|
OT Plight of Valerie Plame (Plamegate)
PLAMEGATE
We Do The Research So Reporters Don't Have To Stunningly, no member of the White House press corps has asked press secretary Scott McClellan about Karl Rove's role in outing former CIA operative Valerie Plame since Rove's lawyer admitted on Saturday that Rove was one of Time reporter Matt Cooper's sources. Below are ten vital facts that the media needs to communicate -- and that Americans deserve to know -- about PlameGate. (Click here to get the email addresses of your local media outlets, and let them know they're missing out on a serious story.) THE PLAME LEAK IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE: Commenting on the remarks of the federal judges who have ruled on Cooper/Miller case, Lawrence O'Donnell today pointed out that "All the judges who have seen the prosecutor's secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment." And remember, it was George W. Bush's father who, speaking at CIA headquarters in 1999, said, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." Likewise, when asked whether exposing Valerie Plame's identity would be "worse than Watergate," President Bush's close colleague Ed Gillespie said, "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it," adding that "to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime." Those who try to play down the importance of PlameGate are deceiving themselves. KARL ROVE HAS NOT YET ANSWERED WHETHER HE IS A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION: Rove's attorney Robert Luskin acknowledged over the weekend that Karl Rove has testified "two or three times" before the grand jury. These multiple visits prompted one lawyer "representing a witness sympathetic to the White House" to tell Newsweek that there is "growing 'concern' in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove." Luskin has insisted in several recent interviews that Rove is not a "target" of Fitzgerald's investigation. But this leaves open the possibility that Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. The difference? While a "target" is a "putative defendant" according to the U.S. Attorneys' Manual, a "subject" is a person not yet thought to have committed a crime but "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation" (these two definitions are distinct from the third possible status, a mere "witness"). Lawrence O'Donnell, who broke the news of Rove's contacts with Time reporter Matt Cooper, notes: "Three trips to the same grand jury is frequently an indicator of subject status." So, Mr. Rove, if you're not a target, are you a witness or a subject? ROVE HAS NEVER DENIED LEAKING THE IDENTITY OF WILSON'S WIFE: The public statements by Karl Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin regarding Rove's role have been worded vaguely, in such a way that leaves unclear whether Rove is denying that he ever revealed (in any way) the true identity of Joseph Wilson's wife, or whether he is merely denying that he revealed the specific name -- Valerie Plame (also her maiden name) -- that she used only while carrying out her covert work. Rove's attorney told Newsweek that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA"; he told the Los Angeles Times that Rove "absolutely did not identify Valerie Plame." And in August 2004, Rove denied knowing Plame's name: "Well, I'll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name." Under a strict interpretation, these statements confirm only that Rove did not leak Plame's name, not whether he revealed her role as a covert operative. ROVE'S DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS UNCLEAR: As several commentators have noted, Rove's attorney has almost uniformly stated that Rove never "knowingly" disclosed classified information (although on one occassion, Luskin did apparently say to Bloomberg News that Rove "did not reveal any confidential information," leaving off the word "knowingly"). As Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out: "Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." So, did Rove ever unknowingly disclose classified information? Moreover, a legal memo obtained by Hill reporter Josh Marshall interpreted the relevant laws to hold that "a government insider, with access to classified information, such as Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further disseminating the identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it." According to today's New York Times, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case." Did Rove ever confirm or disseminate classified information? ROVE COULD COME CLEAN AT ANY TIME: A simple, clear statement by Rove would do much to end speculation about his role in any potential wrongdoing. Yet Rove is refusing to answer questions about the case, and, more suspiciously, his attorney is justifying his silence with the specious claim that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has "asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say." As O'Donnell points out, "Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him." The only thing that prevents him from doing so, O'Donnell adds, is "a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail." BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS COULD KEEP MILLER OUT OF JAIL: Whether one supports or opposes Judith Miller's refusal to reveal her source, the fact remains that she never had to face this fate. At any time, the Bush administration officials who leaked Valerie Plame's identity could step forward and relieve Miller of her difficult circumstances. As Joseph Wilson noted last night, "The sentencing of Judith Miller to jail for refusing to disclose her sources is the direct result of the culture of unaccountability that infects the Bush White House from top to bottom. ... Clearly, the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House than coming