And Blatham, dear, the devil made be do it. Check out my new signature line.
Your marvelous words just rolled around so nicely on the tongue in my mind.
Don't need to ask your permission to quote, now do I? LOL.
This all boils down to common sense, in jailing Miller, all the appellate courts have agreed that there is compelling evidence that a serious Federal crime(s) has/have been perpetrated. It may be difficult to get a conviction on the IIPA Act for Rove an others. The bar is very high. Lying to the FBI, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice are more likely to stick.
Anyone who believes that Fitzgerald won't find indictable crimes here doesn't know Patrick Fitzgerald. He spent 70 minutes interviewing the POTUS for crying out loud. He has a NYT reporter lanquishing in jail for at least four months and considering Criminal Contempt...anyone who belives this is not going anywhere is either very stupid or in complete denial.
More interesting stuff here. Not commenting on validity, just what was at the top of a recent "rove plame" Google news search. Interesting, tho:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/05/020_bw.html
A couple of excerpts:
Quote:One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new information - eight pages of which were redacted from the public - and said that the national-security seriousness of what he read changed his mind. The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.
We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages - and, if they really do involve national-security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in indictments at least for perjury for a number of Administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.
(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filing - those missing eight pages - "decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.")
Further, depending on what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it - and what they did or covered-up in the possible light of such knowledge - there may be plenty of ammunition for those calling for impeachment hearings. Note that Bush hired a private attorney last summer for this CIA leak case.
Quote:But, from what Fitzgerald has suggested, he and the grand jury long ago determined who the leakers were. That's not what the issue is about now. The investigation is all tied in with the national-security matters talked about on those blacked-out eight pages.
And, a reasonable guess is that those pages deal in some fashion with the actions - legal or illegal, overt or covert, actual or covered-up - of the members of an inner council of Administration heavies called the White House Iraq Group.
Quote:One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them
What I understand is Judge Tatel was ready to "write new law" establishing Federal Shield protection for reporters. Howver, the evidence was so compelling and the potential crime so onerous, he could not, in this case, warrant it.
I'm usually not too interested in what's on Yahoo news/opinion but the conclusion of
this piece ... click ... reminded me of what made me sad at the time of the Watergate hearings.
Quote:Rove's anger at a former diplomat's opinion piece in a newspaper may destroy all that he has dreamed. And if it does, it will ruin more than just a political operative. A president will likely come to grief. And disaffected Americans, made cynical by the failures of their government and its elected leaders, will find one more reason to disengage from the democratic process.
And that's the reason we all ought to be worried.
Waxman:Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet
Monday 18 July 2005
Dear Mr. President:
In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime." [2]
Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified." [3] Under the executive order, the available sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions." [4]
Under the executive order, you may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, you have an affirmative obligation to take "appropriate and prompt corrective action." [5] And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove "intentionally disclose[d]" the identity of a covert agent. [6] In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the express terms of the executive order, you are required to impose administrative sanctions - such as removal of office or termination of security clearance - if Mr. Rove or other officials acted "negligently" in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson's identity. [7]
I have enclosed a fact sheet on Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement and its legal implications, which provides additional detail about the President's national security obligations. I urge you to act in compliance with Executive Order 12958 and your responsibility to safeguard national security secrets.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Now, isn't that something? Bush is going to fire anybody in his administration that's a criminal.
Wonder what Molly Ivins is thinking/saying. Where is she?
Your piece, while well-intentioned, chooses to focus on a single statute; whereas there are many, many other crimes that could be levied against Rove et al.
See my piece on the last page as to why the 'I didn't know the information was secret' defense isn't going to hold up long.
Cycloptichorn
Re: Waxman:Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive O
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet
Monday 18 July 2005
Dear Mr. President:
In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."
[snip]
He didn't "change his position," he clarified it. On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, he said: "
If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Link.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Your piece, while well-intentioned, chooses to focus on a single statute; whereas there are many, many other crimes that could be levied against Rove et al.
See my piece on the last page as to why the 'I didn't know the information was secret' defense isn't going to hold up long.
Cycloptichorn
We'll just have to wait and see, won't we?
Actually we don't. It is common knowledge that the investigation has moved well past focusing just on the IIPA statute. But if you care to stay in denial, Tikey be my guest.
Chrissee wrote:Actually we don't. It is common knowledge that the investigation has moved well past focusing just on the IIPA statute. But if you stay in denial, be my guest.
lol. I can't keep up with your ever changing theories of why Karl Rove should be strung up ... so I don't try.
So now it's the old "it's common knowledge" approach again. That worked out quite well for you with the "
of course she's a 'covert agent'" angle, didn't it?
Re: Waxman:Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive O
Ticomaya wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet
Monday 18 July 2005
Dear Mr. President:
In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."
[snip]
He didn't "change his position," he clarified it. On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, he said: "
If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Link.
Kinda like how Bush continuously "clarifies" our reasons for invading Iraq.
Gotcha. :wink:
I am going to make my mid-year prediction now:
If Fitzgerald exhonerates Karl Rove of any wrongdoing, and I believe he will, a year from now Chrissee and his/her buddies will be still punctuating arguments on all sorts of topics with "Karl Rove outed a covert CIA agent."
Re: Waxman:Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive O
Ticomaya wrote:BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet
Monday 18 July 2005
Dear Mr. President:
In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."
[snip]
He didn't "change his position," he clarified it. On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, he said: "
If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Link.
Yes, he did.
Quote:White House statements, dating back over the two years of the case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush used language reminiscent of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
At other moments, though, Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said "yes."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/19/MNGSQDQ4BU1.DTL
But we all know that it doesn't matter what he said anyways. He's still going to be a lying piece of **** in my and many others' eyes, and he's still going to be the pillar of integrity and sincerity in yours.
Ticomaya wrote:Chrissee wrote:Actually we don't. It is common knowledge that the investigation has moved well past focusing just on the IIPA statute. But if you stay in denial, be my guest.
lol. I can't keep up with your ever changing theories of why Karl Rove should be strung up ... so I don't try.
So now it's the old "it's common knowledge" approach again. That worked out quite well for you with the "
of course she's a 'covert agent'" angle, didn't it?
Yoiu are not aware that Fitzgerald's focus has expanded? Why would anyone so sadly ill informed waste so much time posting opinions on a topic he knows so little about.. LOL
Perhaps, you should invest more time in learning the facts and less time spewing opinions not backed by fact.
The "not a covert agent" canard was put to rest long ago. LOL
