Happy precedent for the Gonzales/Card 12 hour delay...
Quote:From "Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up," former Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh wrote, "Just before noon on Friday, November 21, [1986]...Reagn agreed that someone should develop a coherent position for the administration. The assignment went to Meese. When North and Poindexter learned about the attorney general's mission, they stepped up their efforts to purge their files. North and his secretary, Fawn Hall, shredded a pile of documents."
Walsh noted, "Over the weekend, the attorney general questioned cabinet officers. He exchanged many telephone callsÂ…but, departing from his usual practice, took no notes. Meese later claimed that he could not remember what was said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050725/cm_huffpost/004649/nc:742
coachryan wrote:snood wrote:One thing about this whole discussion that gives me pause is the way there's so much emphasis not on whether there's anything wrong with what Rove did, but on whether or not the lawyers can get him punished for it. One thing has to do with right and wrong; the other on money and spin. Amazing.
It's as if we skip right over if the person got mugged to haggle over the terms of the plea for the mugger.
Thank you!
Somebody set off a bomb within our intelligence community, destroying agent's identities and their contacts, and we're disscussing whether those persons are criminally vindictive or criminally negligent...
Either way thier criminals!
So much for "The Party of National Security" getting tough on crime. 
On the one hand, Snood seems to be suggesting that regardless of whether a crime was committed, what Rove did was "wrong." You applaud his remarks, yet you take us right back to this issue of whether a "crime" was committed, and in fact you assert that a crime -- some crime -- was committed. Criminal behavior is proscribed through the enactment of laws. That is why it is appropriate and correct to discuss whether the law has even been broken in this instance ... and if it hasn't, whether the law needs to be changed and strengthened.
But then again, Snood himself takes us back to the issue of whether a crime was committed when he says: "
It's as if we skip right over if the person got mugged to haggle over the terms of the plea for the mugger."
You are exactly right, Snood. What the anti-Rove libbies on this thread would like to do is ignore the question of whether a mugging occurred, skip over the intervening trial, and sentence who they perceive is the mugger.
sumac wrote:I also thank you, snood, for putting it right up front. But give lawyers an opportunity and they will always spin things only toward law.
Yes, how dare the lawyers bring the pesky law into the discussion? We should just forget that we are talking about a criminal investigation, and a grand jury inquiry, with possible criminal indictments if warranted, followed by a trial. What's the law got to do with any of that?
And anyway ....
sumac wrote:As frank Rich's article above, and another article above where Rove was overheard yelling about "f**king" people over and destroying them, the arrogance embodied in that kind of power corrupts absolutely, vengeful attitude, is stark.
... we don't like Rove's attitude, so he needs to go.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:btw, pf @ live 8 is up on limewire. 850megs.
Already grabbed it. :wink:
Well, politics is about a lot more than just crimes, Tico.
Attitude does make a difference.
Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter wrote:Stradee, I wish that was true, but we all know what Bush said about firing anybody in his administration that leaked the info. Now, it's anybody who has legally committed a crime. The next step is when anybody in his administration is sent to prison.
Of course you are aware that when he was
first asked about the Plame case on
September 30, 2003, Bush 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."
According to the transcript, Bush said as well: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Source
Walter Hinteler wrote:Ticomaya wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:Stradee, I wish that was true, but we all know what Bush said about firing anybody in his administration that leaked the info. Now, it's anybody who has legally committed a crime. The next step is when anybody in his administration is sent to prison.
Of course you are aware that when he was
first asked about the Plame case on
September 30, 2003, Bush 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."
According to the transcript, Bush said as well: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."
Source
Thanks Walter. Are you of the camp that would equate the more vague "appropriate action" with "terminating," in light of his specific statement just moments earlier of tying his action to a finding that the person has "violated law"?
Jesus Christ, are you guys arguing this crap about what Bush said again?
He said he would fire anyone who leaked information at one point, and then at another point, he said he would fire anyone who violated the law. Isn't that what's called "Hedging your bets"?
God he's such an incredibly slimy prick...
kickycan wrote:Jesus Christ, are you guys arguing this crap about what Bush said again?
He said he would fire anyone who leaked information at one point, and then at another point, he said he would fire anyone who violated the law. Isn't that what's called "Hedging your bets"?
Yes, Kicky ... that's what we're talking about. If you've been paying attention, you know that I'm pointing out to those that would claim Bush has "raised his standard" on this issue, that he initially tied his action to a finding that the person had violated the law. That was in 2003. His recent statement was consistent with that initial remark, and served to clarify his 2004 comment.
