How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

The Emanuel Clock

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


50 posted 03-11-2007 05:14 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Pete said:
The uneven application of the law is what we should all be alarmed about.

L.R. said:
No worries Pete.  I doubt seriously we're going to start throwing all the poor black Democrats in prison on the street to make room for rich white Republicans.

That seems to be a deliberate curve-ball answer, L.R. You know that Pete was talking about the disparate treatment of politicians accused of wrong doing depending upon their party affiliation. Why do the majority of Democrats skate for more serious accusations, even when caught red-handed ($90,000. in a freezer in Tupeprware containers, for instance) while the majority of Republicans are nailed to the wall for less serious accusations? You must see that happening.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act deals with current overseas covert agents, which Valerie Plame was not for at least 5 years preceding the disclosure by Armitage, therefore the Act was not violated by him or anybody else.  Given that, what crime was purported to have been committed prior to the launch of the investigation? The perjury was alleged to have taken place during the investigation. If it were not for the unwarranted investigation no alleged perjury could have taken place. So what crimes were committed that necessitated the investigation in the first place?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


51 posted 03-11-2007 05:34 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

That seems to be a deliberate curve-ball answer, L.R. You know that Pete was talking about the disparate treatment of politicians accused of wrong doing depending upon their party affiliation. Why do the majority of Democrats skate for more serious accusations, even when caught red-handed ($90,000. in a freezer in Tupeprware containers, for instance) while the majority of Republicans are nailed to the wall for less serious accusations? You must see that happening.



No, I don't.  I saw William Jefferson Clinton face impeachement in the Congress of the United States -- for the exact charges Libby was tried and convicted for.  So, then, what you're saying is perjury is only an important charge if sex is involved.

If it was important then -- why isn't it important now Denise?  Or do you have a let-the-Republicans-skate policy?

Berger, investigated, plead guilty, convicted, sentenced.

William J. Jefferson -- I can't comment on an ongoing investigation but are you suggesting the Bush Justice Department has a let-Democrats-skate policy?

quote:

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act deals with current overseas covert agents, which Valerie Plame was not for at least 5 years preceding the disclosure by Armitage, therefore the Act was not violated by him or anybody else.  Given that, what crime was purported to have been committed prior to the launch of the investigation? The perjury was alleged to have taken place during the investigation. If it were not for the unwarranted investigation no alleged perjury could have taken place. So what crimes were committed that necessitated the investigation in the first place?



Why do I sound like a broken record?  Because you keep hitting the replay button.  Read the source material Denise -- it's all spelled out for you in blue and blue right here on the forums.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


52 posted 03-11-2007 06:57 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

From Andrew Sullivan's 'Daily Dish':

quote:
A reader sends in a brilliant email:

What makes the whole Libby thing different is that the Republicans did it to themselves. This is not the Democrats going after Nixon. This is not the Republicans going after Clinton.

No. The right hand man of the most powerful Republican Vice President in history was done in by a lot of other Republicans. The John Ashcroft Justice Dept agreed with the CIA request to investigate the Valerie Plame leak. Ashcroft’s Republican assistant, James Comey, appointed one of his own, Patrick Fitzgerald, perhaps the only Republican in Chicago. When Libby lied to Fitzgerald, and in so doing, made Fitzgerald's leak investigation meaningless, Fitzgerald sought to expand his investigation, probably by going to the same sort of Republican three-judge panel that agreed to expand Kenneth Starr's investigation some years earlier.

Then, after years of Republican complaints that the press had too much immunity under the First Amendment, Fitzgerald basically had the law completely reinterpreted, and forced a lot of very rich, very well-backed reporters to testify. In fact, the only person who saw, who is likely to see, jail time in this whole enterprise was a reporter for the Republican bete noir, the New York Times.

In the end, a Republican prosecutor got Republican judges to get Democratic reporters to testify against Republican politicians.


Sullivan: That just about gets it right. But, wait, there's more!

quote:
Similarly, just like all the leading players on both sides of the issue in the U.S. attorney firings are Republicans. Most of these U.S. attorneys were appointed by John Ashcroft, a former Republican elected official, with the support of Republican senators and congressmen. Just like a new Republican Secretary of Defense is forcing the generals feet to the fire in the Walter Reed scandal.

But to hear the right-wing media tell it, Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorneys, and Secretary Gates are all bleeding heart liberals trying to bring good conservatives down. But that's not true. This is just another vast right-wing conspiracy. Only this time, they are purging themselves.


And there you have it. What can you do when you control all three branches of government?

You begin to attack each other. Anybody seen 'Blade 2' or 'Reign of Fire'(Both bad, I admit)?

If I can find the time, I'll post Sullivan's Krugman quote. Republicans have been going after democrats, but they've been doing it at the local level where it doesn't get the attention.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


53 posted 03-11-2007 07:30 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

This is also from Sullivan's blog, Mar. 9. He's quoting Krugman.

quote:
Donald Shields and John Cragan, two professors of communication, have compiled a database of investigations and/or indictments of candidates and elected officials by U.S. attorneys since the Bush administration came to power. Of the 375 cases they identified, 10 involved independents, 67 involved Republicans, and 298 involved Democrats. The main source of this partisan tilt was a huge disparity in investigations of local politicians, in which Democrats were seven times as likely as Republicans to face Justice Department scrutiny.

