Plame Update

[basso]

Hmmmm, seems now the WaPo and NYTimes feel that perhaps a crime hasn't been committed? i don't recall them feeling that way during the campaign. Flip, Flop?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61388-2005Mar23.html

--
Media Groups Back Reporters In Court Filing
Judges Urged to Determine if Crime Occurred in Leak Case

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 24, 2005; Page A03

A federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources, the nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups asserted in a court filing yesterday.

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame's name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications.

The friend-of-the-court brief was filed by 36 news organizations, including The Washington Post and major broadcast and cable television news networks, in support of reporters at the New York Times and Time magazine who face possible jail time for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury investigating the allegations. Those two organizations filed a petition Tuesday asking the full appeals court to review the case.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled in February that two reporters -- Judith Miller of the Times and Matthew Cooper of Time -- should be jailed for contempt if they continued to refuse to name their sources to the grand jury.

Attorneys for the news organizations said yesterday that their decision to submit the brief underscores deep concern in the journalism community over special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's tactics. Fitzgerald, who heads the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago, is in the midst of two separate battles with journalists over testimony related to confidential sources.

The petition by the Times and Time magazine focuses on whether reporters have a First Amendment right to resist disclosure of confidential sources.

The brief by the other news organizations takes a different approach: It argues that the statute at issue in the case, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, was aimed at egregious attempts to expose U.S. spies and was crafted to avoid ensnaring reporters going about their business.

It asks for a hearing to determine whether a crime has even been committed.

Bruce W. Sanford, a lawyer who handled the case for the group of news organizations, said yesterday that "it's a very poor result if somehow reporters got entangled in a net of prison sentences in an investigation which ends up with no indictment because no crime has been committed."

Attorneys for the Times and Time magazine have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court if necessary.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

[bigtexxx]

This is huge. Do you know what else is huge? The fact that search is enabled and bigtexxx can perform valuable research on the board. My exercise for the morning involves researching how many references many of the worst offending liberals on the board made about Plame. They relished what they thought was a "gotcha" to rub in the face of conservatives! Now what, liberals? How do you answer this article???

Unique threads in which the poster referenced "Plame":
FranchiseBlade: 22
SamFisher: 18
andymoon: 11
glynch: 9
Deckard: 8
No Worries: 5
Batman Jones: 4

[SamFisher]

texxx, I cannot offer any comment at this juncture due to professional ethics concerns. Suffice it to say, you and basso are once again misinterpreting this 6-month old news item and are don't seem to get its various facets.

[DaDakota]

Originally posted by SamFisher
texxx, I cannot offer any comment at this juncture due to professional ethics concerns. Suffice it to say, you and basso are once again misinterpreting this 6-month old news item and are don't seem to get its various facets.

That sure sounds like a comment to me......quick someone send this to Sam's boss.

;)

[basso]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
This is huge. Do you know what else is huge? The fact that search is enabled and bigtexxx can perform valuable research on the board. My exercise for the morning involves researching how many references many of the worst offending liberals on the board made about Plame. They relished what they thought was a "gotcha" to rub in the face of conservatives! Now what, liberals? How do you answer this article???

Unique threads in which the poster referenced "Plame":
FranchiseBlade: 22
SamFisher: 18
andymoon: 11
glynch: 9
Deckard: 8
No Worries: 5
Batman Jones: 4

yeah, sam andy and FB in particular carried joe wilson's jock for about 6 months. their silence now is pretty revealing.

[No Worries]

This friend-of-the-court brief leaves me undone. It is so unexpected that the NYT and the WaPo was submit a CYA brief. Carry pn.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
yeah, sam andy and FB in particular carried joe wilson's jock for about 6 months. their silence now is pretty revealing.

And interestingly, during those six months, you and yours had no objection whatever to an undercover CIA agent being outed by a high level official at the White House. Back then, to you, it was a non-story. Now the disingenuous (what's new?) suggestion that an official crime might not have been committed -- suggested by a group of professionals whose core priniciple of not revealing sources is in danger as a result of this story -- is huge. Yawn. Wake me up when this turns into a story. I expect I'll get a nice long nap.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
And interestingly, during those six months, you and yours had no objection whatever to an undercover CIA agent being outed by a high level official at the White House. Back then, to you, it was a non-story. Now the disingenuous (what's new?) suggestion that an official crime might not have been committed -- suggested by a group of professionals whose core priniciple of not revealing sources is in danger as a result of this story -- is huge. Yawn. Wake me up when this turns into a story. I expect I'll get a nice long nap.

really batman, this is silly. if a high-level whitehouse operative "outed" an under cover cia agent, the wouldn't a crime have been committed? if there's no crime, it's hard to see how there's been an "outing."

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
really batman, this is silly. if a high-level whitehouse operative "outed" an under cover cia agent, the wouldn't a crime have been committed? if there's no crime, it's hard to see how there's been an "outing."

This is the first time any credible person has suggested the possibility a crime might not have been committed. Where were you for those six months or however long that the conventional wisdom was (and still is, by the way) that an agent was outed by someone high up at the WH? You crow about Sam, FB and the rest not rushing to address your non-story that's been up a few hours. The big story has been out there for over a year and you didn't make a peep. First sign there might be more to the story and you pee your pants. You also act like you've got some kind of huge story here. As usual, you blow off the big story and inflate the tiny one, according to your purposes. Like I said, disingenuous party line crap as usual.

[gifford1967]

Am I missing something? Has there been some official resolution of the Plame case?

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Am I missing something? Has there been some official resolution of the Plame case?

basso? texxx?

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
This is the first time any credible person has suggested the possibility a crime might not have been committed. Where were you for those six months or however long that the conventional wisdom was (and still is, by the way) that an agent was outed by someone high up at the WH? You crow about Sam, FB and the rest not rushing to address your non-story that's been up a few hours. The big story has been out there for over a year and you didn't make a peep. First sign there might be more to the story and you pee your pants. You also act like you've got some kind of huge story here. As usual, you blow off the big story and inflate the tiny one, according to your purposes. Like I said, disingenuous party line crap as usual.

texxx, TJ, myself, and many others have long maintained that there was no crime here, that valerie plame was "out" long before she posed for vanity fair. the "BIG STORY" was always a non-story. the news now, is those who'd long claimed it was some sort of huge scandal have realized that it's not, and now that the special prosecutor the clamored so agressively for has come back to bite them in the ass, have belayedly realized that, HEY! perhaps there's no there there after all. i know you see this, and it's only some sort of malign hatred of all things bush that obscures what is blindingly obvious to all but the most rabidly partisan.

[basso]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Am I missing something? Has there been some official resolution of the Plame case?

the people that pimped the story for a year now say there may have been no crime committed. isn't this stunning about face news?

Gifford, Batman, moonie, Fisher King?

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by basso
the people that pimped the story for a year now say there may have been no crime committed. isn't this stunning about face news?

Gifford, Batman, moonie, Fisher King?

I think what they're saying is before you throw reporters in jail you might want to confirm there was an actual crime. Not exactly explosive stuff. It's impossible to prove Novack got his info from a criminal act without knowing where it came from. What I don't understand about this case is why Novack apparently hasn't been instructed to reveal his source before these other ones were.

And if Plame was out before, we surely would have heard that from Novack. And we double sure would have heard it from the well oiled, greatest in the history of US politics, smear the whistleblower campaign whose altar you, Troller Jorge and bigtwinnn so love to worship at.

[SamFisher]

basso, while it might seem like I was kidding, I wasn't so I 'll leave it at that, save to say that you are whiffing mightily in the usual fashion (incomprehension, strawmen, misattribution of sentiments, etc.)

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I think what they're saying is before you throw reporters in jail you might want to confirm there was an actual crime. Not exactly explosive stuff.

from the brief:

there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case

it's a pretty stunning about face.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I think what they're saying is before you throw reporters in jail you might want to confirm there was an actual crime.
It is more like a pratfall, really.

There was a rush to judgement on this board to condemn the WH over the Plame "crime" and I believe that that is the screw-up that basso was trying to explore with this thread.

None of you brought this story to our attention, did you?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
yeah, sam andy and FB in particular carried joe wilson's jock for about 6 months. their silence now is pretty revealing.

Actually I just now saw this thread, my absence from it wasn't revealing of anything. I am proud that I referenced it more than anyone on that list. I will keep mentioning the Plame case, and this article does nothing to lessen the damage to our national security, nor does it show that a crime hasn't been committed.

The quote of ample evidence that a crime wasn't committed was merely part of a legal brief. It was something that the lawyers filed.

Next let's look at the lawyers that filed it. Lo and behold they are news agencies who have a vested interest in seeing that reporters are able to publish information they get from whitehouse officials, and that they don't have to reveal sources in order to spend time in jail. Should this go to trial for the felony that has been committed there are reporters from major news outlets that might end up doing time, and held in contempt.

