| Author |
Message |
    
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2424
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 9:16 pm: | 
|
Given the passage that I cited, I really don't know why Clinton settled, except for the likelihood that he was guilty of embarrassing behavior, even if it wasn't legally sexual harrassment. And as tom says, he was fighting against people whose pockets were an awful lot deeper than his. But there's little doubt that whatever happened in that Arkansas hotel room, it didn't meet any legal definition of sexual harrassment.
very similar to Libby's case in fact. He would very likely would have been exonerated (at least as far as criminal charges are concerned) by Fitzgerald's investigation, had he cooperated. It's very, very difficult to prove that someone knowingly outed a covert agent. But admitting to the actual facts would likely be embarrassing to Libby, Cheney, and Bush, not to mention likely grounds for firing, even if no crime was committed.
and once again I ask - do all of the Bush apologists really think Libby and Rove did nothing wrong? Do they still deserve to have security clearances? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 2055
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 10:45 pm: |
|
they cant answer that question honestly and look themselves in the mirror. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3033
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, September 2, 2006 - 11:55 pm: |
|
cjc:
Do you understand the difference between a civil suit and a criminal trial? Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for monetary damages for sexual harrassment. He was not indicted by a Grand Jury for a crime. It would be no different than if Ms. Jones had sued Mr. Clinton for running a red light at a high rate of speed, slamming into her car and giving her whiplash. If at his deposition in that hypothetical case Bill Clinton had testified that he never in his life drove over 55 miles an hour and it turned out that he had driven 80 MPH when he drove Monica home from work it would have been the exact same crime.
Every day people lie at depositions in civil cases. They exaggerate their injuries or minimize their negligence. They never get prosecuted.
How is making a pass, however obnoxious, equal to outing a CIA officer? What is the big deal about lying about sex? Who hasn't?
Somewhere you said a "Federal Associate Attorney General" was indicted. Who do you mean? I don't think there is any such title.
Joel, you say Plame sent her husband on a mission for which he was not qualified. She had that authority? Who was she, the Secretary of State? She recommended him. If your wife refers a client to you and you do less than a great job (just hypothetical) should she be indicted?
If a Democrat gave the name of a CIA operative, overt, covert, animal, vegetable or mineral, to a newspaper reporter you folks would be calling for the death penalty for treason! |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3034
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 12:00 am: |
|
What would have happened if Joe Wilson had reported that Saddam was definitely buying nuclear material (white cake, yellow cake, chocolate cake - can't remember what it's called) from Niger and the Nation had printed an article saying that Wilson didn't know what he was talking about, had no qualifications and only got the job because his wife was a CIA agent? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12557
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 3:56 am: |
|
cjc, every single case officer in the Directorate of Operations is covert. In their everyday lives they have a cover. Ms. Plames was that she was a consultant. Her friends and neighbors didn't know she worked for the CIA. If she came under the 1970s law or not is unknown. This law has specific penalties that are more severe.
Armitage didn't know (and was able to convince Fitzgerald that he didn't know) Plame was a case officer. Given Cheney's comments mentioned above, my guess is that he declassified Plame's status, giving Scooter and Turd Bloosom a pass on that charge. Speculation, sure. However, time will tell. |
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 226
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 9:13 am: |
|
I've kept my mouth shut for this long, but I have to wonder how the few Bushies here continue to mitigate the Plame outing by hiding behind whether she was technically covert...I know it is a talking point on the talk shows, but dear God, the White House had people playing fast and loose with the identity of a CIA employee to discredit a critic of the administration. You want a Clinton analogy? Forget his perjury-- if someone in his administartion had done this we would still be talking about it. It is shameful no matter whether it is illegal, and it seems to happen out of the White House quite often. And, sorry, I don't buy that it's all just politics. This really does go beyond the pale.
Armitage has seemed like a smart guy in the past, but I now realize it is largely because of the good press being a blabbermouth can buy. And, correct me if I am wrong, but if it was a crime to leak an agent's name once, isn't it a crime to leak it a week later? Just because Armitage was Novak's source doesn't mean Libby didn't leak to Miller later.
The question of why "the left" is gleeful to link this to Cheney seems to be the go to question for the right after Armitage. I have to wonder why "the right" doesn't ask what Cheney's office was up to- and why Bush and his press secretary seemed clueless as to the leak originally when Armitage copped to his role almost immediately.
I sure as hell don't know the answers- maybe it is a waste of time. But let Fitzgerald play it out. Trust me- no one on this board will have the definitive answer of Plame's covert status or what was said to Miller. We can only offer our opinions, and from everything- including the White House's line- it stinks. This type of thing can't possibly make us safer or help morale in the CIA. It is political gamesmanship at its most petty and it totally sucks. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3039
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 1:39 pm: |
|
If the "outing" of Ms. Plame was no big deal, why did Libby let her sit in jail? Why didn't he just say " I was Judy's source. So what? Everyone here knows Plame works for the CIA. It's not like it's a State secret or something?"
Libby's not in trouble for leaking Plame's name. He's in trouble for lying about it. But why would he lie? It's not like he's a married man having to admit an extra-marital affair! |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5855
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
BobK -- your description of all things covert is nice. I'm just waiting for someone in a position of authority at the CIA or the DOJ to say the same things you do.
