Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Oh, DNC is up to this? Now you have my interest. Linky? Nope. Specious. Not suprising.
I have more than enough links, but waiting for you to post the 'right-wing conspiracy' members that made up the lies about Clinton sexually abusing college kids. "linky?"
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
No one (except for you it seems) is denying that whoever outed her committed a felony.
Now, given that fact, if someone in the White House committed this crime, should they be punished? This requires a one word response. Yes (If you agree) No(If you do not)
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into roadblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...
Originally posted by: WinstonSmithBTW, I found looking into the 400 files reprehensible. "Look what they did" was never a good defense for a crime inside a court or out.
Didn't they blame it on the bar bouncer who sneaks into the White House at night?
...I think you serve a purpose here. Belittle her some more. Demean her position. It is what you do best here.
Nice! I have a sense of belonging now...*smooch*
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
No one (except for you it seems) is denying that whoever outed her committed a felony.
Now, given that fact, if someone in the White House committed this crime, should they be punished? This requires a one word response. Yes (If you agree) No(If you do not)
Absolutley.
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into roadblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...
Originally posted by: WinstonSmithBTW, I found looking into the 400 files reprehensible. "Look what they did" was never a good defense for a crime inside a court or out.
Didn't they blame it on the bar bouncer who sneaks into the White House at night?
...I think you serve a purpose here. Belittle her some more. Demean her position. It is what you do best here.
Nice! I have a sense of belonging now...*smooch*
Ewww! Grinch kiss
Originally posted by: 308nato
Are my cliff notes correct at this point.....
She did something for the CIA, some reporters told her husband the White House leaked her name, he immediately blamed Rove, original reporter said she was not named by anyone in the White House, husband still believes Rove is responsible....
So at this point all I know for sure is her husband hates Rove.
Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Here is the first report (unfortunatly in RA format) specifically fingering Rove as the leaker:
Several of the journalists are saying privately 'yes it was Karl Rove who I talked to.
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: reitz
Then why would George Tenet, loyal enough to the Bush admin to fall on his sword over the Uranium claims several months ago, request an investigation by the Justice Department? Tenet knows Plame's true role at the CIA...if there was no crime committed here, why would he persue the matter?
Why would John Ashcroft, a staunch Bush ally, move into a full criminal investigation? The DNC can make all the noise it wants, but Ashcroft doesn't have to answer to them.
Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into raodblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...
Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Originally posted by: reitz
Then why would George Tenet, loyal enough to the Bush admin to fall on his sword over the Uranium claims several months ago, request an investigation by the Justice Department? Tenet knows Plame's true role at the CIA...if there was no crime committed here, why would he persue the matter?
Why would John Ashcroft, a staunch Bush ally, move into a full criminal investigation? The DNC can make all the noise it wants, but Ashcroft doesn't have to answer to them.
Read my post above; I was speaking to the 'Independent Counsel' suggestion raised by Senate Democrats....an investigation should be conducted, I agree, but by whom is the question. If the DOJ ran into raodblocks, then I would support the ideal of a so-called 'Independent Counsel'. Otherwise, ...
How do you know that the roadblock wouldn't be in the Bush/Ashcroft Justice dept itself ? When Justice dept and White House have this cozy a relationship, the coziest since Nixon/Mitchell, there is a good reason to have an independent council lead the investigation.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So Robert Novak knows more than the CIA.
Why is the CIA asking for an investigation and the Justice Department beginning one if her position in some way was not classified?
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
So Robert Novak knows more than the CIA.
Why is the CIA asking for an investigation and the Justice Department beginning one if her position in some way was not classified?
For the same reason they ask for the other 49+ investigations a year, that rarely show a violation of law took place. Normally the CIA is just wrong and there isnt a violation of law, on occassion the DoJ cant solve the case, rarely do they ever find a violation of law, atleast according to former CIA James Woolsey.
Originally posted by: digitalsm
No theres not. This doesnt warrant it. There are 50+ similar complaints by the CIA, and ensuing DoJ investigations every year, almost one a week. This is just another blip on the radar. The DoJ rarely finds violations of law from these CIA complaints.
This is only a big deal because Mr Wilson has made it a big deal. For one he should have never been sent to Niger on a CIA mission. Also there appears to be people from past admins that leaked this info to other reporters in casual converstations, so it wouldnt just be pegged on some people in the Bush admin if there was an outting of a covert operative.
Its going to be debated if she was a covert op or not, the CIA says she is, but that doesnt mean she was.
The evidence all points to that fact, and if you're quatation from Novak is accurate, it definately looks like Novak is outright lying here.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Something fishy is going on here: Novak claims, "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators." So why would the CIA request the Justice Dep't to investigate this if she was not a covert operative? If she was simply an analyst there would be NO investigation.
What about the "...at least six Washington journalists..." who also rec'd this information? It's not just Novak. Are they all going to claim they learned the information during an interview and that it wasn't a leak from the WH?
Also this, "Other CIA sources told CNN on Monday that Plame was an operative who ran agents in the field."
WTF? Is she an operative or not? So far, everyone seems to think so except for Novak.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/index.htmlNovak said a confidential source at the CIA told him that Plame was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operatives." (Full story)
But sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency that spies on others -- and was in the field for many years as an undercover officer.
"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department," a senior intelligence official said.
The article appears to have been routinely updated and removed the quotation since I originally found it.Novak said the CIA asked him not to disclose Plame's name, "but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else," and that he was led to believe that she was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."
Novak was wrong on those accounts, according to the CIA. "We wouldn't file a crimes report" if the case didn't involve an agent undercover, a U.S. official said.
This sounds like a BS claim to me.Originally posted by: digitalsm
No theres not. This doesnt warrant it. There are 50+ similar complaints by the CIA, and ensuing DoJ investigations every year, almost one a week. This is just another blip on the radar. The DoJ rarely finds violations of law from these CIA complaints.
This is only a big deal because Mr Wilson has made it a big deal. For one he should have never been sent to Niger on a CIA mission. Also there appears to be people from past admins that leaked this info to other reporters in casual converstations, so it wouldnt just be pegged on some people in the Bush admin if there was an outting of a covert operative.
Its going to be debated if she was a covert op or not, the CIA says she is, but that doesnt mean she was.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19699-2003Sep29.htmlAn obscure law that could come into play in an investigation of alleged leaks by the Bush administration has rarely, if ever, been used to prosecute someone for the unauthorized disclosure of a covert U.S. agent's name, people familiar with the law said yesterday...
After it was signed into law, the measure quickly faded into obscurity. Government officials said yesterday they could not recall a single prosecution under the law, although they said they could not completely rule that out...
A former Justice Department official with experience investigating national security cases said the 1982 law was seldom considered by prosecutors and that there were few, if any, prosecutions under the law because the statute's enactment had the desired effect.
"The fact that it's on the books has a very sobering effect on people who have access to sensitive information," he said. "Usually its existence is enough of a deterrent, and that has been the case with this law."
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Galt - you should change your title. The way it currently stands, it reads like one big lie.