How can this have been happening without a national uproar? The authors explain: "We believe that this tremendous disparity is politically motivated and it occurs because the local (non-statewide and non-Congressional) investigations occur under the radar of a diligent national press. Each instance is treated by a local beat reporter as an isolated case that is only of local interest."

And let's not forget that Karl Rove's candidates have a history of benefiting from conveniently timed federal investigations. Last year Molly Ivins reminded her readers of a curious pattern during Mr. Rove's time in Texas: 'In election years, there always seemed to be an F.B.I. investigation of some sitting Democrat either announced or leaked to the press. After the election was over, the allegations often vanished.'


So, are the republicans weak? Or are they corrupt?

Admittedly, this doesn't have much to do with the Libby case, but since Ann brought it up.
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


54 posted 03-11-2007 09:46 PM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Libby found guilty info here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600400.html


Allegations against Cheney here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030600400_2.html

quote:
Testimony and evidence revealed that the vice president dictated precise talking points he wanted Libby and other aides to use to rebut Wilson's accusations against the White House, helped select which journalists would be contacted and worked with Bush to declassify secret intelligence reports on Iraqi weapons that he believed would contradict Wilson's claims.



Wilson’s Claims= Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, was sent by the CIA on a mission to Niger in 2002 to assess reports that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear materials there. He concluded the reports were false. In early July, 2003, Wilson published a rebuke of the White House, accusing the administration of distorting his findings to exaggerate the danger posed by Iraq and justify the war to the American people. Same source as above, just go to the first page.


Creative Fact Presentation is allowed the same way as Creative Financing. One deals with War, the other--your nest egg. Both hit home with me. I guess I’m going to sound a lot like Reb here. It pays to read the fine print.

What’s Libby’s part in all this? Chicken Little? Decoy Duck? We know who the rotten eggs are, but I’ll not be so quick to defend Libby. He got the shaft? Yeah, but I guess I look at little harder at the matter than most. I expect people in the White House to be more intelligent with information than the common businessperson, especially with info that screws you and others out of a job! Then he wants to do a very bad James Brown impersonation with the details? The audience, like the rest of us, wasn’t impressed or convinced he’s a one man show.

As I see it, I imagine the only ones able to leak info about the C.I.A. is the C.I.A. They’ve been arranging leaks since conception. They have a system, just like every other office of security and intelligence. Did the Prez and his good-fuddy-buddy cohorts alter that? Seems like they did, because now the C.I.A. is scrambling for damage control, and I think they’re trying to figure out how to diplomatically apply the charges. Damage has been done. They can’t disclose to the public how much damage, because they’re the C.I. friggin’ A!  Things are still in progress, though I bet some of their work sounded off about like needles being ripped off records, if anyone remembers what that sounds like.

The fact remains: Plame was in the C.I.A. Out her and there’s a domino effect. All other agents involved with her as well as any past or current operations are outted. Guess where our tax dollars go with them? Years worth are out the window and down the drain. We demand security and pay for it. In essence, I feel the Bush Admn stole from the damn offering plate to help fund a war and dissed a system to gain the support of the American people. Sounds typical and they all need to go down. Will they? Probably not. That doesn’t seem to be the way things work, because we don’t demand justice, we demand security. The truth would scare the hell outta most people and there’d be complete chaos, so we remain placated, at best.


quote:
I'm curious about your comment re: 'crucify her' -- can you clarify your thoughts on that?  Are you thinking the Republicans on the committee will try to skewer her the way the Dems did Clarence Thomas (and the Republicans weren't in power then and the Dems were)?


Valerie: I hope, since she was C.I.A. that she might have enough connections to make her completely aware of everything they could possibly use against her. I’d like to laugh about that, but it’s not funny. She’s out. The distinguished career that many of us would love to be able to qualify for is gone. I don’t find that funny because I wouldn’t like it if I lost my job. So yeah, she has a civil suit, but she’ll suffer more. My predictions: The word is out: Nepotism. She’ll be used like a dousing rod for Both parties, while the real issues fall off as scribbles in a margin on a legal pad, because every one of them is probably guilty of pulling some strings for family members. They’ll seek to either manipulate the implications as rag material, or discredit her the old fashioned way: with dirt. Cheney will do everything possibly imaginable to stall any implications involving the Prez, which could include a new pair of fish-net stockings? Who knows.

Let’s watch and see.
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


55 posted 03-11-2007 11:58 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

Sure he knew what I meant. He just didn't have a valid answer so resorted to some flip remark. No Denise, when LR has no legitimate support for his argument, that's just how he tries to work it, transparent though it may be.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


56 posted 03-12-2007 12:04 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Pete.

Pete.

Pete.