clean on a serious breach of national security." Likewise, John Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon during the Watergate controversy, said on Tuesday: "Whoever it is, he or she is a huge coward. And the fact that they would let somebody [go to prison] -- this is the sort of thing that Mafia people do, that drug kings do, not somebody who's serving in the White House as a public servant." ROVE AND NOVAK HAVE A TRACK RECORD: Karl Rove and Robert Novak apparently have a history of spreading damaging information. In January 2003, Ron Suskind reported in Esquire that "Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted." AT LEAST ONE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE: Rove's acknowledgement of his role in spreading information about Wilson and Plame seems to clearly contradict a claim in October 2003 by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who said that "those individuals [Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, and Lewis Libby] assured me they were not involved with this." So, did Karl Rove and his White House colleagues deceive Scott McClellan, or did Scott McClellan deceive the American people? AN APPARENT DISCREPANCY EXISTS IN THE TIMELINE OF ROVE'S CONTACTS WITH JOURNALISTS: Though Rove's involvement in spreading information about former ambassador Wilson and his wife is now known, the timeline remains unclear. Recent statements from Rove's lawyer have only muddied the picture. In October 2003, Rove reportedly admitted to the grand jury "that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding [Plame] with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists," part of an "aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife." According to investigative journalist Murray Waas, Rove told the grand jury that "he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in [Robert] Novak's column." But according to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, "Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared." What's the real story here? PRESIDENT BUSH'S THOUGHTS ARE UNKNOWN: For well over a year, the White House line has been that "no one wants to get to the bottom of [this investigation] more than the President of the United States." Considering his great interest, it seems surprising, then, that President Bush has had nothing to say about Saturday's revelation that his own top advisor, Karl Rove, apparently did indeed participate in the coordinated campaign to smear former ambassador Joe Wilson. This fact alone speaks volumes about the character of this White House. RACE It's Everyone's Business On January 15, 2003, when Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich and Lt. Gov. Michael Steele were sworn into office, Steele said "Forty years ago, Martin Luther King had a dream. How fitting today we celebrate not only the inauguration of a new era, but the birthday of a man who dreamed this day would come." Times have changed. Late last month, Ehrlich held a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser at the all-white Elkridge country club. Neither Ehrlich or Steele see anything wrong with it. During a radio interview about the controversy Tuesday, Ehrlich said "I don't know what their membership is, and guess what? It's not my business." Steele told the Associated Press, "I don't know that much about the club, the membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf." It's time to stop playing dumb. Days earlier, The Baltimore Sun told Ehrlich's staff the paper had confirmed that "the club has had no African-American members in its 127-year history." Email Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele and ask them if, in light of their commitment to Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, they will continue to support institutions that practice racial discrimination. CLUB'S HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WAS NOT A MYSTERY: Ehrlich and Steele pretend that Elkridge's club membership is a mystery. In fact, its racially discriminatory practices are well known. In 1985, "Frederick Motz quit Elkridge in 1985 after he was nominated to the federal bench" to avoid questions about its all-white membership. In 1977, Maryland passed a law "prohibiting country clubs from getting a property tax break if they discriminated in their membership policies." Elkridge "gave up its tax break...rather than give its membership list to the state." WHEN IN DOUBT, ATTACK THE MESSENGER: Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, Gov. Ehrlich attacked the messenger. Specifically, his staff accused the Baltimore Sun, who broke the story about the Ehrlich fundraiser of having "some association with Elkridge over the years." It's true that "Former [Baltimore Sun] publisher Reginald Murphy...joined the club when he moved to Baltimore in 1981." But once he found out about its membership composition "he dropped his membership after helping establish the Caves Valley Golf Club, which he said was founded to be inclusive regardless of religion, race or gender." It's not the first time Ehrlich as tried to bully the Sun into silence. Last November Ehrlich banned all state officials from speaking with two Baltimore Sun journalists because, in his view, they were "failing to objectively report" on state issues. Citing the First Amendment, the Sun asked "a federal judge to lift the [Ehrlich] administration's order." The lawsuit, which is still pending, alleges that Ehrlich's actions discourage "speech by any citizen of Maryland who disagrees with the Governor, and it will leave the door open for any public official to punish any individual who says something the government does not like." WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME OTHERS: Ehrlich said that his fundraiser is a "non-story" other Maryland politicians have held events at the Elkridge Club. Although, Ehrlich didn't name any names, Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith Jr. admitted that he held a fundraiser at the club on May 4. Smith's conduct was wrong but it doesn't excuse Ehrlich. Moreover, there is a difference in how the two men have dealt with the situation. Smith admits he made a mistake and has promised "he will not have future campaign events" at Elkridge. Ehrlich remains unrepentant and has emphasized that he has spoken at Elkridge "many, many times over the years." WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME YOUR STAFF: Just in case Ehrlich's other excuses didn't work for you, he's got one mo it was all his staff's fault. Ehrlich told WBAL radio that "the decision to hold an event at the Elkridge Club on June 20 was made by his campaign staff, not by him." So much for personal responsibility. |