I don't know why you are surprised because lawyers for a parties involved in the case files legal briefs. It isn't strange and certainly doesn't signal a victory for you or others on your side that are afraid to hold the administration accountable for one of the higher-ups in Bush's whitehouse that committed the felony.

[Trader_Jorge]

Yet another liberal lie EXPOSED for all to see.

SamFisher and FranchiseBlade, you guys are really on the hook here for propagating these lies for so long.



DEFEND YOURSELF

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Yet another liberal lie EXPOSED for all to see.

SamFisher and FranchiseBlade, you guys are really on the hook here for propagating these lies for so long.



DEFEND YOURSELF I don't need to defend myself. I, unlike some in this thread, understand that briefs filed by lawyers on a particular side in a case don't always represent the truth, nor are they in any way conclusive.

Have you seen some of the briefs filed in the trial involving the 2000 election? Because if I put into evidence from the legal briefs filed by Al Gore's lawyers then it appears that our nations democracy was undermined. Because according those legal briefs(the same level of proof you and your conservative companions are crowing about now) claims that only by allowing all those votes cast in Florida would democracy be validated in that election.

So if Legal briefs now end up qualifying as legal proof our nation is doomed!

Check out this pdf to read some of the briefs. http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscgorebrief1210.pdf

[bigtexxx]

Originally posted by SamFisher
basso, while it might seem like I was kidding, I wasn't so I 'll leave it at that, save to say that you are whiffing mightily in the usual fashion (incomprehension, strawmen, misattribution of sentiments, etc.)

Oh for crying out loud this is the worst cop-out I've ever heard in my life. Sam, do you really think that we are going to believe that you are personally working on this case? Especially considering all the "rich commentary" that you have provided over the past few months on this very topic?

Sounds like you have no answer to the article. The silence tells me all I need to know. Now get back to filing papers, it's only 9:20pm on a Friday night!

[No Worries]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
DEFEND YOURSELF
EXPLAIN YOURSELF.

Hey, SF, I think TJ is inventing a new legal defense, the non sequitur defense.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
Oh for crying out loud this is the worst cop-out I've ever heard in my life. Sam, do you really think that we are going to believe that you are personally working on this case? Especially considering all the "rich commentary" that you have provided over the past few months on this very topic?

Sounds like you have no answer to the article. The silence tells me all I need to know. Now get back to filing papers, it's only 9:20pm on a Friday night! Uhm... The premature celebration over some words that lawyers involved in the case filed doesn't need much defense from Sam or anyone else. It isn't even really an issue. The article itself says that the news agencies don't like the prosecution trying to find out who the felon in the Bush Whitehouse is by pressuring their reporters, so they filed these briefs. The briefs aren't proof of anything. Before a trial starts all lawyers claim their side is has all the information they need to win.

The strange thing is that in this case a bunch of people are whooping, cheering, and declaring victory just because the lawyers for one side have spoken.

But I'll keep playing the legal briefs equal certainty game if you guys want.

Guess what everyone! Bush lost in 2000. His petitions before the court weren't worth a hill of beans. Just look at what this legal brief that was filed by the other side has to say about it.

Petitioners(Bush's side in this case) contentions before this court ultimately reduce to empty assertions with little in the way of support
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/election2000/uscgorebrief1210.pdf There you have it, We should all throw the tyrant out. There was no support for his arguments. It was in a legal brief so it must be certain.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
The article itself says that the news agencies don't like the prosecution trying to find out who the felon in the Bush Whitehouse is by pressuring their reporters, so they filed these briefs. The briefs aren't proof of anything. Before a trial starts all lawyers claim their side is has all the information they need to win.
You are convicting an unknown person with zero evidence. Are you denying a political motivation here?

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
You are convicting an unknown person with zero evidence. Are you denying a political motivation here?

Yes I am denying political motivation. If new evidence comes out and somehow shows that a crime was not committed then I will be in favor of not presecuting, and ending the investigation. Remember, it was initially investigated by Ashcroft, who thought there was enough evidence to turn it over to special prosescutor. The FBI has been brought in, and eventually a Grand Jury.

Imagine you and your family are away from your house and you arrive back home to find the door kicked in. All of your valuables are gone when you arrive back home. Are you convicting an unkown person with zero evidence by saying a crime was committed?

As you see here it is admitted(contrary to Basso's assertion) that Plame was a clandestine operative. http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/the_joseph_wils.html

To knowingly reveal that identity is a felony. We know that the crime has been committed. We know who had access to that information. It is just a matter of narrowing that field down to find the exact person involved.

She was an undercover agent investigating Weapons of Mass destruction. While are troops were involved in war supposedly for that very reason, someone with top security clearance in the whitehouse leaked her identity. A crime has been committed, and the field of suspects is relatively small.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Yes I am denying political motivation. If new evidence comes out and somehow shows that a crime was not committed then I will be in favor of not presecuting, and ending the investigation.
I thought you had to have evidence that a crime was committed? You are reversing the process yet claim no special motivation.... :confused:

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
I thought you had to have evidence that a crime was committed? You are reversing the process yet claim no special motivation.... :confused:

The evidence is that an undercover CIA's identity was revealed. That is the evidence that a crime was committed.

It is the same as the analogy I gave. If you came home and found your door kicked in and your valuables missing, do you say there is no evidence a crime was committed?

We know from intel officials that Plame was undercover. We know that somebody blew that cover. We know from the law, that it is a felony to uncover the identity of a covert operative. Those are the pieces to the puzzle we have so far. Look at those events, please.

How do you deny that a crime was committed.

[No Worries]

How do you deny that a crime was committed.

I am guessing the NYT and WoPa are saying that their reporters didn't the crime; they just reported it.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
How do you deny that a crime was committed.
You describe "a felon in the White House."

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
How do you deny that a crime was committed.

To be fair to giddyup, he employs a pretty liberal standard when determining whether a crime's been committed. We know from a recent thread he's not even sure rape should be considered a crime if the rapist is really, really horny.

[No Worries]

he's not even sure rape should be considered a crime if the rapist is really, really horny.

ahhh, the hormone defense.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
To be fair to giddyup, he employs a pretty liberal standard when determining whether a crime's been committed. We know from a recent thread he's not even sure rape should be considered a crime if the rapist is really, really horny.
That is unfamiliar to me. Can you find that citation please?

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by giddyup
That is unfamiliar to me. Can you find that citation please?

Happy to help, giddy.

Originally posted by giddyup
Seems like there is a line that once you cross it, it is hard to turn back. Yes it makes you an animal, but does it really make you a criminal?

http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92134

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Happy to help, giddy.

http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92134
That's the only thing that I could think of that you might use. Typically, you've contorted my meaning to demean me... again.

Yes, I admit it, I am all for Free Rape. It feels better now that that is out on the table.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by giddyup
That's the only thing that I could think of that you might use. Typically, you've contorted my meaning to demean me... again.

Yes, I admit it, I am all for Free Rape. It feels better now that that is out on the table.

I'd love to know how I've 'contorted your meaning.' You asked if someone that "crossed the line" and had sex with a woman against her will was really a criminal. I'm hardly taking liberties there. If you've been demeaned, you did it to yourself. Maybe you just meant date rape wasn't necessarily a crime?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I'd love to know how I've 'contorted your meaning.' You asked if someone that "crossed the line" and had sex with a woman against her will was really a criminal. I'm hardly taking liberties there. If you've been demeaned, you did it to yourself. Maybe you just meant date rape wasn't necessarily a crime?
What I meant is that sometimes date-rape is a hollow, dishonest accusation. The question of having sex with someone against their will was not brought up directly.

Have you ever had sex?!? Sometimes it is indeed too late to stop. That is animalistic but not criminal in my opinion.

Batman, I have three daughters. If you think I would be lenient towards a definition of rape you are wrong. That being said, surely there are false accusations. Tyson's case seemed like a very good candidate for that kind of misjustice-- as despicable as Tyson generally is.

You chose the wrong 60's icon for your moniker; you should have gone with Eddie Haskell! :D

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by giddyup
Sometimes it is indeed too late to stop. That is animalistic but not criminal in my opinion.

It is criminal not to stop when your partner asks you to -- no matter when. That's the law. If you don't stop when asked, for whatever reason, it's rape. I hope that if one of your daughters is one day in that sort of situation -- whether married, dating or whatever -- and asks a man to stop, he will. I'm sure you do too. And I'm sure that if he doesn't, you'll want him prosecuted under the law.

But this stuff is only relevant to this thread because you presently have an apparently lenient opinion as to what constitutes a crime (even a crime as serious as rape). Before these other guys got into a ninety page last word war with you on the matter, I thought they ought to know that. That's all.

And I really have no idea what you mean about Eddie Haskell. That makes no sense to me at all.

