell.



Naming the fact that Plame was Wilson's wife, and the person who recommended him is not the same as intentionally naming her for no other reason than to expose that she was a covert officer.

Nick

But clearly it was intentional, regardless of the specific motive for the outing.

Oh, to NaplesX, that reminds me - there's a difference between intent and motive. Intent is required for finding someone guilty, not motive. So I take back my previous post.
post #32 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
You're probably right, but it's still against the law. The sentence might be lighter if the motive was less nefarious. Or it might be "treason in the second degree" rather than "treason in the first degree." But it's still against the law.

Well, my understanding is that in order for it to be a crime, it must be proven that they knew the person was "under cover", and "intent" must be proven that it was for "aid" to the enemy. I think there is another factor that must also be proven. It is one of those things that "it is a crime, if..."
post #33 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well, my understanding is that in order for it to be a crime, it must be proven that they knew the person was "under cover", and "intent" must be proven that it was for "aid" to the enemy. I think there is another factor that must also be proven. It is one of those things that "it is a crime, if..."

I'd be interested in seeing the specific law if you know where it is.
post #34 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
But clearly it was intentional, regardless of the specific motive for the outing.

Oh, to NaplesX, that reminds me - there's a difference between intent and motive. Intent is required for finding someone guilty, not motive. So I take back my previous post.

You're right. I think that is the other thing that must also be proven.
post #35 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in seeing the specific law if you know where it is.

I usually bookmark stuff like this but i cannot find it. Damn I will look for a link.
post #36 of 65
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I'd be interested in seeing the specific law if you know where it is.

I found it, I bookmarked another article that linked to this:

http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopoli...rotection.html

I was off but there are some dependancies.
post #37 of 65
I just found it myself - here it is in the context of the US Code. Andhere's what John Dean has to say about it:

Quote:
The statute also has additional requirements before the leak of the identity of a "covert agent" is deemed criminal. But it appears they are all satisfied here.

First, the leak must be to a person "not authorized to receive classified information." Any journalist - including Novak and Time - plainly fits.

Second, the insider must know that the information being disclosed identifies a "covert agent." In this case, that's obvious, since Novak was told this fact.

Third, the insider must know that the U.S. government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." For persons with Top Secret security clearances, that's a no-brainer: They have been briefed, and have signed pledges of secrecy, and it is widely known by senior officials that the CIA goes to great effort to keep the names of its agents secret.

A final requirement relates to the "covert agent" herself. She must either be serving outside the United States, or have served outside the United States in the last five years. It seems very likely that Mrs. Wilson fulfills the latter condition - but the specific facts on this point have not yet been reported.
post #38 of 65
Now is your chance to help subvert the Northgate Constant, Nick.
post #39 of 65
Timing is everything, I suppose. From the WaPo front page a few minutes ago:



Not saying that Berger ought not be taken behind the woodshed or anything, but that now we can stop asking questions about the timing.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #40 of 65
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I just found it myself - here it is in the context of the US Code. Andhere's what John Dean has to say about it:

Nice find BRussell!

Now a couple thoughts to ponder. Novak could have been told she was a agency operative without having been told she was covert.

Here is the Novak piece.

Novak

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.

Novak, from what I recall, has contended that the administration officials identified that Wilson was recommended by his wife, and simple calls to the CIA led to them identifying his wife, that she works for them, and what she does. By this path, I don't see how a law was broken, but I am willing to listen to what others think on the matter.

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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Sandy Berger Stuffs His Pants