8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:12 pm
Apologies for 3 posts, but honestly do not remember clicking 3 times on first post, but instead doing an edit twice. Advocate, you will notice I took the "so get over it" phrase out in an effort to be a little nicer. Oh well, I tried.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:21 pm
I am convinced that, at the least, Rove and Libby are guilty of leaking. However, there may be some technical reasons that Fitz is not going after them for the actual leaking. BTW, Fitz never said they were not guilty of leaking, so let's not make up things.

I guess it is all academic inasmuch Bush will soon pardon Libby and maybe others. He doesn't want a lot of stuff coming out under oath. Of course, if the civil case is allowed to proceed, it will be quite interesting.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 05:55 am
Advocate wrote:
I am convinced that, at the least, Rove and Libby are guilty of leaking.


What's the punishment for that crime? Force them to wear Depends?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 06:51 am
timberlandko wrote:
Substance is the hinge on which the law swings, snood - without substance, there's legally nothing, like it or not, understand it or not.

What you seem to be confused about is that when someone asks you if you think someone has done anything wrong, they are not asking you if you think it is illegal. It is the simple distinction but evidently not an easy one for you to make.

They leaked knowledge about Wilson's wife as an act of political retribution. I asked if you thought that was wrong. You can dance around it with whatever 10 dollar words or run-on sentences you want. I didn't ask if you think it was illegal.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 07:13 am
On the matter of leaks, here's the most ironic little tidbit I've seen in a long time.
Quote:
A new book says that a comment by former CIA director Porter Goss alerted a journalist to the agency's controversial rendition program.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15236104/site/newsweek/
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Oct, 2006 08:43 am
snood wrote:
What you seem to be confused about is that when someone asks you if you think someone has done anything wrong, they are not asking you if you think it is illegal. It is the simple distinction but evidently not an easy one for you to make.

They leaked knowledge about Wilson's wife as an act of political retribution. I asked if you thought that was wrong. You can dance around it with whatever 10 dollar words or run-on sentences you want. I didn't ask if you think it was illegal.

No confusion here at all, snood - I'm fully aware that among the developments of the Fitzgerald witch hunt there has been no finding that anyone leaked anything, nor has there been any finding that political advantage was sought by anyone in connection with the matter at investigation. There appears to be no substance to the charges that "They leaked knowledge about Wilson's wife as an act of political retribution.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 05:13 pm
Ah, the Libby case is on. Fitz destroys, or at least batters, a memory expert who the defense hopes to use in the trial.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4290489.html
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 05:16 pm
Advocate, Thank you very much for the update.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Oct, 2006 11:18 pm
timberlandko wrote:

No confusion here at all, snood - I'm fully aware that among the developments of the Fitzgerald witch hunt there has been no finding that anyone leaked anything, nor has there been any finding that political advantage was sought by anyone in connection with the matter at investigation. There appears to be no substance to the charges that "They leaked knowledge about Wilson's wife as an act of political retribution.


The Fitzgerald witch hunt". Now Snood, here's a man that's as fair and balanced as Sean Hannity.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 11:31 am
A witch hunt is a witch hunt
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 11:38 am
Okay, just so I'm clear - square one.

Timber, do you believe that anyone in the Bush administration talked to anyone in the press about Valerie Plame, and if so, do you think that conversation had anything to do with Joseph Wilson?

Are you going to tell me that there is nothing to substantiate any of this?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 01:12 pm
I am going to tell you there is nothing to substantiate the allegation there was a White House anti-Wilkson smear campaign, and I'm going to tell you there is nothing to substantiate the allegation anyone maliciously, knowingly, and intentionally "leaked" Plame's identity.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 01:38 pm
Timber, if you look back in this thread, you will see plenty of evidence of these things. Of course, there may be technical reasons that criminal charges cannot be brought.

Let's hope for a good civil trial to clear the air.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 01:44 pm
timberlandko wrote:
I am going to tell you there is nothing to substantiate the allegation there was a White House anti-Wilkson smear campaign, and I'm going to tell you there is nothing to substantiate the allegation anyone maliciously, knowingly, and intentionally "leaked" Plame's identity.


You sound awfully damn sure of yourself for an outsider. Libby's aide de camp, perhaps? Others who are more on the periphery, like Bush and Rove think that this investigation is a "good thing". But what do they know compared to you, eh, Timber?

==================

11 February 2004 George W. Bush insists, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is...If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth...Leaks of classified information are bad things."


