Or is he at large?
And if he isn’t, could someone please explain to me why not?
At one time, reporters that DIDN’T mention Valery Plames name were in jail? And this traitor is still free ? ?
Why is that?
He probably spilled hit guts before the grandy jury. The only reporters being charged with anything were the ones that were refusing to cooperate.
[quote]ExNole wrote:
He probably spilled hit guts before the grandy jury. The only reporters being charged with anything were the ones that were refusing to cooperate. [/quote]
It is good to know that a lack of spine still pays off…
I have to trust in something…
If all else fails, just remember, bend and spread?em, everything is going to be fine…
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Or is he at large?
And if he isn’t, could someone please explain to me why not?
At one time, reporters that DIDN’T mention Valery Plames name were in jail? And this traitor is still free ? ?
Why is that?[/quote]
Probably because 1) It’s not been established that “leaking” Plame’s name was a crime; and 2) The reporters who were jailed were jailed for contempt of court for not revealing their sources, not for leaking Plame’s name.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Or is he at large?
And if he isn’t, could someone please explain to me why not?
At one time, reporters that DIDN’T mention Valery Plames name were in jail? And this traitor is still free ? ?
Why is that?
Probably because 1) It’s not been established that “leaking” Plame’s name was a crime; and 2) The reporters who were jailed were jailed for contempt of court for not revealing their sources, not for leaking Plame’s name.[/quote]
BB, don’t confuse a troll like Wreckless with little things like facts.
Facts?
Isn’t it a fact that revealing an undercover agents name is a crime?
If it wasn’t, why would the courts be looking into it and demand that other journalists revealed their sources?
Also, if Novak revealed his sources, they know who they are. So why look further?
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Facts?
Isn’t it a fact that revealing an undercover agents name is a crime?
If it wasn’t, why would the courts be looking into it and demand that other journalists revealed their sources?
Also, if Novak revealed his sources, they know who they are. So why look further?[/quote]
I’m sure you can find a good timeline on the investigation somewhere online. Maybe Wikipedia? BB said it hasn’t been established that it was a crime yet. That means it could very bewell be criminal, but since there hasn’t been a trial or any indictments and the grand jury meetings are closed, it isn’t known.
Different people have looked at the statutes and come to different conclusions, with party lines being the deciding factor in a lot of cases.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Or is he at large?
And if he isn’t, could someone please explain to me why not?
At one time, reporters that DIDN’T mention Valery Plames name were in jail? And this traitor is still free ? ?
Why is that?
Probably because 1) It’s not been established that “leaking” Plame’s name was a crime; and 2) The reporters who were jailed were jailed for contempt of court for not revealing their sources, not for leaking Plame’s name.[/quote]
BOHICA!
Brewster Jennings & Associates
Brewster Jennings & Associates
Brewster Jennings & Associates
The only hope that your friends have is the Democrats do not gain 15 seats.
The Shit Show will begin.
No crime was commited because no one hase been found guilty of committing a crime.
I guess the same is true for Clinton with the exception of perjury…right?
I guess the same is true for OJ too?
who is novak the rat???
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Facts?
Isn’t it a fact that revealing an undercover agents name is a crime?[/quote]
Intentionally revealing information that would reveal the name of an undercover agent would be a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, passed in 1981.
Two problems: 1) It’s unclear that Ms. Plame would fit the statutory definition of an undercover agent, because of two issues: whether she had been actively undercover within the previous 5 years (a requirement of the statute); and whether the CIA was actively protecting her identity. Both of those are unclear, and in my mind are increasingly unlikely given the passage of time with no charges.
- To be found guilty under the statute, one needs to have known that the person identified was a covert agent, and to have intentionally disclosed that identity. Knowing that Plame worked for the CIA isn’t enough to trigger the statute. One would have to know she was an undercover agent, and to have disclosed her identity on purpose.
The state of mind issue, of course, is why marmadogg can repeat Brewster Jennings until he is blue in the face, and it’s still irrelevant w/r/t whether a crime was committed. Even assuming arguendo that Ms. Plame’s popularity led to the discovery of Brewster Jennings, it’s irrelevant unless the person who disclosed her identity did so with the intent of exposing Brewster Jennings.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
If it wasn’t, why would the courts be looking into it and demand that other journalists revealed their sources?[/quote]
The courts were looking into it because a special prosecutor was appointed. The special prosecutor was appointed for political reasons.
