Originally posted by Gunslinger
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)
1)Just because he seems to have found a loophole you think he should be let off? Give me a break. You Conservatives wanted to hang Clinton on the definition of what constitutes sex now you want to let KR off because he said "wilson's wife" instead of Valerie Plume. Double standard?
Yeah I am sure when Her husband released his statement contradicting Bush on the yellow cake, KR "accidentaly" told Matt Cooper she worked for the CIA. Everyone here including myself has said KR is smart. Way to smart to not have known she was an agent. That alone calls for a resignation on his part.
2)Semantics brother. It might be tough to prove since words like "knowingly and intentionally" are used in the law and since those are only things KR would know. Ignorance is no excuse in my book.
3)LMAO now she wasnt even undercover huh? Have you read the actual passage by novak?
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
WoW sounds a lot like what KR told Cooper doesnt it?
4)If nothing else KR lied about it and that is now clear and in the public eye.
"Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details"
So you want to deny KR told Matt Cooper she worked for the CIA?
"Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."
5)You want proof like this is a court of law and I laugh. It is only what I think and I think I have shown substantial reason to hold to that belief. You on the other hand have offered nothing except how KR could have circumvented the law by being a "slick willy".
6)Ever hear of morals? Sometimes there are things in life that a law doesnt or can't cover. Resign its that simple.
7) hard to save time for someone who already knows what the law says.
Now again why have no conservatives offered anything up about the KR Novak connection from 1992 when he got fired for "leaking info to Novak?
Yeah see because it shows a past history of doing the same thing.
or how about how he called her "fair game" to Harball's Matthews?
Got anything to say on that or what?
