That means, among other things, that unless Harriet Miers surprises the nation by going into a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee and speaking with a candor that hasn't been heard there since Robert Bork testified before a Democrat-controlled committee in 1987, young strict-constructionist lawyers around the country will understandably draw the conclusion that if they ever publicly say or write what they honestly think about great constitutional controversies, they can forget about serving on our nation's highest court.Â
It has nothing to do with the "ignorance" of the law. If Libby believed she was working in another branch of the CIA the intent to disclose a covert agent cannot be proven.
let's see...with that kind of security clearance, you don't care if people fuck up as long as they didn't "intend to"
whoops! I just got some people killed because I didn't know what the fuck I was doing with my security clearance.
No, we want people with security clearances to exercise due diligence before making public the names of CIA employees. There are reports that the blowing the of Brewster-Jennings cover caused the deaths of several people and set back WMD interdiction a decade or more. I think just about anybody would be justified in having a bit of hate for the perpetrators of that, no matter which party they vote for.
No, we want people with security clearances to exercise due diligence before making public the names of CIA employees. The known facts do not support your allegations. But people like you don't care.There are reports that the blowing the of Brewster-Jennings cover caused the deaths of several people and set back WMD interdiction a decade or more. I think just about anybody would be justified in having a bit of hate for the perpetrators of that, no matter which party they vote for. You see it as nothing but a politcal opportunity without regard for the truth.
as usual you don't give a rat's ass about the law.
It's against the law to reveal an covert agent's identity as such, isn't it?
It's not only against the law if you did it on purpose... and as for doing it on purpose... let's see... this was the wife of someone who had just been critical of the administration and they "just happen" to reveal her name... but oh no... we didn't do it on purpose... we didn't know what we were doing at all!
go sell it somewhere else, it stinks to high heaven.
they knew what they were doing and it was petty and mean ANDagainst the law and they fucking damn well knew it.
It's against the law to reveal an covert agent's identity as such, isn't it? Under specific circumstances which are a part of the law. But you want to disregard those specific preequisites.
It's not only against the law if you did it on purpose... and as for doing it on purpose... let's see... this was the wife of someone who had just been critical of the administration and they "just happen" to reveal her name... but oh no... we didn't do it on purpose... we didn't know what we were doing at all! Intent to disclose is not the only element that must be present before a crime was committed. The person must have known the person they named was a covert agent. So far there is no proof of such knowledge and all the talk is that there was no such knowledge.Â
go sell it somewhere else, it stinks to high heaven. What stinks, it appears at this point, is that there is an investigation of an act that was not a crime. And that if there are any indictments that occur it will be for obstruction of an investigation that was not a crime or perjury on something immaterial.
they knew what they were doing and it was petty and mean ANDagainst the law and they fucking damn well knew it. I think the consensus was that the disclosure was not a crime. I know you don't want to hear that but that seems to be the case.
It's against the law to reveal an covert agent's identity as such, isn't it?
Was she an undercover/covert agent at the time? Was there an intent to keep her as such for future needs? Who actually told the reporter about this? She seems to have forgotten that part now.
You do realize what this whole case is accomplishing don't you? What do you think the chances are in the future for the press to figure out how our gov't is making such decisions? What do you think the chances are for our gov't officials to be forthcoming and honest about such decisions? How will this case affect our right to know what is going on?
And while I remain as exercised as anyone by the lack of wisdom of this choice, I part company from those who see the Miers nomination as a betrayal of conservative principles. The idea that Bush is looking to appoint some kind of closet liberal David Souter or even some rudderless Sandra Day O'Connor clone is wildly off the mark. The president's mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and yet exceptionally well known to him.
FACT - THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DELEGATION TO FITZGERALD DIDN’T MENTION THE IIDA: “By the authority vested in the Attorney General by law, including 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 515, and in my capacity as Acting Attorney General pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 508, I hereby delegate to you all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department’s investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee’s identity, and I direct you to exercise that authority as Special Counsel independent of the supervision or control of any officer of the Department.” [Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, 12/30/03]
FACT – CIA SAYS WILSON WAS UNDERCOVER: “But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]
FACT – BUSH SAID THE LEAK WAS A CRIME: And, you know, there’s a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It’s a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of — this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked — and this is a serious charge, by the way. We’re talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth. [President Bush, 10/6/03]
no he didn't, He was referring to the investigation. He couldn't not have said it was in fact a crime had been committed when the next thing he said is he hopes to find out the truth. Must you always lie?