It’s been about 3 years now, and no charges have been filed relating to the “leaked” name – which leads one to believe, in the light that would look worst on the administration, that the prosecutors don’t believe they could get a conviction, and in the light that would look best on the administration, that they decided nothing illegal occurred, even if there was political hardball afoot.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Also, if Novak revealed his sources, they know who they are. So why look further?[/quote]
Excellent point. I’ve no doubt they know who Novak’s sources were. But given no crime, they won’t reveal them. The only crime charged thus far, and the only crime that will be charged, is perjury in front of the grand jury.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
No crime was commited because no one hase been found guilty of committing a crime.
[/quote]
Not only has no one been convicted of anything related to Plame’s name, no one has even been charged. After 3 years and a complete investigation.
So far, one charge: perjury to the grand jury.
Some very insightful perspective from “leak” recipient Walter Pincus:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2006/2/Glenn.asp
Relevant Excerpt:
On June 12, 2003, Pincus wrote about a former ambassador who had gone on a fact-finding mission to Niger in early 2002. Expanding on earlier coverage by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, Pincus reported that the ambassador had found no evidence that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium there. Three weeks later, on July 6, the ambassador revealed his identity in an op-ed essay in The New York Times and in an interview with Pincus and Richard Leiby in the Post. For better or worse, the world had been introduced to Joseph Wilson.
Then, on July 12 ? two days before the immortal column in which Robert Novak mentioned that Wilson?s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA ? Pincus was on the phone with a person he describes as an administration official (and not Lewis Libby). They were talking about a somewhat different topic, and then the official began to complain about the attention that Wilson?s arguments had been receiving. Didn?t Pincus know, the official said, that Wilson?s wife was at the CIA, and that she had cooked up the Niger trip? ?It was, ?Why are you writing about it? It?s a boondoggle. She arranged it,?? Pincus recalls.
This July 12 conversation, Pincus says, was the first time he ever heard of Valerie Plame?s CIA employment. (In previous accounts, he has not been entirely explicit about that point.) He says he has no recollection of Woodward?s mentioning Plame in the newsroom the previous month. He also says that while he was reporting the lengthy June articles on prewar intelligence, he discussed Wilson?s Niger report with members of several federal agencies. Some of those sources criticized the report on various grounds, Pincus says, but ?not one person mentioned Wilson?s wife.?
Pincus never wrote about Valerie Plame ? in part, he says, because he already knew a fair amount about the origins of Wilson?s trip from various sources, including some in the CIA. He did not think it was true that Plame had arranged the trip; and even if that were so, he thought, it had little bearing on the merits or lack thereof of Wilson?s report. After Novak?s column ran, he says, ?I talked to the agency people, and they said it wasn?t true.?
Pincus says that he did not tell anyone ? including Post colleagues ? about the July 12 conversation for three months, even after Novak?s column generated a firestorm and people began to wonder how extensive the administration?s whispering campaign had been. Only when it became clear that the federal investigation of the leak was a serious one, Pincus says, did he feel a need to come forward. On October 12, Pincus and Mike Allen wrote a story about the investigation (the tone of which reflected a certain skepticism that criminal laws had actually been violated). The article mentioned that ?a Post reporter? had been told of Plame?s employment on July 12, but did not name Pincus himself as the reporter in question.
In mid-2004, Patrick Fitzgerald?s office issued subpoenas to Pincus and the Post, demanding details of the 2003 conversations. Pincus initially refused to cooperate, but Fitzgerald soon made clear that Pincus?s source was cooperating with the investigation, and that the source was willing for Pincus to speak to the prosecutors. ?I have very strong feelings about protecting sources,? Pincus explains, ?and particularly about protecting the identity of your sources. But once it?s clear that your source has come forward to the prosecutor, I don?t think you have a leg to stand on.? In an oft-repeated formulation, Pincus says, ?It?s the source?s privilege, not the reporter?s.? Once his source had made it clear, through their attorneys, that it was okay for Pincus to talk, and after agreeing on some ground rules ? including that the source?s name would not be disclosed publicly and that Fitzgerald would not explicitly ask Pincus to confirm the source?s identity ? Pincus sat down to speak with Fitzgerald.
