8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 12:14 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.


You are 100% incorrect about this. A suspect cannot assert a right not to self-indemnify if he has already been pardoned, or if he has been given immunity by Congress.


What are his 5A rights since he's already been convicted?

And when you wrote "self-indemnify," can we agree you meant to say "self-incriminate"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 12:27 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.


You are 100% incorrect about this. A suspect cannot assert a right not to self-indemnify if he has already been pardoned, or if he has been given immunity by Congress.


What are his 5A rights since he's already been convicted?

And when you wrote "self-indemnify," can we agree you meant to say "self-incriminate"?


We can use whatever words are best appropriate - I'm sure that you know better then I do.

It's my understanding that, as he hasn't been pardoned for the crime, he cannot be forced to testify; new information can still lead to a re-trial.

A full pardon would prevent this from happening, even if new information were to arise. Am I wrong in stating this?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:07 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.


You are 100% incorrect about this. A suspect cannot assert a right not to self-indemnify if he has already been pardoned, or if he has been given immunity by Congress.


What are his 5A rights since he's already been convicted?

And when you wrote "self-indemnify," can we agree you meant to say "self-incriminate"?


We can use whatever words are best appropriate - I'm sure that you know better then I do.

It's my understanding that, as he hasn't been pardoned for the crime, he cannot be forced to testify; new information can still lead to a re-trial.

A full pardon would prevent this from happening, even if new information were to arise. Am I wrong in stating this?

Cycloptichorn


What are we talking about? A pardon for what? A retrial for what? These are important questions. If his testimony might tend to incriminate him, then he can assert his 5A right to not self-incriminate. But that would not be appropriate if all the testimony would do is incriminate him in a crime he's already been convicted of. As to different crimes, of which he's not been convicted, his 5A rights would apply as to them.

So, are we talking about a Bush pardon of crimes of which he HAS or HAS NOT been convicted? Do you see the importance of the distinction?

I doubt Bush will pardon him for crimes he's not been convicted of.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:12 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

He can assert his 5th amendment rights anytime he wants, there is no limitation on that.


You are 100% incorrect about this. A suspect cannot assert a right not to self-indemnify if he has already been pardoned, or if he has been given immunity by Congress.


What are his 5A rights since he's already been convicted?

And when you wrote "self-indemnify," can we agree you meant to say "self-incriminate"?


We can use whatever words are best appropriate - I'm sure that you know better then I do.

It's my understanding that, as he hasn't been pardoned for the crime, he cannot be forced to testify; new information can still lead to a re-trial.

A full pardon would prevent this from happening, even if new information were to arise. Am I wrong in stating this?

Cycloptichorn


What are we talking about? A pardon for what? A retrial for what? These are important questions. If his testimony might tend to incriminate him, then he can assert his 5A right to not self-incriminate. But that would not be appropriate if all the testimony would do is incriminate him in a crime he's already been convicted of. As to different crimes, of which he's not been convicted, his 5A rights would apply as to them.

So, are we talking about a Bush pardon of crimes of which he HAS or HAS NOT been convicted? Do you see the importance of the distinction?

I doubt Bush will pardon him for crimes he's not been convicted of.


I see the distinction.

There is precedent for politicos being pardoned for crimes they haven't been convicted of. I doubt Bush would do it unless it was considered the last resort.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:15 pm
Apologies for the dangling participle, btw.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 01:42 pm
Here is the true story on the CIA's redaction of much of Plame's book. It gives the lowdown on the poor support the agency gives its agents.

Watchdog says CIA mishandling declassification duties, wasting resourcesNick Juliano
Published: Thursday December 6, 2007


The CIA is wasting resources devoted to declassifying decades-old intelligence documents by reviewing the same documents several times and trying to re-classify information that has already been released to the public, an open-government watchdog charges.

"I believe that CIA has been improperly withholding declassified information as if it were classified," Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, wrote Thursday in a letter to the director of the CIA's Information Security Oversight Office.

Aftergood points to two different versions of a declassified CIA history of "The Berlin Tunnel Operation, 1952-1956." The CIA recently released one version of a report on the operation -- which aimed to tap Soviet phone lines by tunneling into Berlin -- that was declassified in July; however, a version of the same report already was released in February.

"Astonishingly, much of the text that was released in February is marked as classified in the July version!" Aftergood writes on the project's Secrecy News blog.

The July report, for example, did not even include the code-name of the operation -- PBJOINTLY, which was published in the February version. Furthermore, July's version heavily redacted two previously declassified appendices to the report totaling 21 pages.