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones

It is criminal not to stop when your partner asks you to -- no matter when. That's the law. If you don't stop when asked, for whatever reason, it's rape. I hope that if one of your daughters is one day in that sort of situation -- whether married, dating or whatever -- and asks a man to stop, he will. I'm sure you do too. And I'm sure that if he doesn't, you'll want him prosecuted under the law. </b>

There is a great spectrum of possibility here. If some guy is approaching climax, I really don't expect him to stop. That is Nature's Law. I don't think that is rape either. If a woman starts to feel unsafe or something, that is a different matter. I'm not going to describe every possible scenario but I think you get my drift.

<b>But this stuff is only relevant to this thread because you presently have an apparently lenient opinion as to what constitutes a crime (even a crime as serious as rape). Before these other guys got into a ninety page last word war with you on the matter, I thought they ought to know that. That's all.</b>

My complaint to FB was that he insinuated "a White House felon" as the culpirit-- with no shred of evidence of responsibility. Is that really that hard to understand, Eddie?

<b>And I really have no idea what you mean about Eddie Haskell. That makes no sense to me at all.</b>

Watch "Leave It to Beaver" sometime.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
yeah, sam andy and FB in particular carried joe wilson's jock for about 6 months. their silence now is pretty revealing.

My silence has been due to personal matters and I still maintain that it is disgusting that a WH official committed the crime of leaking Plame's name (a crime was most definitely committed) and has been allowed to continue working for this long.

This piece was about the media protecting their interests in not revealing sources. They are not saying that a crime has not been committed, they are simply trying to maintain anonymity for thier sources. These are two extremely different issues and if you cannot see that, then you are willfully sticking your head in the sand, as you have since the Plame affair happened.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
texxx, TJ, myself, and many others have long maintained that there was no crime here, that valerie plame was "out" long before she posed for vanity fair.

According to you and what other source? I ahve never seen anything approaching evidence that Plame's name was known in public to be that of a CIA agent.

Originally posted by basso

the "BIG STORY" was always a non-story. the news now, is those who'd long claimed it was some sort of huge scandal have realized that it's not, and now that the special prosecutor the clamored so agressively for has come back to bite them in the ass, have belayedly realized that, HEY! perhaps there's no there there after all.

You need to read the article again. The special prosecutor is threatening to send reporters to jail if they don't reveal their sources. I don't know how that bites anyone in the ass except the reporters and their sources.

Originally posted by basso

i know you see this, and it's only some sort of malign hatred of all things bush that obscures what is blindingly obvious to all but the most rabidly partisan.

All but the most rabidly partisan do tend to agree that there was some malfeasance by a high level WH official. I will grant that there may never be anyone jailed for the offense, but that does not mean that it did not happen.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
the people that pimped the story for a year now say there may have been no crime committed. isn't this stunning about face news?

Gifford, Batman, moonie, Fisher King?

No, the people who "pimped the story for a year now" say that they should not be forced to reveal their sources unless there has been an indictment. Trouble is, without the sources, there may be no indictment. That does not mean that a crime has not been committed.

The media is covering their collective a$$es regarding sources. This isn't an "about face" at all and anyone who thinks it is has lost the ability to analyze information.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by giddyup
There is a great spectrum of possibility here. If some guy is approaching climax, I really don't expect him to stop.

Watch "Leave It to Beaver" sometime.

This goes right up there with 'maybe wetback means something else where he's from' for most impressive stretch by a giddyup.

I've seen every episode of Leave it to Beaver about five or six times. I get that it's supposed to be some kind of insult -- it just doesn't make any sense. But that's nothing new.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
You describe "a felon in the White House." Where the felon is, might be up for discussion. You didn't ask for evidence of who or where the felon is. You changed your argument at the midway point.

You asked if there was evidence a crime had been committed. There is.

Now I say that the person is in the whitehouse, because only a handful of people have the kind of top level security clearence that it would take to find the information. Guess where that handful of people work, and who they work for?

In addition Novak's column that outed this intel agent serving the U.S. as an undercover operative he mentioned a whitehouse source.

I don't think anyone from the whitehouse should be locked up without a trial, but unless the CIA outed their own agent and then convinced Novak to label it as a whitehouse source, the culprit is in the whitehouse.

[Nolen]

Hilarious to see Basso, TJ, BigT all just salivating and jumping up and down at this non-story, lol! "ah-HA! Legal briefings made by media outlets to keep their reporters from going to jail! AT LAST! THE ADMINISTRATION IS EXONERATED OF THE FILTHY LIES OF THE LIBERALS!!!!!!"

Bush won the election. What are you so uptight about?

FB is laying the smackdown on all of you. Great stuff.

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade

Where the felon is, might be up for discussion. You didn't ask for evidence of who or where the felon is. You changed your argument at the midway point.

You asked if there was evidence a crime had been committed. There is.</b>

You cite the result of the "crime" as evidence. I maintained correctly that that was not evidence. Further, from the get-go you cited "a felon in the White House." That is conviction of the WH with no named suspect and no evidence to support the accusation.

<b>Now I say that the person is in the whitehouse, because only a handful of people have the kind of top level security clearence that it would take to find the information. Guess where that handful of people work, and who they work for? </b>

Not into guessing. Tell me.

<b>In addition Novak's column that outed this intel agent serving the U.S. as an undercover operative he mentioned a whitehouse source.

I don't think anyone from the whitehouse should be locked up without a trial, but unless the CIA outed their own agent and then convinced Novak to label it as a whitehouse source, the culprit is in the whitehouse.</b>

By labeling it "a White House felon" you are clearly trying to link this event to GWB. There's a big difference in implication between a WH source and a WH felon.

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones

This goes right up there with 'maybe wetback means something else where he's from' for most impressive stretch by a giddyup.</b>

That was a doozy, but I was sick of you relentlessly calling Nugent a racist in front of his lifelong black and latin friends. You'll just have to understand... oh, you won't and that's the problem.

<b>I've seen every episode of Leave it to Beaver about five or six times. I get that it's supposed to be some kind of insult -- it just doesn't make any sense. But that's nothing new.</b>

You are a trouble-maker. You drag up old threads (you've even done it here) and quote them out of context to make trouble.

Other examples:

1. You demean my anti-abortion position as not being sufficiently pro-life because I eat meat.

2. You wrangle my sympathy for Tyson's questionable conviction on rape charges into my alleged support of essentially a rape-on-demand option for men.

And this is all just in the last month....

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup

You cite the result of the "crime" as evidence. I maintained correctly that that was not evidence. Further, from the get-go you cited "a felon in the White House." That is conviction of the WH with no named suspect and no evidence to support the accusation.

Giddy, again the result of the crime is evidence that the crime has been committed. Not only is that my theory it is legal theory. If there is a body that has been strangled to death, we know there has been a murder. We know because we have seen the RESULT.

When somebody exposes a clandestine CIA operative then a felony has happened.
Originally posted by giddyup

Not into guessing. Tell me.

OK the people who have the needed security clearence to uncover the identity of a clandestine CIA operative all work in the Whitehouse. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume the felon works in the whitehouse. That isn't proven as of yet, so I won't convict anyone. But it is reasonable, likely, and almost certain that the felon works in the whitehouse.

If you don't believe it, then please tell me who else has top level security clearance and is able to get that kind of information?

Originally posted by giddyup

By labeling it "a White House felon" you are clearly trying to link this event to GWB. There's a big difference in implication between a WH source and a WH felon. WH sources don't all have that kind of security clearance. folks that work in the whitehouse do. That does not mean that I am linking it directly to GW Bush. But someone he appointed that works closely for him.

The list would include:
Rove, Doug Feif, Cheney, Condi Rice, etc. etc.

There are probably about 20 - 30 people who have the kind of access it would take. They are all part of the whitehouse.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Giddy, again the result of the crime is evidence that the crime has been committed. Not only is that my theory it is legal theory. If there is a body that has been strangled to death, we know there has been a murder. We know because we have seen the RESULT.

Yes, I didn't express myself very well. Being outed is evidence that a crime was committed, but it is not evidence against anybody in particular or even against someone in the White House. I don't know much about levels of security clearance in the WH and I'm not sure where you get your information that makes you so sure t hat you do...

Didn't Novak out the agent more than anybody else involved?