Quote:God he's such an incredibly slimy prick...
No ... that was Clinton before Monica's ministrations.
From someone's blog I found while out Googling about reporters who knew Plame's job.
Who DIDN'T know?
I Smell Press Cover-Up (And I'm Steaming)
I believe there may be a substantial, ongoing press cover-up in the Plame leak investigation. Various White House staffers claim to have heard about Ms. Plame from reporters, but not many reporters seem to have been subpoenaed - for example, in their recent coverage Adam Liptak of the Times only noted Matt Cooper of TIME, Judy Miller of the NY Times, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler of the WaPo, and Tim Russert of NBC News, in addition to the shadowy Robert Novak.
The picture of a beehive of reporters buzzing around the White House and chatting about Wilson and his wife is being leaked by folks seemingly sympathetic to the White House staffers. However, there aren't enough reporters in the story (only Judy seems to be unaccounted for), which poses some political puzzles for the White House.
But wait! Let's flash back to March 2004, when Newsday reported on subpoenas in the Plame investigation. Here is part of Newsday's list:
A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July. They include:
Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times
Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday
Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post
Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine
Evan Thomas, Newsweek
Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC
Chris Matthews, "Hardball," MSNBC
Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC
Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times
Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal
John Solomon, The Associated Press
Jeff Gannon, Talon News
Just to be clear, let's add this detail from the story:
There have been no reports of journalists being subpoenaed.
-----------
Talk is Russert told Libby.
Everybody knew.
I sense a Gannon joke coming ..... PDiddie should be along any minute now.
Yeah. I wouldn't cut it.
....deep throat....
Ticomaya wrote:kickycan wrote:Jesus Christ, are you guys arguing this crap about what Bush said again?
He said he would fire anyone who leaked information at one point, and then at another point, he said he would fire anyone who violated the law. Isn't that what's called "Hedging your bets"?
Yes, Kicky ... that's what we're talking about. If you've been paying attention...
I have been, and I was twenty pages ago when I called you on your bullshit.
Maybe if I feel like wasting my time I'll go back and find that post, but what's the point? You'll just wait another few days until you think that everyone's not paying attention again and bring up your spun version of what happened again.
It's laughable, really.
Lash wrote:Because I leave the stupid **** to you
ya coulda fooled me.
lash:
Quote:NO. Inside the beltway does count for something. Widely known in DC and widely known globally are two different things. I guess we should be grateful to her that she didn't do a Playboy spread with her interests listed as "Spying for those crazy Americans." A lot of people knew. Mitchell admitted it on the news and that it was well known in their social circle. It was known. She did blab, and nothing you say will change that.
other than you haven't proven it. where's the links ???
good grief.
i looked for my self. the only place i find referrence to mitchell's admission is on right wing blogs and are attributed to hilail gildin, an adherent and devotee of strauss. the godfather of the the neo-con movement.
sure as hell couldn't find it on msnbc though. how strange.
as far as the list you posted of "journalists that knew";
once again, only listed on right wing blogs and always say "what if they all knew".
fageddabowdit...
Tico,
There is more to right and wrong than only the pre-existing law in the US.
kickycan wrote:Ticomaya wrote:kickycan wrote:Jesus Christ, are you guys arguing this crap about what Bush said again?
He said he would fire anyone who leaked information at one point, and then at another point, he said he would fire anyone who violated the law. Isn't that what's called "Hedging your bets"?
Yes, Kicky ... that's what we're talking about. If you've been paying attention...
I have been, and I was twenty pages ago when I called you on your bullshit.
Maybe if I feel like wasting my time I'll go back and find that post, but what's the point? You'll just wait another few days until you think that everyone's not paying attention again and bring up your spun version of what happened again.
It's laughable, really.
Um, I didn't bring it up ... c.i. did .... and you would've known that if you had been paying attention. It was I who was calling him on his bullshit.
Go look up your prior post if you think it will add anything to the debate. I've pointed out that the very first time Bush was asked about it, he responded by tying his possible action with regard to a leaker in his administration to a violation of law. Do you deny that he did?
Responding to your posts, as you wish them to be responded to, is too time consuming, Tico. Not to mention a waste of time. Let it go.
sumac wrote:Responding to your posts, as you wish them to be responded to, is too time consuming, Tico. Not to mention a waste of time. Let it go.
Well, in this case it's a simple "yes" or "no" answer.