The truth seems to be that she was a desk jockey and had been for about six years.
no, the truth is...
“But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]
as for...
It's humorous how crabweed thinks SOME people should follow the letter of the law while he can be selective.
what the dumbass Torpedo is suggesting here is that the White House should be able to be selective about obeying the law.
We already know they did. No, you don't know that. You keeping hoping that it is true, but all indications are that they did not.
You are one of many who are in denial about it. The indications are that any indictments that may be issued would be based on a claim of obstruction of the investigation. Now I know you'll twist that into being the same thing as divulging secret info, but it is not. An intellectually competent and honest person, however, would disagree with you.
"Mrs. Bush and former President George H.W. Bush are seated just to the third base side of the plate during the Astros' home playoff games, close enough that you can see her unmistakable white hair in the lower right corner of the television frame from the center field camera. There's no getting away from her. She's always there.
"Although the former president is usually out of camera shot, you can't see her without thinking about him sitting there, too, and even worse, you are reminded of their son, which makes you flash on Iraq and Supreme Court justices and all sorts of things that you don't want to mix with baseball.
"For all the Republicans who I've just offended, how would you feel if that were the Clintons sitting back there?"
Humorless conservatives. Should I expect anything else?
Whatta bunch of uptight, upright bittys that can't see tounge-in-cheek humor. Boy this Miers nomination has to be crackin' up the movement. They're all defensive.
Now, everytime you see the cottontop in the corner of the TV screen during the World Series you'll be thinking about it, too.
I am thinking that the liberals are getting more and more extreme every day. You guys just can't miss any opportunity to bash the president anymore even if it means calling a senior citizen a "cottontop". What amazing disrespect for your elders. Passing it off as "humor" doesn't cut it.
I had real hope for you becoming central in your views, but you totally blew that out the window.
The likes of Rick, "columnist" Mark Brown, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Bill-Fold and John Kerry are prime examples why liberalism has been rejected by most Americans.
I don't recall this crowd slagging Peggy Nooner when she criticized Bill and Hillary Clinton for "politicizing" the Billy Graham Farewell Tour -- by attending.
that is exactly why liberals are suspicious of the CIA. they don't understand intelligence and are quite jealous that anyone or anything has it and they don't!!!!!!
Are you ever slightly suspicious of what the CIA does in the name of the United States, jethro?
You mean like one of them getting her husband sent on a mission in an attempt to make the president who is of a different political party look bad, then blaming the whistleblower? Yeah, I'd be suspicious.
No, you do that more than enough for the both of us.
so you are dimwit then. O.K.
Being called a dimwit by jethro is like being called ugly by a toad.
well, a toad calling this thing ugly would be right!
http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=ls_ugliest_monkfish_03.jpg&cat=uglyanimal
or this
http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?url=ls_ugliest_matamata_03.jpg&cat=uglyanimal
That means, among other things, that unless Harriet Miers surprises the nation by going into a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee and speaking with a candor that hasn't been heard there since Robert Bork testified before a Democrat-controlled committee in 1987, young strict-constructionist lawyers around the country will understandably draw the conclusion that if they ever publicly say or write what they honestly think about great constitutional controversies, they can forget about serving on our nation's highest court.Â
Â
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2005/10/19/171892.html
sounds interesting: http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5859&schedID=382
It is a good weekend at BookTV: http://www.booktv.org/History/index.asp?segID=6237&schedID=382
I'll watch this just to get a better handle on the "thinking" of the enemy!: http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=6335&schedID=382
let's see...with that kind of security clearance, you don't care if people fuck up as long as they didn't "intend to"
whoops! I just got some people killed because I didn't know what the fuck I was doing with my security clearance.
nice.
let's see...with that kind of security clearance, you don't care if people fuck up as long as they didn't "intend to"
as usual you don't give a rat's ass about the law. You want people to be punished simply because you hate them.
