0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:11 pm
sozobe wrote:
<blows a kiss to Tico>


Right back at ya, Soz. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:11 pm
Who's this 'Fitzpatrick' Chrissee keeps mentioning?
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:18 pm
I'd say Rove would beat the rap if he were charged criminally.
I have stumbled through the statute and I can see it has enough twists and turns in it that it requires some quite specific actions before someone could be found guilty of an offence. I think that it's reserved for situations where someone maliciously reveals the identify of an agent and endangers that agent. For example, if person A knew that the Third Secretary in the US Embassy in Nowhereland was really a CIA agent engaged in intelligence-gathering and other clandestine acts inconsistent with their diplomatic duties and told the hosting government of this fact I think person A would probably come under this statute. I don't think the kind of leak that allegedly came from Rove is imagined in this statute.

Also Tico wrote way back in the beginning of this thread:

Quote:
If one does not commit a violation of the law because one did not commit all of the elements of the charge, that does not constitute a technicality. An example of "beating the rap on a technicality" might be because one's confession is thrown out because Miranda Warnings weren't read ... or if there was a technical defect with a search warrant, which tainted some evidence in a particular matter.


There are no "technicalities" in a case. If the law isn't complied with (eg in a fail to give a Miranda warning) and on that point a bunch of evidence is ruled inadmissible then that's what follows from a failure to obey the law by the police or investigating authority. That's how people's rights are protected, ensuring that the law is complied with by the police or other investigational agencies. Same goes for my country. If we allowed the police too much leeway then pretty soon those safeguards would fall. heck I've lost a case or two on what I wanted to call a "technicality" because it salved my feelings of failure but in reality I screwed up so I lost the case.

Anyway as I said, I think there may be no criminal case However as to the politics, the horse is at the gate and staring at that big empty paddock. Anything could happen with this.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:24 pm
goodfielder wrote:
There are no "technicalities" in a case. If the law isn't complied with (eg in a fail to give a Miranda warning) and on that point a bunch of evidence is ruled inadmissible then that's what follows from a failure to obey the law by the police or investigating authority. That's how people's rights are protected, ensuring that the law is complied with by the police or other investigational agencies. Same goes for my country. If we allowed the police too much leeway then pretty soon those safeguards would fall. heck I've lost a case or two on what I wanted to call a "technicality" because it salved my feelings of failure but in reality I screwed up so I lost the case.


In understand what you mean. But in the examples of "technicalities" I identified, a crime was committed, but a technical violation of evidentiary or procedural rules prevents a conviction. I was trying to highlight that distiction. That is what is normally meant by "beating a rap by a technicality." But point taken.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:56 pm
ehBeth wrote:
rayban1 wrote:
Blatham.......you really know how to bring the Rove haters out of the woodwork.........go on and have a really good "Chortle"..... maybe some of you will choke on your coffee.........OH......I AM sorry if I don't seem to show any sympathy for a "LIB".

Don't be too disapointed if Bob Woodward and his ilk have difficulty in really connecting Rove with the leak...........in other words don't count your jail sentences before they materialize
Laughing

Note......I may be forced to burn this post at some future date. Evil or Very Mad


where did rayban go?


Thanks ehBeth for digging this out of the archives.........yeah, I'm back......I confess, I've become addicted to contributing to the mugging of liberals and turning them into ........ NEOCONS Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:58 pm
Welcome back, rayban. Don't let the libbies get you down. They need our help. :wink:
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 09:59 pm
well, nice entertainment bonus to have rayban back, I guess your test of a2k'ers didn't work out as you planned but good on you. You now have even less credibility.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:10 pm
dyslexia wrote:
well, nice entertainment bonus to have rayban back, I guess your test of a2k'ers didn't work out as you planned but good on you. You now have even less credibility.


Well, Well.......I thought they may have run you out of town after your hate speech........haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:11 pm
dyslexia wrote:
well, nice entertainment bonus to have rayban back, I guess your test of a2k'ers didn't work out as you planned but good on you. You now have even less credibility.


If he expected an apology out of you, one might think him delusional. But I think, on the other hand, it's probable that he was so pissed at your [censored] post, he couldn't see straight. I'll admit to having had a difficult time with my gag reflex upon reading it myself.

He is certainly not the first, and won't be the last, poster to get so pissed off they announce their departure from this site.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:15 pm
Nice to see you posting again, Rayban Smile
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:15 pm
Most folks who fire up their huff and depart just take it out for a spin, bring it back, park it where it was, and rejoin the fray, to my observation. Some take more of a tour than others, but most wind up back here sooner or later. Some folks are known to damned near make a practice of the exercize.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:18 pm
I almost flamed out on that {censored} post.

Rayban. <nods in greeting>
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:19 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Nice to see you posting again, Rayban Smile


Thanks JW and Tico........As Tico says, the Libs here need our help Very Happy
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:23 pm
Lash wrote:
I almost flamed out on that {censored} post.

Rayban. <nods in greeting>


Back at you Lash nodding back to our one-woman Lib wrecking crew.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:25 pm
rayban1 wrote:
Lash wrote:
I almost flamed out on that {censored} post.

Rayban. <nods in greeting>


Back at you Lash nodding back to our one-woman Lib wrecking crew.


LOL!!! Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:48 pm
You guys all know how profoundly reluctant I am to pass on even the slightest complaint which might suggest that America is less than heaven right here on earth or to demean your Great Leader with some odd comment such as that I don't really think it would make much difference if his mouth was swapped for a french whore's labia. So it will come, likely, as a surprise that I felt dyslexia's {censored} post was refreshingly lacking in delusion.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:50 pm
blatham wrote:
You guys all know how profoundly reluctant I am to pass on even the slightest complaint which might suggest that America is less than heaven right here on earth or to demean your Great Leader with some odd comment such as that I don't really think it would make much difference if his mouth was swapped for a french whore's labia. So it will come, likely, as a surprise that I felt dyslexia's {censored} post was refreshingly lacking in delusion.


http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/eek2.gif
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 10:51 pm
Somehow, I don't envision mouths agape at that odd declaration.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 11:09 pm
Hmmmm.......it seems the only current support for the revolting {censored} post is from Professor Karl Marx Jr. Tell me professor what job you expect to be rewarded with in the new Non gov't of Dys. Would it be Secretary of Defense with no army........or perhaps Secretary of the treasury with no revenue or perhaps the best of all.......Secretary of State......with no country.?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Jul, 2005 11:15 pm
OK, one mouth agape. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/eek2.gif
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/13/2025 at 06:35:09