Pincus believes that the Bush administration acted obnoxiously when it leaked Valerie Plame?s identity, but he has never been convinced by the argument that the leaks violated the law. ?I don?t think it was a crime,? he says. ?I think it got turned into a crime by the press, by Joe? ? Wilson ? ?by the Democrats. The New York Times kept running editorials saying that it?s got to be investigated ? never thinking that it was going to turn around and bite them.? The entire Plame investigation, he says, has been a distraction from a more fundamental conversation about how the White House handled evidence before the war.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Or is he at large?
And if he isn’t, could someone please explain to me why not?
At one time, reporters that DIDN’T mention Valery Plames name were in jail? And this traitor is still free ? ?
Why is that?
Probably because 1) It’s not been established that “leaking” Plame’s name was a crime; and 2) The reporters who were jailed were jailed for contempt of court for not revealing their sources, not for leaking Plame’s name.[/quote]
BB, now here is the thing.
I am sure you are right.
However, if a system is in place that punishes people with a spine and let?s people like Nowak thrive…
Let’s cut through all the legal crap.
This is how I see it.
A guy is sent to Africa to find proof. When he gets there, he doesn’t find anything. He comes back, and reports about it.
He’s surprised when his reports are apparantly ignored and is not silent about it.
Some one up there decideds to punish him and leaks the fact that his wife works for the CIA to some “friendly” reporters.
Novak, the usefull idiot and spineless ratt that he is, blows her cover and gets a free pass in return. The others don’t and go to jail for “contempt of court”.
WTF. This court DESERVES contempt. This whole system DESERVES contempt.
And about " The special prosecutor was appointed for political reasons."
Gee, that would be a first. Wouldn’t it?
Republicans smell.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Let’s cut through all the legal crap.
This is how I see it.
[/quote]
Cut through all the “legal crap”? Like whether a crime was actually committed? Let’s just punish people who Wreckless doesn’t like, laws be damned?
[quote]
A guy is sent to Africa to find proof. When he gets there, he doesn’t find anything. He comes back, and reports about it.[/quote]
A guy is recommended by his CIA employee wife to investigate what she refers to as a “crazy report” that Saddam is trying to buy yellowcake. That’s in Wilson’s own book. He says Plame called him and asked if he’d go check out this “crazy report.” Of course this “crazy report” had been confirmed by several European intelligence agencies, including those of Great Britain, Israel and France.
In his NY times article he says:
The “officials” were his wife.
She had no objectivity. Neither did he. She knew he opposed to regime change on Saddam, had opposed it in '91, and was very unlikely to be unbiased at all.
He goes to Africa trying to prove a report about which he wrote, “As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it.”
He asks some people if Saddam is trying to buy yellowcake and they say, “No way. Not here. Not from us. We wouldn’t sell yellowcake to an enemy of the U.S.” He came back and gave a report.
A few years later, Plame signs a $2.5 million book deal.
[quote]
He’s surprised when his reports are apparantly ignored and is not silent about it.[/quote]
Not “reports”. Briefing. Singular. Not even written, actually. Just an oral briefing. From his home. He didn’t even have to go to CIA headquarters or anything.
He’s surprised that Bush doesn’t give much weight to an oral report from a guy who had opposed the 1st Gulf War. An oral briefing on the validity of a report Wilson admits he never actually read. An oral report that just says, “I couldn’t prove the report (which I haven’t read) is true.”
Do you really think he was surprised it wasn’t given much weight?
[quote]
Some one up there decideds to punish him and leaks the fact that his wife works for the CIA to some “friendly” reporters.
Novak, the usefull idiot and spineless ratt that he is, blows her cover and gets a free pass in return. The others don’t and go to jail for “contempt of court”.[/quote]
Someone calls Novack and says, “Wilson was chosen by his wife.” Novack contacted the CIA, who confirmed Ms. Plame’s status as a CIA employee, and requested that the information not be published. Requested. Not ordered. Not warned. Requested.