[basso]

Originally posted by giddyup
Yes, I didn't express myself very well. Being outed is evidence that a crime was committed,

actually, the analogy doesn't hold up. finding someone strangled to death, is not, in and of itself, evidence of a crime being committed. there's only a dead body. even ligature marks on the neck are only evidence of the manner of death, not that a crime has been committed. similarly, discovering a CIA operative "in the clear" is only evidence that she's no longer undercover. how she got that way, is what the investigation by the independent counsel is attempting to "uncover." there are circumstances where she could be revealed as a CIA operative, formerly undercover, that are perfectly legal. they may be unethical, they may be entirely above board. what's significant here, is that those who have been clamoring the loudest for an investigation, who have been touting the "crime" before the evidence is in, are now realizing that they may have been wrong all along. surely they owe the taxpayers an apology, and perhaps some reimbursement for the expense, for their partisan witch hunt.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
Yes, I didn't express myself very well. Being outed is evidence that a crime was committed, but it is not evidence against anybody in particular or even against someone in the White House. I don't know much about levels of security clearance in the WH and I'm not sure where you get your information that makes you so sure t hat you do...

Didn't Novak out the agent more than anybody else involved?

I'm not naming anyone in particular. That wasn't what you initially questioned. I noted as have others that a crime was committed. I didn't accuse any one person of doing it. I did mention where the possible suspects would come from.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
actually, the analogy doesn't hold up. finding someone strangled to death, is not, in and of itself, evidence of a crime being committed. there's only a dead body. even ligature marks on the neck are only evidence of the manner of death, not that a crime has been committed. similarly, discovering a CIA operative "in the clear" is only evidence that she's no longer undercover. how she got that way, is what the investigation by the independent counsel is attempting to "uncover." there are circumstances where she could be revealed as a CIA operative, formerly undercover, that are perfectly legal. they may be unethical, they may be entirely above board. what's significant here, is that those who have been clamoring the loudest for an investigation, who have been touting the "crime" before the evidence is in, are now realizing that they may have been wrong all along. surely they owe the taxpayers an apology, and perhaps some reimbursement for the expense, for their partisan witch hunt.

You are right about the strangulation. The analogy I should have used is that a body was found with the throat slit from behind. Now we know in that case a crime was comitted.

Basso, if you ignore certain facts, such as intel officials saying that Plame most definitely was a clandestine operative working on WMD issues, until she was outed, then you could make that argument.

However, we do know that CIA officials have maintaned that she was undercover until she was outed, and the felony committed.

We aren't seeing that those who touted their having been a crime realizing they were wrong in the slightest. We are seeing some lawyers for news agencies saying their reporters haven't comitted any crimes and shouldn't be jailed.
Nowhere in what you posted does it suggest they were wrong. When that happens papers pring apologies and corrections. Show me when one of the outlets mentioned prints one of those.

The brief filed by lawyers from the media doesn't in any way trump multiple investigations, and the grand jury. Those groups are investigating the crime, because a crime was committed.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I did mention where the possible suspects would come from.
You said "a White House felon." That is what I was objecting to. That language ignores your use of "possible" and "suspects."

[giddyup]

Originally posted by basso
actually, the analogy doesn't hold up. finding someone strangled to death, is not, in and of itself, evidence of a crime being committed.
Thank you Perry Mason. I appreciate the spirit of your delineation of the point, but point, in fact, isn't suicide a crime?!?! :rolleyes:

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by giddyup
You said "a White House felon." That is what I was objecting to. That language ignores your use of "possible" and "suspects." Ok as long as you don't try and say that a crime hasn't been committed.

Yes it is not 100% certain that the felon was from the whitehouse. It is only about 94% certain. I will give you that tiny crack in the door.

But since the pool of suspects with both the motive, and the means to do the crime come from the whitehouse, I was talking about a whitehouse felon.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
You are right about the strangulation. The analogy I should have used is that a body was found with the throat slit from behind. Now we know in that case a crime was comitted.

Basso, if you ignore certain facts, such as intel officials saying that Plame most definitely was a clandestine operative working on WMD issues, until she was outed, then you could make that argument.

However, we do know that CIA officials have maintaned that she was undercover until she was outed, and the felony committed.

We aren't seeing that those who touted their having been a crime realizing they were wrong in the slightest. We are seeing some lawyers for news agencies saying their reporters haven't comitted any crimes and shouldn't be jailed.
Nowhere in what you posted does it suggest they were wrong. When that happens papers pring apologies and corrections. Show me when one of the outlets mentioned prints one of those.

The brief filed by lawyers from the media doesn't in any way trump multiple investigations, and the grand jury. Those groups are investigating the crime, because a crime was committed.

the point of a grand jury is to determine whether a crime has been commited, not to investigate a crime. if the GJ determines the eveidence warrants it, then they'll issue an indictment. even then, then, our judicial system is built on the presumption of innocence. until someone has actually been convicted of a crime, one cannot say a crime has been committed.

it may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but until the duck is found guilty in a court of law, it's not a duck.

[basso]

Originally posted by basso

it may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but until the duck is found guilty in a court of law, it's not a duck.

and the point of the thread is that those yelling the loudest that it's a duck now agree that perhaps it was a red herring all along.

[basso]

Originally posted by giddyup
Thank you Perry Mason. I appreciate the spirit of your delineation of the point, but point, in fact, isn't suicide a crime?!?! :rolleyes:

my reply really should've referenced FB's post, not yours.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
and the point of the thread is that those yelling the loudest that it's a duck now agree that perhaps it was a red herring all along.


Give me a f-ing break. There has been enough evidence to convene a grand jury. The media has reported this because it is a significant story. Should they not report on this story?

[basso]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Give me a f-ing break. There has been enough evidence to convene a grand jury. The media has reported this because it is a significant story. Should they not report on this story?

go back and read the article. the very media reporting it because it was "significant" are now saying, "uhmmmm, not so much."

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by giddyup
That was a doozy, but I was sick of you relentlessly calling Nugent a racist in front of his lifelong black and latin friends. You'll just have to understand... oh, you won't and that's the problem.

It wasn't a doozy where you're concerned. You're famous round here for that sort of equivocating. But spinning it now to say you were just concerned for those "lifelong" Latino fans Nugent so lovingly (and habitually) referred to as wetbacks is an especially hilarious backpedal. You're a funny guy, giddy. I'm sure one or two blacks voted for David Duke in Louisiana. If I call him a racist, am I being mean to them?

Originally posted by giddyup
You are a trouble-maker. You drag up old threads (you've even done it here) and quote them out of context to make trouble.

Other examples:

1. You demean my anti-abortion position as not being sufficiently pro-life because I eat meat.

2. You wrangle my sympathy for Tyson's questionable conviction on rape charges into my alleged support of essentially a rape-on-demand option for men.

And this is all just in the last month....

I don't "make" trouble, giddy. I just tell the truth and you think it's trouble. The sincere, first thing that popped into my mind when you started posting about whether or not a crime was committed in this case was your rape post. I found it deeply appalling, so it stuck with me. Sorry, but you've no one to blame but yourself for that one. It's similar to Jorge talking about his passionate support for the troops reminding me how he considers homeless vets societal bloodsuckers. If you are going to post outrageous stuff here, don't blame me for remembering it and re-posting it. I don't do it to cause trouble or to pick on you. I do it because some of the stuff you post here is so incredible.

I didn't demean your anti-abortion position; I questioned the depth of your pro-life philosophy. I don't demean anyone's anti-abortion position. I'm anti-abortion. Ask MadMax, twhy or the other major pro-lifers here if I've ever picked at that scab without provocation. You asked for it when you repeatedly insinuated abortion was a matter of convenience or whimsy for the majority of women who've had one. I don't have any problem with an opposition to abortion, but that stuff was really offensive to me. All I did was point out your hypocrisy vis-a-vis convenience over principle. Again, if you're upset by that, it's your fault not mine. I didn't invent your changeable ethics; I only pointed them out.

And Tyson himself didn't say he was asked to stop just before climax. Another historic giddyupian backpedal. Truly funny stuff.

That's enough about all that though. I'm sorry I ever derailed (should have known if I addressed you you'd come back with 99 weird, ever changing defenses for that original indefensible post). You can have the last word on this stuff. I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh. I'm ducking out of this bit though. Having too much fun watching you and basso get your asses handed to you by the guys basso tried to call out.

[basso]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
You asked for it when you repeatedly insinuated abortion was a matter of convenience or whimsy for the majority of women who've had one....Having too much fun watching you and basso get your asses handed to you by the guys basso tried to call out.

i'm profoundlly ambivalent about abortion, but in fact, i know several women for women an abortion has been a matter of convenience, and more than one time in a least a couple of cases. the fact that one of them is now in the 24th week of an unplanned preganancy w/ twins is deeply ironic.

as to "getting my ass handed to me," it takes a special kind of obtuseness to believe that's what's happening here, but go on with your bat self...

[giddyup]

Originally posted by basso
my reply really should've referenced FB's post, not yours.
I'm not coming down on you; you made a very valid point. I was making a technical point that has no impact really.

[basso]

Originally posted by giddyup
I'm not coming down on you; you made a very valid point. I was making a technical point that has no impact really.

no problem- we're good. i thought FB's post was willfully misrepresenting the facts, and jumping to conclusions even after his sponsors in the media had repudiated theirs. he, and BMJ, just can't seem to let it go...Must...have...last...word....