Bush and his White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have made several statements about the administration's response if anyone was found to have been involved in the leak:

McClellan - September 29, 2003: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."[8]

Bush - September 30, 2003: " And 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. ... I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."[9]

McClellan - October 7, 2003: "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants." and "If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business."[10]

Bush - June 10, 2004 (Responding to a media question which asked "do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have . . . leaked [Valerie Plame's] name?"): "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."[11]

Bush - July 18, 2005: "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

On April 6, 2006, it was widely reported[45] that George W. Bush authorized Libby to disclose the prior-to-then classified October 2002 NIE on Iraq's weapons program to Judith Miller to rebut charges by Joe Wilson, according to documents filed in federal court detailing Libby's grand jury testimony.[46] White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan confirmed that the president authorized the declassification to rebut charges by war critics, but declined to specifically address Libby's testimony.

During the Republican National Convention, Rove told CNN:
I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name. This is at the Justice Department. I'm confident that the U.S. Attorney, the prosecutor who's involved in looking at this is going to do a very thorough job of doing a very substantial and conclusive investigation.

30 September 2003: "Remarks by President Bush to the Travel Pool After Meeting with Business People" in Chicago, IL:
"I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_scandal_timeline
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 02:59 pm
Advocate wrote:
Timber, if you look back in this thread, you will see plenty of evidence of these things. Of course, there may be technical reasons that criminal charges cannot be brought.

Let's hope for a good civil trial to clear the air.

You'll see only allegations - no evidence, no indictments other than that pertaining to Libby's manner of testimony, no findings of malfeasance, no determination any law pertaining to national security or to libel or slander was broken. Unless and untill charges pertaining to the central issue are brought and successfully prosecuted, there is nothing to the central issue but allegation.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 03:08 pm
IF someone in the Bush administration intentionally leaked about Plame for retribution against Wilson because he hurt them with his report about yellowcake, do you see anything wrong with that?

Hypothetically.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 03:13 pm
I think there was a leak, but that the motive was to let the voting public know that the guy who was smearing them re yellowcake--and the guy who "conducted the investigation (NOT)" was an anti-Bush guy who had strings within the organization to get the assignment, which he wasn't qualified for.

It was a hatchet job and his wife had the key to the box containing the Golden Hatchet.

I don' think they thought it a million years that Plame--a desk jockey--was considered covert in any way.

It wasn't to hurt her--in other words--it was to expose HIM.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 03:21 pm
Well, timber?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 03:21 pm
snood, IF things were as you pose, then there would be substance to the allegations. However, to this point, nothing - apart from Bushophobic ranting - indicates things were as you pose.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Oct, 2006 04:50 pm
Lash wrote:
I think there was a leak, but that the motive was to let the voting public know that the guy who was smearing them re yellowcake--and the guy who "conducted the investigation (NOT)" was an anti-Bush guy who had strings within the organization to get the assignment, which he wasn't qualified for.

Is this grand delusion or chutzpah of an Everest nature.

These jokers lie their asses off after having received numerous warnings numerous times,


Quote:
Tenet and other CIA officials directed the text be removed from the speech as the certainty regarding the accuracy of the claim was weak.


Quote:
It is later revealed (in July 2003) that George Tenet had intervened to remove language from that speech referencing Iraq's alleged pursuit of Niger uranium. More specifically, Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was reported to be a main target of Tenet's entreaties.


Quote:
19 December 2002: By this date the uranium claim, which George Tenet had removed from Bush's October speech in Cincinnati, had found its way back into a State Department "fact sheet." Following that, the Pentagon requests an authoritative judgement from the National Intelligence Council as to whether or not Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.


January 2003: The National Intelligence Council, responding to the Pentagon's request, drafts a memo addressing the Niger uranium story in which they conclude the story is baseless. The memo arrives at the White House prior to the State of the Union address given later that month.

6 January 2003: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) asks the United States for any information related to the claim that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from Niger.
13 January 2003: The INR's nuclear analyst sends email to colleagues providing rationale on why the Yellowcake document is a hoax. The CIA's nuclear analyst does not have the documents in question and requests a copy.
16 January 2003: CIA received copies of the original foreign language documents on the Niger-Iraq contract.
27 January 2003: During a National Security Council meeting at the White House, someone hands George Tenet a hardcopy of President Bush's State of the Union address. Tenet is too busy to read it and hands it to an aide who passes it to a top official in the CIA intelligence directorate who was also too busy to read it.
28 January 2003: President George W. Bush gives his State of the Union speech.


and Lash has the audacity to weave this crazy little tale.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 12:43:22