In the ensuing investigation, it is found that neither of the statutes that Mr. Fitzgerald was supposed to have been investigating, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act, have been violated. The more relevant of the two statues, the 1982 Act, requires that the government be taking “affirmative measures”? to conceal the identity of the agent in question, and it appears that the CIA was not doing so in the case of Ms. Plame (not to mention the fact that it has been suggested that her identity was sold by Aldrich Ames as early as 1994). The 1917 Act relates to the disclosure of classified information, though it has rarely been enforced. Indeed, whoever leaked the fact that the CIA had referred the case of Ms. Plame’s “outing” to the Justice Department for investigation, a routine action taken by the CIA several times a year, violated this very law.
Your lack of understanding of the facts DESERVES contempt, ridicule, and scorn.
[quote]
And about " The special prosecutor was appointed for political reasons."
Gee, that would be a first. Wouldn’t it?
Republicans smell.[/quote]
Strong, strong arguement there at the end.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Of course this “crazy report” had been confirmed by several European intelligence agencies, including those of Great Britain, Israel and France.
[/quote]
But wasn’t that “confirmation” primarily based on the same leaked Italian intelligence documents that later turned out to be forgeries?
That’s like pointing out that Congress believed the whole WMD thing, when in fact all they did was fall for the lies. Disingenuous, at best.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Let’s cut through all the legal crap.
This is how I see it.
A guy is sent to Africa to find proof. When he gets there, he doesn’t find anything. He comes back, and reports about it.
He’s surprised when his reports are apparantly ignored and is not silent about it.
Some one up there decideds to punish him and leaks the fact that his wife works for the CIA to some “friendly” reporters.
Novak, the usefull idiot and spineless ratt that he is, blows her cover and gets a free pass in return. The others don’t and go to jail for “contempt of court”.
WTF. This court DESERVES contempt. This whole system DESERVES contempt.
And about " The special prosecutor was appointed for political reasons."
Gee, that would be a first. Wouldn’t it?
Republicans smell.[/quote]
The truth is Wilson was unqualified to take the trip. His wife sent him on a boondoggle.
He came back and gave a verbal briefing that was rejected by the Senate Intel Committee because it was riddled with errors and it was apparant that his fact finding did not extend beyond asking a few questions over his fancy dinners.
He did not even bother the present a written report because he had no real information.
Wilson then writes an OP/ED blasting the admin and starts campaigning for Kerry.
Everyone wonders who the hell Wilson is.
Bush tells his people to get the story out but rather than fling mud at Wilson they try to leak the story to the media and let them do it.
Bush’s admin miscalculates and does not realize that the story the media presents is the “outing” of Plame and not the whole story.
The admin then tries to cover up because they don’t want to give a partisan media the ability to tie them to a CIA “leak” during an election year.
Politics suck. The media sucks. Special prosecutors suck because even if there is no original crime they will never stop until the get some sort of indictment, even if it is only perjury.
Nice job doogie.
Why do so many people refuse to understand that Wilson is a rat and so is his wife?
Bush’s admin is as riddled with slimy politicians as is any in history.
This does not change the fact that Wilson is a rat.
The MSM’s refusal to tell the story burns me up.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
No crime was commited because no one hase been found guilty of committing a crime.
Not only has no one been convicted of anything related to Plame’s name, no one has even been charged. After 3 years and a complete investigation.
So far, one charge: perjury to the grand jury.[/quote]
The reason no one has been charged is because that would force Fitz’s hand and the stuff Fitz can keep private while he continues to investigate would have to be revealed in a court of law.
Fitz is trying to make the rats turn on each other.
It is working…
Stay tuned.
No, the British arrived at their conclusion independently – it wasn’t based on the problematic Italian documents.
Also, it should be mentioned that Wilson consistently misrepresents his own report – the conclusion of the report was that Iraq hadn’t bought any uranium in Niger, not that it hadn’t tried. Apparently the latter conclusion was beyond the scope of Wilson’s investigation at the time of the report, but not beyond the scope of his subsequent grandstanding.