Author Topic: Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2.... (Read 8434 times)

Raider179 · « **Reply #135 on:** July 13, 2005, 03:57:39 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DrDea
I'll try to dig you up a link but it was Vanity Fair.Heard it on the news today.Theirs alot coming out every day about this and for the record no,Slick Willy shouldnt have been Impeached for a BJ.He should have been looked into for all the deaths in Whitewater.If Roves dirty I'd be happy to see his arse fry.As far as Laura not wanting to discuss the situation?Thats common in an investigation.

I cant find any info on the date that photograph was taken but everything seems to indicate it was AFTER The Novak column and that she was disguised and supposed to be unidentifiable. but still havent seen a real source so not believing any of it for now.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #136 on:** July 13, 2005, 05:53:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
He released a CIA Agents identity to Cooper. Do you deny that? .

The thing that get me about conservatives is they love using labels to make the other side seem stupid, wrong, or unamerican. "Evil masterminds" and "frothing at the mouth" and the like. Like any case it takes time for "proof" to come to fruition.

Nice defense on your part but it doesnt hold water.

Short answer yes, I think karl has no second thoughts about dirty tricks to get the job done. Including putting people's lives at risk.

But I am sure he is really a nice guy, seeing he is so loyal as to stab his own candidate in the back when he wanted to.

Raider you have not answered my question WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW?

To go a step further what specific law did he break?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #137 on:** July 13, 2005, 05:57:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by DrDea
This is a woman that was poseinmg in a magazine when this all came out.I dont think her "Cover" was blown by anyone but herself as far as "Covert" ops.If Rove rat her out,which each day looks even more doubtfull then he needs to fry.You Dems really are frothing at the mouth here.Remember Dan Rather and let it play out.

oh oh oh....don't forget about the missing explosives in Iraq right before the election.

I couldnt agree with you more that they are wagging their tails when no one is going to throw them a pork chop.

Raider probably doesnt even know wether or not she was an "operative" or not nore what laws were specifically broken. He just wants to see rove fry and will say/beleive anything to make it happen.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #138 on:** July 13, 2005, 06:28:21 PM »

just to throw 2 more cents in:

here is something that democrats cant prove.

1) intention
Knowledge that the US was making efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "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" per § 421.

2) US efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421. Press reports indicate Ms. Plame had a notional identity as a private businesswoman, created as a cover by the CIA, which would appear to meet the "affirmative measures" test.

3) that Valerie Plame was actually a covert agent:

There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per § 426. In particular, no evidence has been published to date that she served outside the US (which is a requirement). A single official trip overseas might suffice, however.

Raider until you can prove all that keep frothing. I've said it before if one of these guys is guilty then let them go down for it. If not they are innocent until proven otherwise. To me it doesnt matter what your political agenda is.

just to keep you from searching here is the answer to one of my questions earlier
Intelligence Identities Protection Act, (50 USC 421-426)

Nash · « **Reply #139 on:** July 13, 2005, 08:27:39 PM »

Lets see, Gunslinger....

The CIA itself referred this over for criminal investigation, and they didn't know whether she was undercover or not?

Then the prosecutor works on this for two years, and he hasn't made the determination that a crime even took place?

Come on....

Gunslinger · « **Reply #140 on:** July 13, 2005, 08:49:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Lets see, Gunslinger....

The CIA itself referred this over for criminal investigation, and they didn't know whether she was undercover or not?

Then the prosecutor works on this for two years, and he hasn't made the determination that a crime even took place?

Come on....

wrong and wrong.

First

I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent"

Second

That is what grand jury investigations are all about. To determin if a crime did in fact take place and wether or not to hand out indictments. Last time I checked Karl Rove has not been indicted by a grand jury for any crime.

Nash I'm quoting the exact law. THAT is what has to be PROVEN in order for a CRIME to have taken place.

Has it been proven yet???

The evidence released to the public thus far does not prove he commited any crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, (50 USC 421-426)

again you guys are jumping the gun here.

Nash · « **Reply #141 on:** July 13, 2005, 08:54:57 PM »

Well no... it hasn't been proven. Last time I checked it takes a judge or jury to make that finding. We aren't there yet.

But I'm well aware of the talking points which RNC has just released and which you are employing. They all fall flat on their face.

"I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent" - Gunslinger

Covert agent = undercover. K?

The CIA felt that someone blew a "covert" agent's cover, and asked for a criminal investigation. Now you among others want to try and say that she wasn't covert afterall? I'd think that they would know if she was. She did work for them. And I'd think that this would be the reason why they asked for the investigation. Don't you?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #142 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:01:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Well no... it hasn't been proven. Last time I checked it takes a judge or jury to make that finding. We aren't there yet.

But I'm well aware of the talking points which RNC has just released and which you are employing. They all fall flat on their face.

"I didn't say the CIA did not know wether she was undercover I said the US Govt has yet to release wether or not she worked as a "covert Agent" - Gunslinger

Covert agent = undercover. K?