Another report, "Record of Paramilitary Action Against the Castro Government of Cuba" from 1961, also was posted online by the CIA after it was subjected to declassification review this year. However, as Aftergood notes, the same report was reviewed a decade ago, and a version containing no less information was released in 1998.

"In other words," Aftergood writes at Secrecy News, "despite the CIA's expenditure of scarce declassification resources to process the document twice, no value was added by doing so."

The CIA made news with its zealous classification earlier this year when outed-spy Valerie Plame Wilson sued the agency claiming it was interfering with her memoir by refusing to allow her to write how long she was with the CIA.

That information already existed in the public sphere, however, because it is contained in an unclassified letter from the CIA to Wilson that has been published in the Congressional Record. (To avoid what she saw as the CIA's obstructionism, Plame included in her memoir an afterword by American Prospect reporter Laura Rozen, who filled in censored dates and places from published sources.)

For Aftergood and the Project on Government Secrecy, the CIA's shortfalls aren't about settling a personal matter, as much as about ensuring historians have access to as much of the agency's records as possible.

"For the CIA to represent the material that was newly redacted in July 2007 as classified when in fact it has been declassified and published by the CIA itself is, I believe, a violation of the executive order," Aftergood wrote in his letter to the agency. "It generates confusion and suggests poor quality control, if not something worse."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 05:29 pm
mysteryman wrote:
blatham said...

Quote:
Does anyone on this board wish to engage me in a wager? $1000 dollars at 2 to 1 odds that there is a pardon.

Takers?


I'll take that bet!!


Witnesses, please draw close.

Do I take it then, MM, that your wager has it that Bush will refuse to pardon Libby while Bush retains the power of the presidency to do so? And that if Bush does pardon him, you will send me $1000 Canadian?

As to my part, if Bush refuses to pardon Libby, then I will send you $2000 Canadian.

Are we agreed?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 05:50 pm
Actually, $2,000 Canadian is worth more than $2,000 US currency.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 07:37 pm
okie wrote:
Most sane people have known that for a long time, imposter, but some leftists still sit around and fantacize about it, so I only throw out the challenge to such people after I read a link such as Advocate posted, that is based on nothing but fantasy and grasping at straws, as they desperately still hope to find one issue that will ever prove credible enough to finally indicate what they so desperately want to believe.


Sane people realize that it is imperative that this most criminal of criminals has to be impeached. The alternative will clearly illustrate just what a banana republic the USA is. A Constitution that has been shredded, now lies useless when the next criminal is voted into office.

I think that many, most [?] are fearful that an impeachment will illustrate to the world that these boys deserve to be shipped to The Hague, but that degree of honesty is way too much to expect of the USA.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 07:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Actually, $2,000 Canadian is worth more than $2,000 US currency.


Was, not too long ago, but not today, CI.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 08:00 pm
I just wanted to choose a dependable currency.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 09:10 pm
JTT wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Actually, $2,000 Canadian is worth more than $2,000 US currency.


Was, not too long ago, but not today, CI.



Yup; it wasn't that long ago the Canadia dollar was worth more. Today, it's about break even.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 09:28 pm
JTT wrote:
okie wrote:
Most sane people have known that for a long time, imposter, but some leftists still sit around and fantacize about it, so I only throw out the challenge to such people after I read a link such as Advocate posted, that is based on nothing but fantasy and grasping at straws, as they desperately still hope to find one issue that will ever prove credible enough to finally indicate what they so desperately want to believe.


Sane people realize that it is imperative that this most criminal of criminals has to be impeached. The alternative will clearly illustrate just what a banana republic the USA is. A Constitution that has been shredded, now lies useless when the next criminal is voted into office.

I think that many, most [?] are fearful that an impeachment will illustrate to the world that these boys deserve to be shipped to The Hague, but that degree of honesty is way too much to expect of the USA.

But I suppose you would never claim the Clintons were criminals for the numerous crimes and abuse of power that they did on a regular basis? In other words, could this possibly be about politics, not crimes? After all, if it were crimes, the Clintons would have never finished their terms would they?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 09:56 pm
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham said...

Quote:
Does anyone on this board wish to engage me in a wager? $1000 dollars at 2 to 1 odds that there is a pardon.

Takers?


I'll take that bet!!


Witnesses, please draw close.

Do I take it then, MM, that your wager has it that Bush will refuse to pardon Libby while Bush retains the power of the presidency to do so? And that if Bush does pardon him, you will send me $1000 Canadian?

As to my part, if Bush refuses to pardon Libby, then I will send you $2000 Canadian.