Dr -- you can wonder why Clinton settled the case, but saying he was worried about being embarrassed given his character rings hollow given his skyrocketing polls (unless those were lies).
anon - I have not maintained that Clinton's sexual harassment is equal to someone outing a CIA agent. We're on this tangent because tom brought us here, and I don't think it's equal at all on the 'no foul commited' plane he put the discussion. And I do know the difference between a criminal suit and a civil suit. OJ Simpson is innocent in one, and guilty in another. At least a jury heard the evidence.
The indicted associate attorney general was Webb Hubbell. He was listed as ann Associate Attorney General. I shouldn't have capitalized "federal."
As for secondary leaking, once it's out in the media (to Novak) and others, isn't it out? Can you be a litttle bit secret?
I know what Cheney's office was up to. It was countering a political campaign by Joe Wilson who was and is a liar. I'd do the same thing. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5727
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Cheney's office was countering a political campaign, and that makes it all right?
I guess Wilson & Plame ought to be grateful that Cheney didn't put a contract out on them. Treat 'em like that big game he likes to hunt. The ends justify the means, after all.
As for secondary leaking, that's not what we're dealing with here. It's not a question of what happened once it was out, but rather what led up to its publication. To quote Novak himself:
Quote:Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now. [emphasis added]
So you're blowing smoke. Armitage is not the sole source, just one that has been identified. Nobody else is off the hook just yet. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2427
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 3, 2006 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Quote:Dr -- you can wonder why Clinton settled the case, but saying he was worried about being embarrassed given his character rings hollow given his skyrocketing polls (unless those were lies).
I could agree that avoiding embarrassment might not have been the most likely motivation. Perhaps more likely was that he just wanted it to end, and wanted the legal bills to stop piling up. But the reality is that the first judge kicked that suit so thoroughly that it makes little sense that he feared a final judgment would have gone against him. Or do you know something that Judge Webber Wright didn't?
but all this Clinton stuff remains a misdirection away from Libby and Rove. And I noticed none of the Bushies have yet answered the question - was what Libby and Rove did a-OK? Did it deserve the revocation of security clearances? |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 3040
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 12:03 am: |
|
Dr. W:
cjc answered:
I know what Cheney's office was up to. It was countering a political campaign by Joe Wilson who was and is a liar. I'd do the same thing.
In other words according to cjc Mr. and Mrs. Wilson were just anti-Bush political operatives, so attacking them in any way was justified. Of course that leads to a couple of more questions:
Why didn't Cheney, et. al. respond to Wilson on the merits? It would have been easy enough to write an op-ed piece countering Wilson. Secondly, if Wilson purposely lied about Saddam acquiring nuclear material wouldn't that constitute a crime? Why didn't Cheney seek an indictment? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2428
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 12:07 am: |
|
I thought that "I know what Cheney's office was up to" was a little vague. I'd like to see an answer to this straightforward question - is it ok for the president and vice president's staffers to reveal classified information to reporters to settle a political grudge?
Maybe to some people it's ok. But what if those revelations become known to the president? Should he fire them? Revoke their security clearance? Or do nothing? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12561
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 4:41 am: |
|
Ms. Plame's status was no longer classified after Cheney declassified it. Simple, huh? This will come out after the first Tuesday in November. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12562
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 5:06 am: |
|
Cjc, check out this link, written early in game that does a pretty good job of explaining how the CIA protects its employees. I think it is short enough so that it will not tax your limited attention span.
http://www.slate.com/id/2089062/ |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5731
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Perhaps the reason the CIA hasn't come out and said she's a covert agent is because they never come out and say someone is a covert agent? Or maybe this whole "covert agent" thing is a word game designed to distract from what the facts really are. For all I know, "covert agent" may not be a term that the CIA uses at all.
After all, if the CIA were to announce that "Plame was a top-secret eyes-only operative whose identity was known only to three people at the very top of the federal government," cjc could respond, "they didn't say she was a 'covert agent.'" And that would be a perfectly true -- and perfectly meaningless -- statement.
Of course, that's what talking points are all about. |
pcs81632
Citizen
Username: Pcs81632
Post Number: 138
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 1:27 pm: |
|
The fact that the CIA requested an investigation because they considered her covert is enough for me.
She was covert. |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 2:20 pm: |
|
The CIA is a political organization devoted to protecting itself from outside examination.
It can't accurately tell what time it is.
jd |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5856
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
The CIA was playing as much politics as anyone else in this drama, particularly after their intelligence wasn't worth was it was supposed to be worth before the war. Here's another shocker to some it seems -- the State Department plays politics too.
Is it OK to give up classified information? I'd say no. But let's let Armitage go cuz he's a nice guy. One of the 'good leakers.' Depends on who's blowing who's whistle I guess.
Perhaps you're right, tom. Perhaps you're not. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12565
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 5:03 pm: |
|
Cjc, again you hatreds and predjudices exceed your ability to read, write, see lightning and hear thunder. Fitzgerald made two runs at Armitage. Fitzgerald couldn't gather evidence that Armitage knew Plame worked undercover. If Fitzgerald had evidence, Armitage would be cooling his heels in a federal jail awaiting trial. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5732
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 5:32 pm: |
|
I have yet to read anyone suggesting that they "let Armitage go." |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2430
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 4, 2006 - 8:28 pm: |
|
Really. Name one credible person who has called Armitage a "good leaker" And as Bob K says, the reason he's not on trial is there is no evidence he committed a crime. And why is no one demanding Armitage's resignation? Uh, I guess that might be because the guy already did resign.
sheesh how dense can you guys pretend to be? I know you must understand this case better than you're letting on. |