[giddyup]

<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones

It wasn't a doozy where you're concerned. You're famous round here for that sort of equivocating. But spinning it now to say you were just concerned for those "lifelong" Latino fans Nugent so lovingly (and habitually) referred to as wetbacks is an especially hilarious backpedal. You're a funny guy, giddy. I'm sure one or two blacks voted for David Duke in Louisiana. If I call him a racist, am I being mean to them?</b>

I thought I was famous for not equivocating? Which is it? What I said was that Nugent had lifelong FRIENDS and BANDMEMBERS who were black and latino, yet you seemed to insist on your understanding of Nugent as a racist. Well, in my experience most racists don't have friends or colleagues if they can help it of other races. I'm not backpedalling. I'm only admitting to a doozy-- which I knew it was when I wrote it.

<b>I don't "make" trouble, giddy. I just tell the truth and you think it's trouble. The sincere, first thing that popped into my mind when you started posting about whether or not a crime was committed in this case was your rape post. I found it deeply appalling, so it stuck with me. Sorry, but you've no one to blame but yourself for that one.</b>

See here's the problem: I never posted a word about this not being a crime. My posting was an objection to FB citing "a felon in the White House." We had some sidebars about what constituted evidence, but I never said that there was no crime commmitted.

If you spent as much time trying to read and understand what I wrote instead of re-casting it for your nefarious purposes, we wouldn't have so many conflicts, Eddie! (just kidding-- I love Eddie Haskell)

<b> It's similar to Jorge talking about his passionate support for the troops reminding me how he considers homeless vets societal bloodsuckers. If you are going to post outrageous stuff here, don't blame me for remembering it and re-posting it. I don't do it to cause trouble or to pick on you. I do it because some of the stuff you post here is so incredible.</b>

Me outrageous? Arent' you the one who demeaned my pro-Life position because I eat meat?

<b<I didn't demean your anti-abortion position; I questioned the depth of your pro-life philosophy. I don't demean anyone's anti-abortion position. I'm anti-abortion. Ask MadMax, twhy or the other major pro-lifers here if I've ever picked at that scab without provocation. You asked for it when you repeatedly insinuated abortion was a matter of convenience or whimsy for the majority of women who've had one.</b>

I don't believe that I've used the word whimsy-- maybe I have-- but convenience is one I'll stick by. What is the motivation for the majority of women who have abortions? Are they all on a death track if the carry the pregnancy to term? I don't think so. Is it that they don't want a child or can't afford a child? More likely. That, sir, makes it a choice of convenience. Sorry but I don't know what else to call it. Even if they feel bad about it, it is a choice of convenience.

I don't find any of the other pro-Lifers saying anything much different about the choice to have an abortion. I'm not sure why you see me standing alone on this matter-- except you put me there.

<b> I don't have any problem with an opposition to abortion, but that stuff was really offensive to me. All I did was point out your hypocrisy vis-a-vis convenience over principle. Again, if you're upset by that, it's your fault not mine. I didn't invent your changeable ethics; I only pointed them out.</b>

Why is it hypocrisy not to agree with you down the line? I make a distinction between humans and other animals. Believe it or not I'm not even a cannibal!

<b>And Tyson himself didn't say he was asked to stop just before climax. Another historic giddyupian backpedal. Truly funny stuff.</b>

I never said he did. I was just pointing that up as one example of a gray area. Remember, in the part you fail to cite, I said that there are many, many examples or possibilities.

Another distortion of my point of view.

<b>That's enough about all that though. I'm sorry I ever derailed (should have known if I addressed you you'd come back with 99 weird, ever changing defenses for that original indefensible post). You can have the last word on this stuff. I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh. I'm ducking out of this bit though. Having too much fun watching you and basso get your asses handed to you by the guys basso tried to call out.</b>

Clever tactic, Boy Wonder.

Not a damn thing has changed except I have to correct your version of what I said. At least 4 major corrections in this answer alone. Can you blame me for not letting you have the last word?

[Nolen]

Originally posted by basso
...Must...have...last...word....

My ironyometer just broke. :D

From the article:
"Attorneys for the news organizations said yesterday that their decision to submit the brief underscores deep concern in the journalism community over special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's tactics."

The media orginazations are filing a briefing to protect their journalists, and the future of their ability to have confidential sources. If the prosecutor succeeds in either forcing the journalists to reveal their sources, or send them to jail for not doing so, the future of political reporting could take a major blow. This is a maneuver made in their own self-interest.

Have they suddenly uncovered a new story which shows no crime was commmitted? What is it? Oh, there's nothing in the article. Any other juicy articles showing how there's no crime committed?

What you're not getting here is that the media outlets aren't the ones prosecuting the case. You may feel that way, but the prosecutor is the one in charge. Has he dropped the case?

If he drops his case, or a grand jury decides that there was no crime committed, then you can come in here crowing and calling people out. But you ain't got jack right now. What you've got is media giants (including those loathsome liberal ones) making a friend-of-the-court filing saying there's no crime committed when a while back they were reporting that there may have been one. You're taking this as definitive evidence that there was no crime. After all, if the despised liberal press is retreating from the case, then that must be definitive proof, right? Uh, no.

FB has already made it concrete clear that a felony has been committed. Even giddy can't deny that.

More irony: if the media, motivated by self-preservation of their business, makes a court filing claiming that there's no crime committed, then voila, there's no case. But if the most basic rules of logic and common sense clearly show a crime is committed, and an obvious motive right next to it, oh no no no... Only a grand jury can decide that.

Fine. We'll leave it at that. That's the best thing you've got this whole thread anyway. Leave it to the jury. That's how it should be anyway.

But logic and common sense trump media giants acting in self interest. Somebody with high enough security clearance outed an undercover agent to these journalists. This agent did work on WMD back when the White House had to cook up support for the Iraq war.

The crime has been committed. Motive is there, the means is there, the timing is all there. You want to say "leave it to the jury", fine. You want to say this media filing in court trumps that, okay. I'm becoming accustomed to y'all sticking your heads in the sand.

What are you so stressed about anyway? Bush won the election. Dan Rather got busted and tooled. These are good times for y'all.

The story is interesting. Many liberal media types would like to see someone in W's cabinet roast, so it's ironic to see them saying there's no crime and working against the success of their case. But if you see that it's made in preservation of their business, it's explicable.

Besides, nothing may every truly become of the case, because some major constitutional freedom of press/freedom of speech issues are at hand. It may indeed come to pass that the prosecutor may not be permitted to force the journalists to reveal the sources or jail them. If that happens, the case is probably dead.

But if he is permitted, anybody with common sense knows that this is probably pointing to someone in the administration getting back at Plume for contradicting the Iraq/WMD case.


Oh, and FB is pwning all y'all. This post was pretty much unnecessary.

[Deckard]

Originally posted by bigtexxx
This is huge. Do you know what else is huge? The fact that search is enabled and bigtexxx can perform valuable research on the board. My exercise for the morning involves researching how many references many of the worst offending liberals on the board made about Plame. They relished what they thought was a "gotcha" to rub in the face of conservatives! Now what, liberals? How do you answer this article???

Unique threads in which the poster referenced "Plame":
FranchiseBlade: 22
SamFisher: 18
andymoon: 11
glynch: 9
Deckard: 8
No Worries: 5
Batman Jones: 4
I only popped up eight times?? I'm shocked!

Hey, I've been out of town, and finally got to read this thread. The biggest story here, from what I can tell, is that there's no story here. The media, as FB and many others pointed out, are merely trying to protect their employees.

I have no problem, by the way, saying flat out that either there is a felon in the White House connected to the outing of Plame, or that Novak is a damned liar, and should be fired. He hasn't been fired, and there is an on-going investigation that, in my opinon, will eventually bear fruit. If it doesn't, then I will happily say, "Golly, I may have gotten it wrong!"

I don't expect to have to do that. Time will tell.



Keep D&D Civil!!

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
go back and read the article. the very media reporting it because it was "significant" are now saying, "uhmmmm, not so much." That isn't what the media is saying, nor is it even what their lawyers are saying. The media is saying there isn't evidence that they(meaning the media) committed a crime. They aren't denying at all that Plame's identity was outed.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
no problem- we're good. i thought FB's post was willfully misrepresenting the facts, and jumping to conclusions even after his sponsors in the media had repudiated theirs. he, and BMJ, just can't seem to let it go...Must...have...last...word.... No, I posted the facts and links to back them up. You either ignore facts, or read too much into a legal brief filed by lawyers trying to protect reporters from going to jail.

Here are the facts:

Valerie Plame was an undercover operative working on issues related to WMD's.

Her husband investigated a claim that Iraq was going to trying to buy yellow cake uranium.

