Political explosion in t-5,4,3,2....

[Nash]

Originally posted by Donzo
Fact: She was not "under cover".
Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger.  There are document to prove this.

1) Is that so? Care to share that document with us?

2) Who cares? You're just making excuses. It's not relevant.

Here's a fact:

No senior political advisor to the President should disclose the identity of a covert CIA agent. It is against the law. And to do so as either:

a)  payback due to someone going against "fixed" Iraq policy, or...

b) the discrediting of the messenger regarding the lies of this fixed policy, is....

Reckless, treasonous, illegal, unethical. It's a felony.

Period.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Donzo
This has been the progressing over the past couple of weeks.
The blood has disapated in the water....move along people, nothing to feed on here.
Oh wait...one last-ditched effort!!!!

We're in day 4.

Not 14.

Though I'm sure it must feel like it.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Nash
1) Is that so? Care to share that document with us?

...Reckless, treasonous, illegal, unethical. It's a felony.

Period.

Here is your document request

According to some thirty odd news orgs, incl CNN, the NYTimes, Newsweek, etc, there is "ample evidence on the public record to cast considerable doubt that a crime has been committed"

Look at page five of the brief...

[Nash]

Hey Holden. I gotta pretty bad computer situation involving a recently reformatted HD and some nasty viruses. I can't download anything - and aint bothering to deal with it until after I get back from vacation. Can you post the section here, along with the source url?

[Nash]

In the meantime, everyone's focusing on the IIPA, and forgetting about the espoinage act:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html

(1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to know could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it.
Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually know that revelation could be damaging; he needs only "reason to know." Classification is generally reason to know, and a security-clearance holder is responsible for knowing what information is classified.

Nor is it necessary that the discloser intend public distribution; if Rove told Cooper -- which he did -- and Cooper didn't have a security clearance -- which he didn't -- the crime would have been complete.

And to be a crime the disclosure need not be intended to damage the national security; it is only the act of communication itself that must be wilful.

It's also a crime to "cause" such information to be communicated, for example by asking someone else to do so.

There's also perjury and obstruction of justice. Methinks that's just the tip of the iceburg here.

Yes, the IIPA is tough to prove. No doubt. But Fitzgerald thinks he has something, and so does the courts. This focussing on Plame's job title is absurd when you consider that. This would not be happening otherwise.

[Donzo]

Originally posted by Nash
1) Is that so? Care to share that document with us?

How's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

This stands out:
"The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. "

Not the "document" per-say, but "The Report" is a Senate intelligence committee report.  I'm sure it can be found somewhere.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Donzo
How's this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

This stands out:
"The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. "

Not the "document" per-say, but "The Report" is a Senate intelligence committee report.  I'm sure it can be found somewhere.

How does this relate to her being covert or not?

[Donzo]

Originally posted by Nash
How does this relate to her being covert or not?

Read my post:
"Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger. There are document to prove this."

This was the document I spoke of...never said anything about a document saying she was or was not under cover.

[Nash]

Oh - well you stated as "fact" that: " She was not "under cover".

I assumed you could back up such a fact. I assumed that by there being documents, you could also  provide documents of this "fact"

Can you not?

What then makes it a "fact" in your mind?

As for your second point, which you do have documentation for, again - who cares? What does that have to do with outing a covert agent's identity? So what?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Donzo
Read my post:
"Fact: She recommended that her hubby go on the trip to Niger. There are document to prove this."

This was the document I spoke of...never said anything about a document saying she was or was not under cover.

Lmao. Man go back and read the whole thread. Her recommending him to go has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the situation. No one is doubting that, You are arguing against yourself lol

[Holden McGroin]

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

This is the brief to try to keep the two journalists from revealing their sources, and out of jail.

For some reason, I can't cut and paste from this pdf, (says I need reader 6.0.1) so the big points from the brief are; She wasn't a covert operative in the last five years, her CIA 'cover' required her to work at CIA headquarters in Langley and anyone could witness her arrival and departure. The CIA made no effort to keep her identity secret, as a matter of fact Novak asked the CIA if she worked for them and they said, "yup!"

[Nash]

I tried that link and got:

"The page you are looking for may have moved or does not exist. You may search our attorneys, search the entire site or return to the home page."

Let me ask you though... Do you really think that the prosecutor and judges are blissfully unaware that a crime may have in fact not been committed? That such a fundamental question has been overlooked?

[edit].... and if it's the brief they made to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court obviously saw it differently; one reporter rolled and one is in jail. So what use is it?[/edit]

[Donzo]

Fitzgerald has been working on this for 18 months, right?  He must know by now if she was undercover.  With this being known and what Rove said being known, what is the hold-up?
Answer:
There is no hold-up.  Of the two statements above, one must be false.  We know what Rove said (they have the notes from the Cooper).  What we don't offically know is was she undercover.  If she was, don't you think Rove would be indicted?
Grasping at straws...that's all it is.

[Nash]

No - I think you're grasping at straws. There is an investigation underway. Whether it takes 18 months or 8 years doesn't matter. The reason it is heating up now is of no special importance. There is not some kind of coincidence as one guy here alluded to. It's just the way it works. There is going to come a time when it wraps up.

Indictments will be handed down. You can be sure of it. For what and for whom is the only question.

[Holden McGroin]

I click on my "here is your document request" link and it comes up... but the second "link" (which I did not intend to be a link) I get your message.  I think you need the (final).pdf in the Http string.

In answer to your question, "Do you really think that the prosecutor and judges are blissfully unaware that a crime may have in fact not been committed?"

I think that the prosecutors truely believe crimes were committed, but we all know now that Micheal Jackson was completely innocent.  Unless you are referring to Ken Starr and whatever it was he investigated.

(sometimes the motives of prosecutors are not completely pure)