Are we agreed?


Yes, I DO NOT think that Bush will pardon Libby at any time during his term.
I think Bush did the right thing to commute his sentence, and I think he knows that pardoning him will be a huge error.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Dec, 2007 10:32 pm
mysteryman wrote:
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham said...

Quote:
Does anyone on this board wish to engage me in a wager? $1000 dollars at 2 to 1 odds that there is a pardon.

Takers?


I'll take that bet!!


Witnesses, please draw close.

Do I take it then, MM, that your wager has it that Bush will refuse to pardon Libby while Bush retains the power of the presidency to do so? And that if Bush does pardon him, you will send me $1000 Canadian?

As to my part, if Bush refuses to pardon Libby, then I will send you $2000 Canadian.

Are we agreed?


Yes, I DO NOT think that Bush will pardon Libby at any time during his term.
I think Bush did the right thing to commute his sentence, and I think he knows that pardoning him will be a huge error.


OK then. A wager it is.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 12:02 am
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
blatham said...

Quote:
Does anyone on this board wish to engage me in a wager? $1000 dollars at 2 to 1 odds that there is a pardon.

Takers?


I'll take that bet!!


Witnesses, please draw close.

Do I take it then, MM, that your wager has it that Bush will refuse to pardon Libby while Bush retains the power of the presidency to do so? And that if Bush does pardon him, you will send me $1000 Canadian?

As to my part, if Bush refuses to pardon Libby, then I will send you $2000 Canadian.

Are we agreed?


Yes, I DO NOT think that Bush will pardon Libby at any time during his term.
I think Bush did the right thing to commute his sentence, and I think he knows that pardoning him will be a huge error.


OK then. A wager it is.



The only way that MM collects is if Libby dies before 1/2009. The only way Blatham collects is if MM puts the money in escrow now.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 09:37 am
okie wrote:
JTT wrote:
okie wrote:
Most sane people have known that for a long time, imposter, but some leftists still sit around and fantacize about it, so I only throw out the challenge to such people after I read a link such as Advocate posted, that is based on nothing but fantasy and grasping at straws, as they desperately still hope to find one issue that will ever prove credible enough to finally indicate what they so desperately want to believe.


Sane people realize that it is imperative that this most criminal of criminals has to be impeached. The alternative will clearly illustrate just what a banana republic the USA is. A Constitution that has been shredded, now lies useless when the next criminal is voted into office.

I think that many, most [?] are fearful that an impeachment will illustrate to the world that these boys deserve to be shipped to The Hague, but that degree of honesty is way too much to expect of the USA.

But I suppose you would never claim the Clintons were criminals for the numerous crimes and abuse of power that they did on a regular basis? In other words, could this possibly be about politics, not crimes? After all, if it were crimes, the Clintons would have never finished their terms would they?



Clinton was never convicted of a crime. That is because he committed no crimes.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 09:40 am
Advocate wrote:
okie wrote:
JTT wrote:
okie wrote:
Most sane people have known that for a long time, imposter, but some leftists still sit around and fantacize about it, so I only throw out the challenge to such people after I read a link such as Advocate posted, that is based on nothing but fantasy and grasping at straws, as they desperately still hope to find one issue that will ever prove credible enough to finally indicate what they so desperately want to believe.


Sane people realize that it is imperative that this most criminal of criminals has to be impeached. The alternative will clearly illustrate just what a banana republic the USA is. A Constitution that has been shredded, now lies useless when the next criminal is voted into office.

I think that many, most [?] are fearful that an impeachment will illustrate to the world that these boys deserve to be shipped to The Hague, but that degree of honesty is way too much to expect of the USA.

But I suppose you would never claim the Clintons were criminals for the numerous crimes and abuse of power that they did on a regular basis? In other words, could this possibly be about politics, not crimes? After all, if it were crimes, the Clintons would have never finished their terms would they?



Clinton was never convicted of a crime. That is because he committed no crimes.


Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 09:41 am
Quote:
The only way that MM collects is if Libby dies before 1/2009. The only way Blatham collects is if MM puts the money in escrow now.
Death, of either Scooter or myself will nullify the wager. If MM perishes, I will come after his children for the money.

But, no, I trust MM.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Dec, 2007 10:05 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
The only way that MM collects is if Libby dies before 1/2009. The only way Blatham collects is if MM puts the money in escrow now.
Death, of either Scooter or myself will nullify the wager. If MM perishes, I will come after his children for the money.

But, no, I trust MM.


If I die, you will have a problem.
I dont have any children (that I know of).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/10/2020 at 12:30:18