Her husband discovered that Iraq wasn't trying to buy yellow cake uranium.

Someone with top security clearance leaked Plame's true identity. That is a felony. Robert Novak published that leak.

At first Ashcroft was investigating the case, then he turned it over to a special prosecutor. Congress was also investigating, then when it was apparent that it was a criminal matter, the FBI, investigated and the Grand Jury was brought in.

The prosecution of this felony that has been committed has really put the pressure on the reporters. News agencies don't want reporters held in contempt, or forced to reveal sources for fear they won't get any future sources. The news agencies hired attornies to file briefs saying that nothing is wrong, please leave our reporters alone.

Those are the facts. Not one journalist who reported the story has gone back and claimed his report was false, not one newspaper had to go back and print a retraction, correction, or apology.

Your celebration of innocence is misguided and not based on anything definitive in the least.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
go back and read the article. the very media reporting it because it was "significant" are now saying, "uhmmmm, not so much."


We have a case where there is enough evidence to convene a grand jury to investigate a potential breach of national security in which the identity was revealed of CIA agent who worked in the WMD field.

Basso is any part of the statement above not established fact?


But you don't think this is story that the media should report in depth?


Your concern for national security is as underwhelming as your support for democracy is shallow.

[basso]

Originally posted by gifford1967
We have a case where there is enough evidence to convene a grand jury to investigate a potential breach of national security in which the identity was revealed of CIA agent who worked in the WMD field.

Basso is any part of the statement above not established fact?


But you don't think this is story that the media should report in depth?


Your concern for national security is as underwhelming as your support for democracy is shallow.

sigh, once more

1) newspapers pimp story alledging a felony committed in the publication of a CIA operative's name.
2) newspapers lead charge for an independent counsel.
3) said independent counsel calls said newspapers' columnists before grand jury.
4) said columnists refuse to reveal sources.
5) said columnists are threatened w/ contempt and jail time.
6) said newspapers have collective emily litella moment.
7) end of story.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
sigh, once more

1) newspapers pimp story alledging a felony committed in the publication of a CIA operative's name.
2) newspapers lead charge for an independent counsel.
3) said independent counsel calls said newspapers' columnists before grand jury.
4) said columnists refuse to reveal sources.
5) said columnists are threatened w/ contempt and jail time.
6) said newspapers have collective emily litella moment.
7) end of story.

Your propensity for head-in-sand condition is mind boggling.

[FranchiseBlade]

Originally posted by basso
sigh, once more

1) newspapers pimp story alledging a felony committed in the publication of a CIA operative's name.
2) newspapers lead charge for an independent counsel.
3) said independent counsel calls said newspapers' columnists before grand jury.
4) said columnists refuse to reveal sources.
5) said columnists are threatened w/ contempt and jail time.
6) said newspapers have collective emily litella moment.
7) end of story.

Your facts are skewed.

Before number 1 happened you forgot to mention that somebody with top security level revealed Plame's identity, thus committing a felony.

Then the newspapers give the case only moderate coverage.

Your number 2 is wrong. It was Bush's own justice department and congress that were investigating first and decided to call in the independent counsel, based on the merits of the case.

3-5 are pretty accurate.

6. Newspapers don't once take back any of the stories or retract one word that they published regarding the case. Their lawyers do file a brief saying that the reporters haven't committed any crimes.

7. End of story.

[basso]

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
Your facts are skewed.

Before number 1 happened you forgot to mention that somebody with top security level revealed Plame's identity, thus committing a felony.


there are numeous instances in which a cia operative's name, even one under cover, could be legitimately revealed. your assuming a felonious instance, but this is just your assumption, not fact. in fact, the facts would appear to contradict you, and when you are proven wrong, may i assume you will make a substantial contribution to the tip jar to reimburse clutch for all the bandwidth you've wasted on this story?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
there are numeous instances in which a cia operative's name, even one under cover, could be legitimately revealed.

Actually, there is a law that makes it a felony to reveal the name of an undercover intelligence operative. This law was signed by GHWB IIRC and TMK does not carve out even a single "instance" in which such an operative's name could be "legitimately revealed."

Originally posted by basso

your assuming a felonious instance, but this is just your assumption, not fact.

No, based on the law that is in force, someone committed a felony. The "assumption" that has been made is that the felon is working in the WH, but that is a reasonable assumption given that 90% of the people with access to Plame's identity and contact with Novak work in the WH.

Originally posted by basso

in fact, the facts would appear to contradict you, and when you are proven wrong,

Who is making assumptions now? There is an ongoing investigation by a special prosecutor and a grand jury is looking over the actual facts (as opposed to what you claim are "facts").

Originally posted by basso

may i assume you will make a substantial contribution to the tip jar to reimburse clutch for all the bandwidth you've wasted on this story?

Can we make the same assumption of you?

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by basso
there are numeous instances in which a cia operative's name, even one under cover, could be legitimately revealed.

Name one.

[basso]

Originally posted by RocketMan Tex
Name one.

a showing of criminality under the statute would require that plame have been a covert agent whose identity the CIA was taking active steps to conceal; and that the leaker revealed her identity maliciously and with the intent of damaging U.S. national security.

whoever gave plame's name to novak almost certainly doesn't meet that threshold.

for your convenience, here's a link to the tip jar (http://clutchfans.net/tipjar.cfm).

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
a showing of criminality under the statute would require that plame have been a covert agent whose identity the CIA was taking active steps to conceal;

Her name was not known to the public, Tenet made that clear when he advised the Justice Department to investigate.

Originally posted by basso

and that the leaker revealed her identity maliciously

I would say that leaking the name in retaliation for her husband's report regarding the yellowcake flap certainly qualifies as malicious.

Originally posted by basso

and with the intent of damaging U.S. national security.

Moving target? I have never heard word one about "intent" to damage national security.

Originally posted by basso

whoever gave plame's name to novak almost certainly doesn't meet that threshold.

Certainly not when one sticks their head in the sand to ignore facts.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by basso
a showing of criminality under the statute would require that plame have been a covert agent whose identity the CIA was taking active steps to conceal; and that the leaker revealed her identity maliciously and with the intent of damaging U.S. national security.
So if my intent when I robbed the bank was to get an adrenaline rush then the fact I took money is not a criminal offense.

[basso]

Originally posted by No Worries
So if my intent when I robbed the bank was to get an adrenaline rush then the fact I took money is not a criminal offense.

i didn't write the statute. good luck trying to make it mean something it doesn't. here's a link to move onmove on (http://moveon.org), perhaps you can start a letter writing campaign. be sure to hit the tip jar on your way out!

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
i didn't write the statute. good luck trying to make it mean something it doesn't. here's a link to move onmove on (http://moveon.org), perhaps you can start a letter writing campaign. be sure to hit the tip jar on your way out!

Can you provide anything to support this "intent" clause, or are we supposed to take your word for it?

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
Can you provide anything to support this "intent" clause, or are we supposed to take your word for it?

google's (http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html) your friend. i don't know if this is the only relevant statute, but it's the one most often cited.

[basso]

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, 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, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, 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, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.



Ummmm- where's the part about "with the intent of damaging U.S. national security."?

[basso]

Originally posted by gifford1967
Ummmm- where's the part about "with the intent of damaging U.S. national security."?

i shouldn't have to post the entire statute, i'm sure you can read through it yourself and reach your own conclusions.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information,

People in the WH had such access and intentionally disclosed information that identified Plame to Novak, who I seriously doubt has top-secret clearance.

Originally posted by basso

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

Anyone who had access to her identity would also have been aware of her covert status, given that it was the CIA (in the person of Tenet) who reported the violation to the Justice Department for investigation.

Thank you for helping to prove what we have been saying all along.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
i shouldn't have to post the entire statute, i'm sure you can read through it yourself and reach your own conclusions.

That sure seems to be what you did. Unfortunately, it appears that your conclusions include stuff that you just made up.

[andymoon]

Just so we can be clear, here is the only place where it talks about intent to injure the US...

Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses

(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid
annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual
which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the
exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual--
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an
offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent
provided by that subsection; or
(2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of
an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent
provided by that subsection.

The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies--
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this
section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after
September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this
section, to the period after the date of conviction or after
September 26, 1961, whichever is later.

(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this
section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after
September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of--
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793
(gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794
(gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign
government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of
chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18;
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason),
2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy),
2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities
affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting
armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against
United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United
States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and
subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as
the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States
or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or

That section is saying that if a person has intent to injure the US that they will not be eligible to receive pensions from the government after such offense. It says nothing about that being required to secure a conviction under the statute.

A swing and a miss!

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
That sure seems to be what you did. Unfortunately, it appears that your conclusions include stuff that you just made up.

the statute is pages long- i posted one relevant part. nitpick all you want- the proof is in the (lack) of the pudding.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon


That section is saying that if a person has intent to injure the US that they will not be eligible to receive pensions from the government after such offense. It says nothing about that being required to secure a conviction under the statute.