|
"John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Jul 2005 , wrote: Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim? Did an adult post that? Obviously it was not posted by anyone that had passed English grammar 101 -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
John H. wrote: On 1 Jul 2005 , wrote: Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim? Did an adult post that? -- John H. Having a little trouble following a thread, John? Drunk again, I mean still? |
|
What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this
leak? |
Curtis CCR wrote:
What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this leak? Does it matter? Exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a Federal crime... and rightly so. Plame was exposed by somebody close to the White House (most likely Karl Rove himself) to try & make some cheap political points. And I bet the reporters are going to be the only ones punished. DSK |
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:24:30 -0400, DSK wrote:
Curtis CCR wrote: What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this leak? Does it matter? Exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a Federal crime... and rightly so. Plame was exposed by somebody close to the White House (most likely Karl Rove himself) to try & make some cheap political points. And I bet the reporters are going to be the only ones punished. DSK Accusing Karl Rove is another way some try to make cheap political points. -- John H. On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD |
John H. wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:24:30 -0400, DSK wrote: Curtis CCR wrote: What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this leak? Does it matter? Exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a Federal crime... and rightly so. Plame was exposed by somebody close to the White House (most likely Karl Rove himself) to try & make some cheap political points. And I bet the reporters are going to be the only ones punished. DSK Accusing Karl Rove is another way some try to make cheap political points. -- And when it's all over, and it indeed IS Karl Rove, what will you say then? |
John H. wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:24:30 -0400, DSK wrote: Curtis CCR wrote: What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this leak? Does it matter? Exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a Federal crime... and rightly so. Plame was exposed by somebody close to the White House (most likely Karl Rove himself) to try & make some cheap political points. And I bet the reporters are going to be the only ones punished. DSK Accusing Karl Rove is another way some try to make cheap political points. -- Did you sober up long enough to read THIS PART: In October 2003, Rove reportedly admitted to the grand jury "that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding [Plame] with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists," part of an "aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife. So, we have Karl Rove accusing HIMSELF. Is HE making "cheap political points"? If you want to talk about cheap political points, how about Rove's "aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife." That's about as low as a politician can go! |
DSK wrote: Curtis CCR wrote: What was Plame doing, and where, during the five years prior to this leak? Does it matter? Yes it does. If she was *not* working *overseas* as a *covert* operative in the previous five years then it may not have been a crime to disclose her indentity. It seems that most people leave this question out of the discussion when they say "its a crime to disclose... blah blah blah..." Those asking the question seem to think she was working as an intelligence analyst of some type and having babies in the U.S. during the time in question. (Employment with the CIA can hardly be called covert if you are driving to work at Langley everyday.) Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not. Exposing the identity of an undercover CIA agent is a Federal crime... and rightly so. Plame was exposed by somebody close to the White House (most likely Karl Rove himself) to try & make some cheap political points. And I bet the reporters are going to be the only ones punished. |
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:
Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not. While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime committed, why is a reporter going to jail? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 |
thunder wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote: Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not. While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime committed, why is a reporter going to jail? Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 Thank you for the link. There are not very many articles out there asking these questions. And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" |