No, we want people with security clearances to exercise due diligence before making public the names of CIA employees. There are reports that the blowing the of Brewster-Jennings cover caused the deaths of several people and set back WMD interdiction a decade or more. I think just about anybody would be justified in having a bit of hate for the perpetrators of that, no matter which party they vote for.
No, we want people with security clearances to exercise due diligence before making public the names of CIA employees. The known facts do not support your allegations. But people like you don't care.There are reports that the blowing the of Brewster-Jennings cover caused the deaths of several people and set back WMD interdiction a decade or more. I think just about anybody would be justified in having a bit of hate for the perpetrators of that, no matter which party they vote for. You see it as nothing but a politcal opportunity without regard for the truth.
It's against the law to reveal an covert agent's identity as such, isn't it?
It's not only against the law if you did it on purpose... and as for doing it on purpose... let's see... this was the wife of someone who had just been critical of the administration and they "just happen" to reveal her name... but oh no... we didn't do it on purpose... we didn't know what we were doing at all!
go sell it somewhere else, it stinks to high heaven.
they knew what they were doing and it was petty and mean ANDagainst the law and they fucking damn well knew it.
the truth?
the truth is she got outed by people her husband had just been critical of.
It's humorous how crabweed thinks SOME people should follow the letter of the law while he can be selective.
It's against the law to reveal an covert agent's identity as such, isn't it? Under specific circumstances which are a part of the law. But you want to disregard those specific preequisites.
It's not only against the law if you did it on purpose... and as for doing it on purpose... let's see... this was the wife of someone who had just been critical of the administration and they "just happen" to reveal her name... but oh no... we didn't do it on purpose... we didn't know what we were doing at all! Intent to disclose is not the only element that must be present before a crime was committed. The person must have known the person they named was a covert agent. So far there is no proof of such knowledge and all the talk is that there was no such knowledge.Â
go sell it somewhere else, it stinks to high heaven. What stinks, it appears at this point, is that there is an investigation of an act that was not a crime. And that if there are any indictments that occur it will be for obstruction of an investigation that was not a crime or perjury on something immaterial.
they knew what they were doing and it was petty and mean ANDagainst the law and they fucking damn well knew it. I think the consensus was that the disclosure was not a crime. I know you don't want to hear that but that seems to be the case.
It's humorous how crabweed thinks SOME people should follow the letter of the law while he can be selective.
It's against the law to reveal an covert agent's identity as such, isn't it?
Was she an undercover/covert agent at the time? Was there an intent to keep her as such for future needs? Who actually told the reporter about this? She seems to have forgotten that part now.
You do realize what this whole case is accomplishing don't you? What do you think the chances are in the future for the press to figure out how our gov't is making such decisions? What do you think the chances are for our gov't officials to be forthcoming and honest about such decisions? How will this case affect our right to know what is going on?
And while I remain as exercised as anyone by the lack of wisdom of this choice, I part company from those who see the Miers nomination as a betrayal of conservative principles. The idea that Bush is looking to appoint some kind of closet liberal David Souter or even some rudderless Sandra Day O'Connor clone is wildly off the mark. The president's mistake was thinking he could sneak a reliable conservative past the liberal litmus tests (on abortion, above all) by nominating a candidate at once exceptionally obscure and yet exceptionally well known to him.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/charleskrauthammer/2005/10/21/172176.html
Myths and Facts about the Fitzgerald Investigation
BUSH SAID THE LEAK WAS A CRIME:
no he didn't, He was referring to the investigation. He couldn't not have said it was in fact a crime had been committed when the next thing he said is he hopes to find out the truth. Must you always lie?
no, the truth is...
as for...
what the dumbass Torpedo is suggesting here is that the White House should be able to be selective about obeying the law.
So you prefer to believe a two year old article that appears to have been incorrect? You guys are sinking deeper and deeper into dementia.
"seems"
"appears"
"believe"
I believe it appears that these men seemed to intentionally fuck with a CIA agent because her husband was was critical of the administration.
it walks like a duck, it squawks like a duck... it's a duck.
you are one of the very few that believe that Rove or Libby disclosed secret information.Â
We already know they did.