A swing and a miss!

i'm delighted to discover such an expert on the intelligence identities protection act on a basketball bbs. if mr. fitzgerald returns an indictment against someone in the white house, i will happily eat my words. if he doesn't, will you? of course, for you it's relatively low risk, since it's much harder to prove a dispositive, ie, the absence of an indictment. however, if you'll go back and read the opening article, you'll note that some other folks on your side of the ideological divide are beginning to have their doubts about the case, and i suspect they've got people on retainer who are better versed in case law than even you.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
the statute is pages long- i posted one relevant part. nitpick all you want- the proof is in the (lack) of the pudding.

Pudding ingredients...

Someone leaked Plame's name to Novak, an action which is a felony.

Most of the people with access to that information and motive to leak work in the WH.

The offense was so egregious that the CIA director brought the case to the Justice Department for investigation.

The Justice Department referred the case to a special prosecutor.

A grand jury has been convened in the case.

_________________________________________

For something with such a "lack" of substance, a great many actions have taken place that would indicate that a crime has been committed at a pretty high level.

Stick your head back in the sand, stop embarrassing yourself.

[gifford1967]

Originally posted by basso
i shouldn't have to post the entire statute, i'm sure you can read through it yourself and reach your own conclusions.


In other words you just pulled that out your butt.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
i'm delighted to discover such an expert on the intelligence identities protection act on a basketball bbs. if mr. fitzgerald returns an indictment against someone in the white house, i will happily eat my words. if he doesn't, will you? of course, for you it's relatively low risk, since it's much harder to prove a dispositive, ie, the absence of an indictment. however, if you'll go back and read the opening article, you'll note that some other folks on your side of the ideological divide are beginning to have their doubts about the case, and i suspect they've got people on retainer who are better versed in case law than even you.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehension. As was stated in the article and rehashed time after time by FB among others, the "doubts about the case" are the result of media organization's lawyers trying to keep their sources anonymous, not because anyone in those organizations doubts the veracity of the accusations.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
Pudding ingredients...

Someone leaked Plame's name to Novak, an action which is a felony.

except, it's not.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
except, it's not.

What are you smoking???

Leaking an undercover intelligence officer's name is a felony.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
What are you smoking???

Leaking an undercover intelligence officer's name is a felony.

no, it's not always. read the statute.

[No Worries]

no, it's not always. read the statute.

yeah, the fine print says it is OK as long as you are doing it as part of a political vendetta.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
no, it's not always. read the statute.

I did and under the circumstances we are discussing, a felony has been committed.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
I did and under the circumstances we are discussing, a felony has been committed.

thank you, patrick fitzgerald. so where's the indictment?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
thank you, patrick fitzgerald. so where's the indictment?

An indictment may never come due to stonewalling, but that does not change the fact that a felony was committed.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, if you find a dead body with a knife it the back, a felony has been committed even if nobody is ever indicted. This is the same type of situation. We know that someone leaked the name of an undercover operative that the CIA was actively keeping undercover (thus Tenet referring the case to the Justice Department). That is a felony.

[bobrek]

Originally posted by andymoon
...As was mentioned earlier in this thread, if you find a dead body with a knife it the back, a felony has been committed even if nobody is ever indicted....

A felony has been committed even if the dead body was someone that was trying to kill you or your family? Not commenting on Plame, but, in general, just because it looks like a felony has been committed doesn't mean a felony has been committed.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by bobrek
A felony has been committed even if the dead body was someone that was trying to kill you or your family? Not commenting on Plame, but, in general, just because it looks like a felony has been committed doesn't mean a felony has been committed.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Occam's Razor says that it is almost certainly a duck.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Occam's Razor says that it is almost certainly a duck.
So no "self-defense" in your world? Or no "falling on a knife" or even no "errant toss." :D

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by giddyup
So no "self-defense" in your world? Or no "falling on a knife" or even no "errant toss." :D

Good point. I think the guilty party should invoke self defense if he or she is ever outed.

Like O'Neill, Thielmann and others, Joe Wilson told the truth to the detriment of the Bush White House and they "defended" themselves by outing a CIA agent.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
So no "self-defense" in your world? Or no "falling on a knife" or even no "errant toss." :D

When a homicide detective finds a man with a knife in his back, what he will presume is murder.

When a set of facts as clear as the Plame case arise, what are we to presume?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
Good point. I think the guilty party should invoke self defense if he or she is ever outed.
Again you are presuming a murder ("guilty party") when the "facts" only suggest it but also suggest other possibilities.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
When a homicide detective finds a man with a knife in his back, what he will presume is murder.
You've never seen CSI, have you?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
Again you are presuming a murder ("guilty party") when the "facts" only suggest it but also suggest other possibilities.

What else do the facts suggest? An active undercover intelligence agent was outed by a reporter who cited "White House sources." Since such an act is illegal, it is pretty clear that a felony has been committed. The only question is, will that person be charged?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
You've never seen CSI, have you?

Yes, I have. The homicide detective, presuming murder when the facts indicate such, calls in an investigator to examine the evidence.

In this case, Tenet presumed that a crime had been commiteed when one of his operatives was outed and referred the case to the Justice Department to examine the evidence. In fact, the evidence was so strong that the JD appointed a special prosecutor who could more thoroughly examine said evidence.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
Yes, I have. The homicide detective, presuming murder when the facts indicate such, calls in an investigator to examine the evidence.

In this case, Tenet presumed that a crime had been commiteed when one of his operatives was outed and referred the case to the Justice Department to examine the evidence. In fact, the evidence was so strong that the JD appointed a special prosecutor who could more thoroughly examine said evidence.

and has yet to return an indictment.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
and has yet to return an indictment.

As I have mentioned, an indictment may never come, but that still would not mean that a felony has not been committed.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
Yes, I have. The homicide detective, presuming murder when the facts indicate such, calls in an investigator to examine the evidence.
No. The evidence tells the story. The investigator doesn't make up the beginning and shape the evidence to fit the story s/he began. It is the evidence that tells the story.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
What else do the facts suggest? An active undercover intelligence agent was outed by a reporter who cited "White House sources." Since such an act is illegal, it is pretty clear that a felony has been committed. The only question is, will that person be charged?
I'm arguing the conceptual point that you are arguing with bobrek not the specifics of the Plame case.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
No. The evidence tells the story. The investigator doesn't make up the beginning and shape the evidence to fit the story s/he began. It is the evidence that tells the story.

You are wrong. If a homicide detective finds a body with a knife in the back, they will not wait until CSI determines it is murder. That detective will begin interviewing potential murder suspects while the CSI examines the evidence.

The facts in the Plame case are very clear. The only thing that is not clear at present is who actually committed the felony.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
I'm arguing the conceptual point that you are arguing with bobrek not the specifics of the Plame case.

Well, I am arguing the specifics of the Plame case using a pretty accurate analogy.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon


The facts in the Plame case are very clear. The only thing that is not clear at present is who actually committed the felony.

the facts are not clear- that's why there's an investigation. loudly declaring over and over that a felony was committed doesn't make it so. i'd suggest you wait until the facts are know before making such grand, sweeping assumptions.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
the facts are not clear- that's why there's an investigation.

The only people to whom the facts are not clear are blind partisans and administration apologists such as you, texx, and t_j.

Originally posted by basso

loudly declaring over and over that a felony was committed doesn't make it so.

No, the fact that an undercover CIA operative was outed in public by a journalist is what makes it so.

Originally posted by basso

i'd suggest you wait until the facts are know before making such grand, sweeping assumptions.

The facts ARE known, you just continue to ignore them.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by andymoon
You are wrong. If a homicide detective finds a body with a knife in the back, they will not wait until CSI determines it is murder. That detective will begin interviewing potential murder suspects while the CSI examines the evidence.
Well, of course they have thoughts about it. Nothing wrong with that. However, I will point out that they do not convict while you do.... That's the problem.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by giddyup
Well, of course they have thoughts about it. Nothing wrong with that. However, I will point out that they do not convict while you do.... That's the problem.

I'm not convicting anyone in particular, but it is very clear to all but the most dedicated ostriches that a felony has been committed in regards to Valerie Plame.

[FranchiseBlade]

Everyone holding their guns about the Plame felony that was committed good job.

I have been away due to some serious family medical issues.

Anyway, Basso, your own article clearly lays out the requirement for a felony being committed. Those requirements were clearly met. Novak doesn't have top level security clearance, and the identity was leaked to her. We know that the CIA definitely was keeping her identity unknown and that she was actively involved in WMD intel operations.

It is silly to ask if it is a felony why isn't there an indictment. As others have pointed out, you don't indict one of 20 people who could possibly have done it. We need to find out which of those 20 or so folks it actually was.