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message ups.com... thunder wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote: Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not. While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime committed, why is a reporter going to jail? Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 Thank you for the link. There are not very many articles out there asking these questions. And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his wife's career? She was a NOC agent, she doesn't have a "career" with the CIA. Do a little research. Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" Considering the fact that the people that might most be interested in her agent status ALREADY knew, her husband publicizing the fact that someone in the current administration revealed her identity as an agent doesn't make ANY difference. The fact that this very serious national security crime has been almost ignored by the mainstream media is rather troubling, I would venture the guess that this would be Wilson's primary motivation for publicizing it. John Cairns |
|
|
And when it's all over, and it indeed IS Karl Rove, what will you say
then? And when it''s all over, you still will not prove your are NOT Kevin noble....? |
While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is
quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime committed, why is a reporter going to jail? For aiding & abetting the enemy (the Democrats). Curtis CCR wrote: Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime. Really? What of the 5th Amendment? I thought that a US citizen had the right to not testify. I guess it's just another one of those rights they taught us about in school, but they were kidding... And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for himself ;) However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the situation. It's like the Halliburton price-gouging & fraud & non-performance... small back-page items in the news at best. And you hear all the time about the supposed 'liberal biased media.' DSK |
DSK wrote:
While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime committed, why is a reporter going to jail? For aiding & abetting the enemy (the Democrats). Curtis CCR wrote: Good question. Bottom line is that she is going to jail because she refused to comply with an order to talk. I am not sure that she should have been ordered to do so. But contempt of court *is* a crime. Really? What of the 5th Amendment? I thought that a US citizen had the right to not testify. I guess it's just another one of those rights they taught us about in school, but they were kidding... You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to testify against *yourself*. People are compelled to testify against others in court everyday. And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for himself ;) However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the situation. There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a couple of facts about the case. We still don't know if a crime was committed. |
John Cairns wrote:
"Curtis CCR" wrote in message Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" Considering the fact that the people that might most be interested in her agent status ALREADY knew, her husband publicizing the fact that someone in the current administration revealed her identity as an agent doesn't make ANY difference. The fact that this very serious national security crime has been almost ignored by the mainstream media is rather troubling, I would venture the guess that this would be Wilson's primary motivation for publicizing it. A host of people alledgedly knew she worked for the CIA. It has been reported that it was common knowledge in D.C. "cocktail circuit" that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lot's of people knew PRIOR to the White House's alledged leak. But nobody talked much about it because it wasn't important. This goes to another element of the definition of covert agent - the government needs to be taking step to keep her identity secret. This story is not being ignored by the mainstream media. So you even have that fact wrong. But there are very few *facts* available for the media to report. One fact that you still cannot prove is that a even a misdemeanor, let alone a "serious national security crime" has been committed. |
Tim wrote: And when it's all over, and it indeed IS Karl Rove, what will you say then? And when it''s all over, you still will not prove your are NOT Kevin noble....? Sure I will, but will you, Smithers et al, JohnH, Fritz, and JimH be man enough to apologize for calling me Kevin Noble? Will you all be man enough to admit that you were ignorantly wrong? |
Kevin,
Why are you sending email to people using Kevin Noble's signature? wrote in message ups.com... Tim wrote: And when it's all over, and it indeed IS Karl Rove, what will you say then? And when it''s all over, you still will not prove your are NOT Kevin noble....? Sure I will, but will you, Smithers et al, JohnH, Fritz, and JimH be man enough to apologize for calling me Kevin Noble? Will you all be man enough to admit that you were ignorantly wrong? |
John H. wrote: On 8 Jul 2005 12:50:07 -0700, wrote: regarding him and his wife." That's about as low as a politician can go! Almost as bad as, "Awe.....how cute. Was you jacking off about it, Jim?" Right? No, but it was about as bad as "you're a ****ing liar". |
Curtis CCR wrote:
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to testify against *yourself*. Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled to testify against themselves all the time. ... People are compelled to testify against others in court everyday. And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are pro-Bush/Cheney walk free? And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for himself ;) However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the situation. There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a couple of facts about the case. We still don't know if a crime was committed. Possibly, but it seems pretty likely that one was. One of the reasons I distrust the Bush Administration so much is their overwhelming urge towards secrecy. http://www.archivists.org/news/secrecyorder.asp http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13233.htm Now, who needs a reminder on what the Bible tells us about those who hateth the light? DSK |
HarryKrause wrote: thunder wrote: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:52:11 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote: Dirty politics to disclose her identity? Yes. A crime? Maybe not. While you may be right, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is quite narrow in scope, but consider this. If there was no crime committed, why is a reporter going to jail? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...2305-2005Jan11 Because she's not Robert Novak? I think Novak coughed up something that has satisfied prosecutors. Cooper got permission to talk, reportedly from Rove (Rove has said so). Rove may not be Miller's source, therefore she sits in jail. |
DSK wrote: Curtis CCR wrote: You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to testify against *yourself*. Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled to testify against themselves all the time. Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents. Documents can be entered into evidence - They are not testitmony. (Before some wise-ass tries to bring up transcripts from depositions, those are different kinds of documents). ... People are compelled to testify against others in court everyday. And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are pro-Bush/Cheney walk free? Let me see if I have the correct score here. ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information she says she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight - there is no fifth ammendment issue here. And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court is quite sound. And what about Plame's husband? Jeeezzz.. He is worried about his wife's career? Why has been on every mountaintop he can find for the last year yelling, "These dirty *******s told everyone that my wife is a CIA agent? Did you hear me?!?! I said these guys are telling people that my wife is a CIA agent!!!" I think it's not so much his wife's career, but a career move for himself ;) However, John Cairns has a good point... not much in the news about the situation. There isn't much to report. You are not seeing a lot of detail in the news about this because nobody in the news business knows more than a couple of facts about the case. We still don't know if a crime was committed. Possibly, but it seems pretty likely that one was. You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to fall one way or another. Please list what verified facts you have that show a crime was committed. We don't know if this special prosecutor is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the bottom what will prove to be a political mess. |
You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to
testify against *yourself*. Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled to testify against themselves all the time. Curtis CCR wrote: Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents. Of course, you *can* be, but should you be? To frame the question more accurately, the Constitution & Bill of Rights set up very limited circumstances in which the state (meaning the federal gov't) can stomp down the citizen, and forbid such stopming all other times. I understood this to be one of the latter, honored more in the breach with the 'advance of civiliation' into modern times. Sort of like the way the police can tap your phone, read your email, or even ust down your door and give your home & belongings a good tossing. Hey, if you're not a criminal, drug dealer, or terrorist, you have nothing to fear, right? ... People are compelled to testify against others in court everyday. And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are pro-Bush/Cheney walk free? Let me see if I have the correct score here. ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information Not long ago it was two. ... she says she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight - there is no fifth ammendment issue here. And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court is quite sound. So, the state can force you to give evidence... documents or verbal testimony... which you may or may not have... and lock you up forever if you don't satisfy the court (meaning the prosecutor). That sounds just peachy... are you allowed to sing all those songs about what a free country this is while you rot in jail? You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to fall one way or another. C'mon, usually you have more sense than this. Is this going to be President Bush's official backpedal tag-line? "No crime has been committed" just like "We don't know or care where Bin Laden is now." If no crime was committed, then why have a prosecutor in the first place? Who's in charge here? ... We don't know if this special prosecutor is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the bottom what will prove to be a political mess. Actually, I assume that the special prosecutor is seeking to whitewash the whole thing. DSK |
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 06:22:16 -0700, Curtis CCR wrote:
A host of people alledgedly knew she worked for the CIA. It has been reported that it was common knowledge in D.C. "cocktail circuit" that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Lot's of people knew PRIOR to the White House's alledged leak. But nobody talked much about it because it wasn't important. This goes to another element of the definition of covert agent - the government needs to be taking step to keep her identity secret. You seem to be concentrating on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, the prosecutor could be using the much broader Espionage Act, similar to Reagan's use of it against Samuel Morison. http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/sc.../20030926.html |
Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing
over documents. "DSK" wrote in message ... You should have paid attention in school. You cannot be compelled to testify against *yourself*. Really? Does that include being forced to hand over documents, including ones which probably don't exist? Seems to me that people are compelled to testify against themselves all the time. Curtis CCR wrote: Yes. You can be compelled to hand over documents. Of course, you *can* be, but should you be? To frame the question more accurately, the Constitution & Bill of Rights set up very limited circumstances in which the state (meaning the federal gov't) can stomp down the citizen, and forbid such stopming all other times. I understood this to be one of the latter, honored more in the breach with the 'advance of civiliation' into modern times. Sort of like the way the police can tap your phone, read your email, or even ust down your door and give your home & belongings a good tossing. Hey, if you're not a criminal, drug dealer, or terrorist, you have nothing to fear, right? ... People are compelled to testify against others in court everyday. And this makes it right? Especially the situation under discussion, that two reporters considered hostile by the Administration are ordered to jail while other reporters who have done the exact same thing but are pro-Bush/Cheney walk free? Let me see if I have the correct score here. ONE reporter sits in jail for refusing to disclose information Not long ago it was two. ... she says she has. Miller says she won't reveal her source - I don't believe any one has ever claimed that she didn't have a source. She is not sitting in jail for refusing to testify against herself. Get that straight - there is no fifth ammendment issue here. And yes, the general principal of compelling people to testify in court is quite sound. So, the state can force you to give evidence... documents or verbal testimony... which you may or may not have... and lock you up forever if you don't satisfy the court (meaning the prosecutor). That sounds just peachy... are you allowed to sing all those songs about what a free country this is while you rot in jail? You have nothing to back that up. The question is still very much up in the air and you have nothing to show that it is "pretty likely" to fall one way or another. C'mon, usually you have more sense than this. Is this going to be President Bush's official backpedal tag-line? "No crime has been committed" just like "We don't know or care where Bin Laden is now." If no crime was committed, then why have a prosecutor in the first place? Who's in charge here? ... We don't know if this special prosecutor is looking to charge anyone with anything, or if he just digging to the bottom what will prove to be a political mess. Actually, I assume that the special prosecutor is seeking to whitewash the whole thing. DSK |
Bill McKee wrote:
Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing over documents. True... but again, is it right? And that's one of my mainpoints here. The IRS will not only send you to jail but will seize your property. Maybe those reporters are lucky they were only sent to jail, maybe the judge could have ordered them to hand over all their '60s albums too. DSK |
Yes it is proper. Say that you wrote a threatening letter to the POTUS.
And you say that you can not have my typewriter. Think that would fly? Bill "DSK" wrote in message .. . Bill McKee wrote: Have a problem with the IRS and see if you can go to jail for not handing over documents. True... but again, is it right? And that's one of my mainpoints here. The IRS will not only send you to jail but will seize your property. Maybe those reporters are lucky they were only sent to jail, maybe the judge could have ordered them to hand over all their '60s albums too. DSK |
Bill McKee wrote:
Yes it is proper. Say that you wrote a threatening letter to the POTUS. And you say that you can not have my typewriter. Think that would fly? That depends on the credibility of the threat. So, I take it that you're in favor of a police state with 'freedom' define by the convenience of the courts & police? A gov't that places higher priority on the priviledges of it's officials than the rights of it's citizens? That is what we have now. Personally, I don't like it... and the Founding Fathers would be appalled... although they'd probably be surprised & pleased that the U.S. succeeded so well & kept some vestiges of freedom for a long time. DSK |
Real Name wrote: Kevin, Why are you sending email to people using Kevin Noble's signature? I'm not, asshole. |
|
Very much against a police state. The question is can you be forced to give
up evidence. And with a search warrant, yes you can. "DSK" wrote in message .. . Bill McKee wrote: Yes it is proper. Say that you wrote a threatening letter to the POTUS. And you say that you can not have my typewriter. Think that would fly? That depends on the credibility of the threat. So, I take it that you're in favor of a police state with 'freedom' define by the convenience of the courts & police? A gov't that places higher priority on the priviledges of it's officials than the rights of it's citizens? That is what we have now. Personally, I don't like it... and the Founding Fathers would be appalled... although they'd probably be surprised & pleased that the U.S. succeeded so well & kept some vestiges of freedom for a long time. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com