You are one of many who are in denial about it.
Just when you think he can't possibly get any farther from reality, jethro posts again . . .
We already know they did. No, you don't know that. You keeping hoping that it is true, but all indications are that they did not.
You are one of many who are in denial about it. The indications are that any indictments that may be issued would be based on a claim of obstruction of the investigation. Now I know you'll twist that into being the same thing as divulging secret info, but it is not. An intellectually competent and honest person, however, would disagree with you.
Just when you think he can't possibly get any farther from reality, jethro posts again . . .Â
all rational thought indicates that of course they did.
and you are claiming that it indicates they obstructed investigating something they didn't do?
reality, meet bodine.
we already know it happened.
why else were they obstructing the investigation?
you understand that Al Capone wasn't just wanted for cheating on his taxes, right?
It's been a while since the Clue Fairy visited the bodine household. Maybe next week . . .
Since when have liberals been so fiercely protective of the CIA?
This is purely an attack on the administration. The left doesn't give a rat's ass about the CIA or any of its agents.
Are you ever slightly suspicious of what the CIA does in the name of the United States, Muskwa?
A liberal suspicious of any type of law enforcement. Imagine that.
The CIA is intelligence, not law enforcement.
A liberal suspicious of America gathering intelligence. Imagine that.
The Bushes are just one of many irritations at Minute Maid Park, which should come as no surprise as the entire place is filled with Texans.
Politics and baseball don't mix
"Mrs. Bush and former President George H.W. Bush are seated just to the third base side of the plate during the Astros' home playoff games, close enough that you can see her unmistakable white hair in the lower right corner of the television frame from the center field camera. There's no getting away from her. She's always there.
"Although the former president is usually out of camera shot, you can't see her without thinking about him sitting there, too, and even worse, you are reminded of their son, which makes you flash on Iraq and Supreme Court justices and all sorts of things that you don't want to mix with baseball.
"For all the Republicans who I've just offended, how would you feel if that were the Clintons sitting back there?"
Now you are bitching because the Bushes attended a ball game? Pretty lame.
Â
WOW! You can see Barbara form the center field camera? Was the reporter covering the game or was he watching an 80 year old woman??...Very strange.
"She's always there"...Yes, that's where her seat is.
"There's no getting away from her"...Was she stalking Mr. Brown?
So was she seated or following Brown around?
Â
"Pretty lame" doesn't begin to describe it.
Â
Humorless conservatives. Should I expect anything else?
Whatta bunch of uptight, upright bittys that can't see tounge-in-cheek humor. Boy this Miers nomination has to be crackin' up the movement. They're all defensive.
Now, everytime you see the cottontop in the corner of the TV screen during the World Series you'll be thinking about it, too.
Damn, why didn't he nominate Janice Rogers Brown?
What was he thinking?
What are YOU thinking about, now?
That was a poor attempt to bail on the writings of a fellow Bush bashing obsessed liberal.
Well, Bush is getting it from both sides, now. Left, and right.
What are YOU thinking about, now?
I am thinking that the liberals are getting more and more extreme every day. You guys just can't miss any opportunity to bash the president anymore even if it means calling a senior citizen a "cottontop". What amazing disrespect for your elders. Passing it off as "humor" doesn't cut it.
I had real hope for you becoming central in your views, but you totally blew that out the window.
"I had real hope for you becoming central in your views,"
I had no such hope for you, Dan.
The likes of Rick, "columnist" Mark Brown, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Bill-Fold and John Kerry are prime examples why liberalism has been rejected by most Americans.
I don't recall this crowd slagging Peggy Nooner when she criticized Bill and Hillary Clinton for "politicizing" the Billy Graham Farewell Tour -- by attending.
The CIA is intelligence, not law enforcement.
Are you ever slightly suspicious of what the CIA does in the name of the United States, jethro?
And they keep saying irony is dead . . .
Are you ever slightly suspicious of what the CIA does in the name of the United States, jethro?
You mean like one of them getting her husband sent on a mission in an attempt to make the president who is of a different political party look bad, then blaming the whistleblower? Yeah, I'd be suspicious.