The posting history in this thread baffles the mind. First the pro-Bush crowd claims victory and tries to gloat over a legal brief filed, which has no proof of anything in it.

Then in attempt to say that Plame's identity being revealed probably wasn't a felony, Basso posts an article which clearly illustrates that a felony has been committed. The correlation between the statutes posted by Basso and the events in the Plame case were even spelled out issue by issue.

Then there is an attempt to hide behind a clause that nullifies a pension, but doesn't affect the status of the felony at all. It is almost surreal reading this.

[Nolen]

This is like playing whack-a-mole.

[basso]

here's an interesting report that says the probe is complete. i've bolded a few parts that are germaine to the felony issue.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=53034

--
OUTING OF SPY:
CIA leak probe complete
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer
Get Comcast Digital Cable with Starz

WASHINGTON (AP) - The federal prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name says his work is complete except for one large omission: hearing from two reporters who are fighting a court order to answer questions under oath.

Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said the refusal of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of The New York Times to divulge their sources has stalled his probe.

Neither Cooper nor Miller wrote the original story that revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame. Her name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources.

It is unclear whether Novak has cooperated with the investigation or whether the grand jury hearing evidence has returned any indictments. Fitzgerald is trying to determine who leaked the name and whether that was a crime.

"By October 2004, the factual investigation - other than the testimony of Miller and Cooper and any further investigation that might result from such testimony - was for all practical purposes complete," Fitzgerald said in two filings asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to end its consideration of the case.

A three-judge appellate panel in February upheld a lower court ruling ordering Cooper and Miller to talk. They are asking the full appellate court to reverse the order.

"The public's right to have this investigation concluded should be delayed no further," Fitzgerald said, opposing the request.

The filings, submitted in late March, were first reported by Newsday.

Floyd Abrams, who is representing both reporters, said Fitzgerald has not explained why the reporters' testimony is important to his case.

"He doesn't indicate that it's crucial, just that it's unresolved," Abrams said Wednesday. "He's done with everyone else, done with Robert Novak one way or the other and done inquiring of various government officials."

Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. The CIA had asked Wilson to check out the uranium claim. Wilson has said he believes his wife's name was leaked as retaliation for his critical comments.

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the person who released that information knew of the officer's secret status.

Cooper is a White House correspondent for Time who has reported on the Plame controversy. He agreed in August to provide limited testimony about a conversation he had with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, after Libby released Cooper from his promise of confidentiality.

Fitzgerald then issued a second, broader subpoena seeking the names of other sources.

Miller gathered material for an article about Plame but never wrote a story.

Prosecutors have interviewed President Bush, Cheney, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and other current or former administration officials in the investigation. Journalists from NBC and The Washington Post also have been subpoenaed.

[FranchiseBlade]

Yes, you provided the statue showing the requirements to make it a crime. It is understood that it might be possible to not have it be a crime. However, it would take an incredible lapse of reasoning to assume somebody just accidentally anonimously leaked Plame's name and job to Novak. The other possibility is that the person didn't know her undercover status. Considering her file would have required top security clearence and would have been marked, it would be highly unlikely that someone wouldn't know her status. It would take a truly incompetent employee not to know such a thing. A person who wouldn't know that, but still had access to high level security areas of our government's secrets is a real threat to national security and should be removed.

Of course none of those scenarios is likely in the least, and there has been no evidence to substantiate those hypotheticals, while there has been other evidence pointing to a felony being committed.

[basso]

more, from the WaPo, including this money shot:

Legal experts and sources close to the case also speculated yesterday that Fitzgerald is not likely to seek an indictment for the crime he originally set out to investigate: whether a government official knowingly exposed a covert officer. The sources, who asked not to be named because the matter is the subject of a grand jury investigation, said Fitzgerald may instead seek to charge a government official with committing perjury by giving conflicting information to prosecutors.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32380-2005Apr6.html

[basso]

and more from the artilce:

"Boy, I tell you if those two reporters go to jail and there was nothing to this entire investigation, that will be an outrage," Dalglish said. Floyd Abrams, the First Amendment attorney who represents Miller and Cooper, said he has long worried that the special prosecutor has used extreme measures to get reporters to talk and yet may not have evidence of a serious crime.

Proving that the leak is a felony requires showing substantial evidence that the government official revealed the operative's name or likeness while knowing that the administration was working to keep it concealed.

... Lawyers and experts familiar with the case said it is unthinkable that Fitzgerald would not interview Novak.

"This would lead me to probably conclude that Mr. Novak testified and did not provide nearly the treasure trove that Fitzgerald expected," Dalglish said.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
and more from the artilce:


And yet none of this shows that a felony was not committed.

Even if no indictment is returned, there is a very high probability that a felony was committed, your gyrations and justifications notwithstanding.

[basso]

Originally posted by andymoon
And yet none of this shows that a felony was not committed.

Even if no indictment is returned, there is a very high probability that a felony was committed, your gyrations and justifications notwithstanding.

oh, andy! who's gyrating? i'm just reporting the news. you're the one trying to justify a spin that no one else is, not even the wapo, nytimes, josh marshall, paul krugman or david corn. it's sad, really quite pathetic.

[bnb]

Let it go basso...;).

It looks pretty clear the cover was leaked. Whether there's enough evidence, or conviction to prosecute, and whether the reporters are willing to sell out their sources to provide that evidence doesn't mask that.

[basso]

Originally posted by bnb
Let it go basso...;).

It looks pretty clear the cover was leaked. Whether there's enough evidence, or conviction to prosecute, and whether the reporters are willing to sell out their sources to provide that evidence doesn't mask that.

huh? are you saying the reporters are protecting their own asses at the expense of a catching a felon who threatened national security? and you're ok with that?

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
oh, andy! who's gyrating? i'm just reporting the news. you're the one trying to justify a spin that no one else is, not even the wapo, nytimes, josh marshall, paul krugman or david corn. it's sad, really quite pathetic.

You are the only one gyrating to excuse a crime most likely committed by a powerful Bush employee.

It is interesting that the same people who were so tremendously outraged by a president committing perjury are so quick to excuse a far worse crime committed by someone in an administration they support.

[bnb]

They're not protecting their own asses...they protecting their 'source' -- and by extention their journalistic integrity.

I think the whole thing's been overplayed....there --- now both sides think i'm nuts :cool:

I'm just not willing to take a decision not to prosecute as an exoneration of anything being improper.

And it's painful to watch you try to make this connection ;).

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
huh? are you saying the reporters are protecting their own asses at the expense of a catching a felon who threatened national security?

That is exactly what I would be saying (had I made that statement). Anyone in the media will fall over themselves to protect their sources and what they see as their first Amendment rights (I personally don't think those "rights" should extend to information about a crime) and no matter how much you crow about it, that is exactly what they are doing.

Originally posted by basso

and you're ok with that?

Personally, I think that Fitzgerald should jail any reporter who doesn't provide accurate information regarding a possible felony, so I am decidedly NOT "ok with that."

[basso]

Originally posted by bnb
They're not protecting their own asses...they protecting their 'source' -- and by extention their journalistic integrity.


and by extension, journalistic integrity is more important than exposing the felon they worked so assiduously to concoct when there was an election on the line. seems infinitely more painful to me.

either they journalists were convinced there was a felony, that threatened national security, and that should trump any presumption of protecting journalistic integrity, particularly when such protection has been waived by the source in question, or there's no there there. seems far more likely the later is the case.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by basso
and by extension, journalistic integrity is more important than exposing the felon they worked so assiduously to concoct when there was an election on the line. seems infinitely more painful to me.

either they journalists were convinced there was a felony, that threatened national security, and that should trump any presumption of protecting journalistic integrity, particularly when such protection has been waived by the source in question, or there's no there there. seems far more likely the later is the case.

Only to blind partisans and Bush apologists.

[bnb]

Originally posted by basso
and by extension, journalistic integrity is more important than exposing the felon....

Well...that's usually the argument, isn't it?

OJ walked because the process to convict him was faulty...not because he didn't do the crime. Sometimes the principle is as important as an individual outcome. Would sources come forth if they thought they'd be exposed?

Journalists value their 'sources' above any individual conviction.

Andy, your drug friends wouldn't be so enthusiastic about being jailed because they didn't reveal the names of all the people the Fed's thought were guilty of a crime. Same principle should apply here. Even if the crime is, in your view, much more serious.

[FranchiseBlade]

This is where I am conflicted. It is important to catch the felon. It is dangerous to have a person who will expose top level government secrets like that. It is especially so since the operative exposed was working on WMD intel.

At the same time I believe the first amendment concerning freedom of the press must be upheld. I am against the idea of trampling down that freedom in order to satisfy the conditions of just this one case. It would drastically hamper news agencies from getting quality sources, and thus further hamper a well informed