The CIA felt that someone blew a "covert" agent's cover, and asked for a criminal investigation. Now you among others want to try and say that she wasn't covert afterall? I'd think they know if she was. I'd think that that'd be the reason why they asked for the investigation. Don't you?

I've never read anywere that she was a "covert" agent or "undercover'. That's not to say that she has been or is but the fact of the matter is in order for a crime to have taken place on Rove's part a prosecuter would have to prove the three points I layed out in the previous post.

Nash I don't visit the RNC website I got those from wickepedia wich are strait out of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

If Rove get's convicted in a court of law so be it. If he gets indicted I probably wont back him. It's the simple fact that the Dems are frothing at the mouth over this and thus far the evidence sudgests that Rove commited NO CRIME under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Nash · « **Reply #143 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:05:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
It's the simple fact that the Dems are frothing at the mouth over this and thus far the evidence sudgests that Rove commited NO CRIM under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Well, you have tried to give one reason why "no crime" has been committed. That didn't work. She was a covert agent.

So, for what other reason do you - unlike the CIA or Fitzgerald - think that no crime has been committed?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #144 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:13:31 PM »

Nash, its real simple. Just revealing her name or the fact that she works for the CIA is not a CRIME in of itself.

IAW The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (PL97-200, 50 U.S. Code Secs. 421–426) the following HAS to be proven:

Quote

1) intention
Knowledge that the US was making efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "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" per § 421.

2) US efforts to conceal Valerie Plame's intelligence identity:

There is a need to produce evidence that "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States" per § 421. Press reports indicate Ms. Plame had a notional identity as a private businesswoman, created as a cover by the CIA, which would appear to meet the "affirmative measures" test.

3) that Valerie Plame was actually a covert agent:

There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per § 426. In particular, no evidence has been published to date that she served outside the US (which is a requirement). A single official trip overseas might suffice, however.

these are not RNC talking points this is US law.

Edit: IAW = In Accordance With

Nash · « **Reply #145 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:20:33 PM »

Geeze.... Someone sells a CIA agent (patriot!) down the river and all you have to say about it is this?

It depends on the meaning of "is".

Yes Gunslinger, thanks for reminding us what the law is. Do you think the CIA and Fitzgerald, who has put two years into the investigaion, are oblivious to the law.... and just proceeding for the hell of it?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #146 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:24:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Geeze.... Someone sells a CIA agent (patriot!) down the river and all you have to say about it is this?

It depends on the meaning of "is".

Yes Gunslinger, thanks for reminding us what the law is. Do you think the CIA and Fitzgerald, who has put two years into the investigaion, are oblivious to the law.... and just proceeding for the hell of it?

has Karl Rove been indicted?

I've read what he said and it doesnt sound to me like he's selling anyone down the river.

Last time I checked the CIA doesnt investigate criminal acts that would be DoJ wich is handling the investigation and no I don't think they are oblivious to the law. My contention is all along that there is more to this story than is being told or released. So far the evidence does not indicate Karl Rove broke the law.

Raider179 · « **Reply #147 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:35:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Raider you have not answered my question WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT HE BROKE THE LAW?

To go a step further what specific law did he break?

1)lol what do I look like? Am I gonna find the "evidence" that convicts Karl Rove? LoL cause that is what you are asking from me.

2)You are talking about the law that states he has to "knowingly" disclose an undercover agents name, correct? I know this is what you mean because this is his fallback position..."I didnt know she was undercover so you cant do anything." Sorry but that is not gonna hold weight with me. He knew enough to know she authorized her husbands trip to DISCOUNT Bush's story about yellow cake. You gonna tell me he knew all that but not that she was a covert agent? Yeah right.

3)Asking for absolute proof on a forum shows me you are grasping at straws.

Nash · « **Reply #148 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:35:41 PM »

Karl Rove made public the identity of a covert agent. We know that.

And that's illegal.

The only reason it wouldn't be illegal would be due to things we don't know about.

You've got things in reverse.

By everything we know, he broke the law. It's only the things we don't know about that might save him. By his lawyer's utterances and the very weak means of counter attack, I'd have to say his chances are slim. Very slim.

His defence seems to rely upon "I didn't say her exact name."

Too bad:

"There is a need to produce evidence that Karl Rove "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."

So..... "I didn't say Plame, I just said "Wilson's wife" doesn't work.

Your defence saying "she wasn't covert" isn't even on the table. The CIA says she was. They'd know.

What other defence has he got?

Raider179 · « **Reply #149 on:** July 13, 2005, 09:36:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger

Raider probably doesnt even know wether or not she was an "operative" or not nore what laws were specifically broken. He just wants to see rove fry and will say/beleive anything to make it happen.

I have seen the law and I understand it says "knowingly identified an agent" so let that line of bs go.

But cheap shots at my intelligence again show you are grasping at straws for a defense instead of countering the evidence which points to KR.