Peter_Puget Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 linky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 So does that imply that Bush or Cheney was the one who leaked to Novak? I'm saying that since Novak said no crime was committed, so the leaker must be someone who has the supposed power to "instantly declassify" information (i.e. Prez or VP). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 So if no crime was committed it was because the source had "declassified" the information. Can Bush legally declassify the identity of a CIA agent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 another link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Sounds like they just might get Rove in the end for perjury, but they'll never get him on the original charge. Bush will pardon him in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 ChucK - More than likely the "outing" itself was not illegal at least in terms of revealing a secret agent no matter who did it and for whatever reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Gosh, then what's the reason for this inquiry? If Bush initiated this special-prosecutor stuff over something that wasn't even a crime, then you'd have to agree that, with all the flack this is causing, that Bush really screwed this one up, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 ChucK - More than likely the "outing" itself was not illegal at least in terms of revealing a secret agent no matter who did it and for whatever reason. Oh peter, what a beautiful ballerina you make, spinning, twirling, dodging, all in that beautiful dress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny_Tuff Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Ballet is muy sensitivioso! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yep I agree the whole thing is a stupid waste of time. He should have realized that it would have to morph into witch hunt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 ChucK - More than likely the "outing" itself was not illegal at least in terms of revealing a secret agent no matter who did it and for whatever reason. Not illegal, but politically damaging. So I wonder how they figured they'd get away with it? Was it a rash and impulsive decision? I mean, if you spit into the wind, you gotta figure its eventually going to come back in your face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny_Tuff Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yep I agree the whole thing is a stupid waste of time. He should have realized that it would have to morph into witch hunt. If by "witch hunt" you mean "perfectly reasonable inquiry into potentially illegal activities initiated from the highest echelon of the administration," and by "waste of time" you mean "what better way to spend a sunny Spring afternoon," then, yeah, that sounds about right. Who's got the marshmallows? I hear there's going to be a burning Bush at the White House. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Actually, I think he's referring to the eight-year Whitewater investigation. The current affair is based on allegations that somebody in the President's office actually did something wrong in the conduct of their duties there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 linky So the President can stab anybody in the back he wants to? Ok then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 ChucK - More than likely the "outing" itself was not illegal at least in terms of revealing a secret agent no matter who did it and for whatever reason. Because Novak - who was involved in the scheme - says so? There's some circular logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Like my new tag line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 (edited) ChucK - More than likely the "outing" itself was not illegal at least in terms of revealing a secret agent no matter who did it and for whatever reason. Because Novak - who was involved in the scheme - says so? There's some circular logic. No, not because Novak said so, but because the federal prosecutor is not prosecuting the person who turned over on Plame, it is presumed the President is that person because he is the only person who can unilaterally declassify and reveal the protected identities of Federal agents. As President, Bush may have been singularly free to do what was done without committing a crime, but because a backstabbing snitch of treasonous character still stinks just as bad, one might presume as well that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has been compelled to hold his nose. Edited April 20, 2006 by Crux Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willstrickland Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 There is apparently an executive order that allows "Shooter" Cheney to unilaterally declassify also. At least that's what he claims. The Spec. Prosecuter is Patrick Fitzgerald, not Fitzwater (Marlin Fitzwater was the press Sec. for Reagan and Bush41). Bush was questioned already, with his lawyer present. Fitzgerald was appointed by James Comey, who was in charge when Ashcroft the asshat was hospitalized. Fitzgerald is by all accounts a crack prosecuter with no partisan affiliations (the guy has an impressive prosecutorial record, check him out). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.