You're kidding right?

Post #214,717 by Silverlock 7/14/05 9:19:01 AM 7/14/05 9:53:57 AM Reply	You're kidding right? The CIA, The Justice Department, the special prosecuter and the White House all agree this is a crime. The judge agrees enough to put a reporter in jail. And you go pull this puling piece of spin from two partisan friends of Novak to say it isn't? Here's a link for you so you won't have to wait for the next blast fax; [link\|http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html\|RNC Rove talking points memo] Eagerly awaiting the Wilson slams. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards Edited by Silverlock July 14, 2005, 09:53:57 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #214,742 by bepatient 7/14/05 11:46:02 AM Reply	You must be Because your little "talking points" game doesn't include the analysis of the law by the folks that wrote it. It doesn't include the points of law necessary to get an indictment...those being that she had to be in country (not travelling...IN COUNTRY) in the past 5 years and the government needed to be actively concealing her ID. Now I dunno about you, but if I were counter-intelligence...and I were following this woman to her job in Langley...I might be a bit suspicious. And I would hope that our spooks arent' stupid enough to hang out there on a regular basis, if at all. So...unless they come up with a different law to prosecute him on, this is indeed NOT a crime. And the reporter is in jail for violation of a different law...and I disagree with her being there on general principle. There is ample enough evidence that the law in question was indeed NOT violated, and therefor she need not sit there for obstruction. You assume that I am defending the idiot. I'm not. He deserves to be fired for what he did. Gone. Poof. HOWEVER, he did not violate the law that everyone keeps insisting he did. So...idiot yes. Former employee...should be. Felon? Don't think so...unless charged with some aspect of coverup related to the conversations (perjury for example). For a breath of sanity on this witch-hunt. [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-13-plame-edit_x.htm\|http://www.usatoday....-plame-edit_x.htm] If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,780 by jb4 7/14/05 1:36:43 PM Reply	C'mon BeeP, you (of all people) know better than that And abortion wasn't mentioned inthe Constitution, either. Nor was the right of municipalities to sieze personal property for private development. Who cares what the putative author of the bill says that the intent should be? All that matters is case law, period (a point you've made several times yourself, IIRC). jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #214,786 by bepatient 7/14/05 1:56:16 PM Reply	And there isn't any so I'd like to start this one by actually applying it as written, thankyouverymuch. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #214,818 by jb4 7/14/05 4:05:09 PM Reply	But there will be And when (not if) there is, the "intent of the author" will mean fuckall (especially to Der Architekt if he's sitting in Leavenworth). jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #214,790 by Silverlock 7/14/05 2:00:59 PM 7/15/05 8:51:29 PM Reply	Let's assume the authors of this piece are non-partisan Bwaaahaaaahaaaahaaahaaha! <takes deep breath>. In order to disprove this assertion/opinion (How the hell would Novak's buddies know Plame's CIA assignments?), There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per \ufffd 426. There must be evidence that she served outside the US, a single official trip overseas might suffice. There are published reports that Plame served in London and Brussels in the early to mid 1990s. In a October 1, 2003 Knight Ridder report entitled "Justice Launches Probe Into CIA Leak," an anonymous CIA official was quoted as saying, "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," referring to the referral by the CIA to the Justice Department that a crime may have been committed. If Plame's identity as a CIA employee was in fact classified, Rove's leak may also have violated other U.S. laws, including the Espionage Act. Failure to protect classified information, criminal or not, is often grounds for the revocation of one's security clearance. Finally, Rove has been interviewed by the FBI and has testified before a grand jury. Misrepresentations to either could be a crime. [link\|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Known_background\|Wikipedia] Edit: apology retracted as Beep has used, approximately in order, the first 4 of the RNC talking points found at my link posted above. ----------------------------------------- "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." -- H. L. Mencken Support our troops, Impeach Bush. D. D. Richards Edited by Silverlock July 15, 2005, 08:51:29 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #214,798 by bepatient 7/14/05 2:22:15 PM 7/15/05 9:35:58 PM Reply	That first section is incorrect. A single overseas trip will NOT suffice per the law, or at least at the authors explanation of the law. Edited to explain that while these points may be included in some "talking points" bulletin, had you not posted it I would have never seen it. These points are also widely reported in the general news media and are at least partially supported by the facts of the case. (Direct quotes of Mr Wilson notwithstanding hence my later retraction) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient] Edited by bepatient July 15, 2005, 09:35:58 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #214,815 by JayMehaffey 7/14/05 3:48:16 PM Reply	Re: That first section is incorrect. A single overseas trip will NOT suffice per the law, or at least at the authors explanation of the law. His opinion doesn't really matter, it's the courts opinion that does. Jay

Welcome to IWETHEY!