There's documented legitimate support for everything I've said -- on the other hand -- what do we have from you?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


57 posted 03-12-2007 02:24 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

hmmmm, looks like you been found out, reb...I thought I was the only one who noticed that trait of yours.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


58 posted 03-12-2007 08:05 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

No I don't have a let-the-Republicans skate policy L.R. If Libby committed perjury, then he has to face the music. But Clinton got off easy. Was what he did not as bad as what Nixon did? Nixon resigned before impeachment. Clinton remained even after impeachment. What did he get, a censure from Congress? Oh my. I guess they showed him! And, unlike Libby, Clinton committed a crime, perjury, prior to an investigation. There was a legitimate reason for an investigation. But I'm sure Libby will get more than a censure. DeLay resigns amidst allegations of possible wrong-doing and then the prosecutor can't get a Grand Jury to indict him on anything. He gives back the Abramoff campaign contribution, but Harry Reid, who received far more than DeLay did, from the same guy, refuses to give his back. Jefferson is caught on tape taking a bribe and the hard cold cash is found in his freezer and he refuses to resign, refuses to explain himself, and Nancy Pelosi, little miss 'let's clean up all the corruption', nominates him to serve on a committee!  I guess she only meant that the Republican corruption had to be swept away.

You haven't shown me what supposed crime was committed prior to the investigation that warranted the investigation in the first place. And I have read the material. It doesn't answer my question.

Brad, I'd be interested in seeing how those investigations and indictments pan out, the percentage of Republican and Democrat convictions and sentences. If the local level mirrors the Halls of Congress, the majority of the Democrats will get a pass or a slap on the wrist and the Republicans will lose their jobs and do time.

Are the Republicans weak or corrupt? Too many are both. Too many of the Democrats are conniving and corrupt.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


59 posted 03-12-2007 09:48 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

In September 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the possible unauthorized disclosure of a CIA officer’s classified identity. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself and named Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, to be "acting attorney general" for the case. Comey in turn named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald to the case on December 30, 2003.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001502-2.html#42



quote:


Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, Title 18 Section 641, conspiracy to impede or injure officers, the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, other laws and precedents, perjury, conspiracy, obstruction of justice,
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001502-2.html#37

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


60 posted 03-13-2007 08:20 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The only thing that could possibly apply to Libby who was convicted of obstructing justice were the charges stemming from after the investigation was begun, not prior to the investigation. There was no violation of the Indentities Act or the Espionage Act because Plame was back in the U.S. for at least 6 years prior to her supposed 'outing'. There was no legitimate reason for the investigation in the first place.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


61 posted 03-13-2007 10:24 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

Although he left the CIA in 1993, Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[28]

Plame worked for the CIA for 20 years, and her status, according to the New York Times, was "non-official cover." (5 October 2003). U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that Plame was working undercover shortly after it had been revealed by Robert Novak.[29] Senator Charles Schumer asked the FBI to investigate the leak because the CIA had identified Plame's status as covert.[30] John Crewdson of the Chicago Tribune interviewed several unnamed former and current CIA employees who doubt that Plame had NOC status in the CIA at the time her cover was blown by Novak.[31]

A variety of arguments regarding Ms. Plame's status as "covert" have arisen as a result of Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation. In the Grand Jury indictment of Libby and his press conference on the Libby indictment, broadcast on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald would not state explicitly whether or not Plame was "covert."[32].

Nevertheless, in a 5 February 2005 concurring opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel made two references to Plame's covert status: (1) on page 28 of the opinion, Judge Tatel refers to Plame as an "alleged covert agent"; (2) on page 38, Judge Tatel states that because Fitzgerald had allegedly referred to Plame as a CIA agent "who had carried out covert work overseas within the last 5 years," in footnote 15 of a recent affidavit, Judge Tatel inferred that Mr. Fitzgerald must have at least "some support" for that conclusion.[33] Judge Tatel appears to have inferred from Special Counsel Fitzgerald's affidavit, which says that he is investigating whether or not Libby could have "intentionally" and "willfully" exposed the identity of "a covert agent" (italics added),[34] that Fitzgerald had already concluded that Plame was an agent who had carried out covert work within the last five years.[35][36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternate_theories_regarding_the_Plame_affair
http://piptalk.com/pip/Forum6/HTML/001502-2.html#38




quote:

In September 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the possible unauthorized disclosure of a CIA officer’s classified identity. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself and named Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey, to be "acting attorney general" for the case. Comey in turn named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald to the case on December 30, 2003.[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_grand_jury_investigation

(above)



The CIA disagrees with you Denise.

But, there's also Title 18 and the non-disclosure agreement.  Libby was in violation of all three.

Assuming though -- your premise is correct -- perjury, false statements, and obstruction are still criminal offenses.

Your logic would, if applied universally, say that Ken Starr had no business investigating the Paula Jones scandal since he was investigating Whitewater -- which never led to an indictment of the President on those charges.  All of the Right's arguments in defense of Libby have been hypocritically reminiscent of Left's defense of Clinton.  From my vantage point it makes me think that ideologues don't even care about ideology -- just about winning.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


62 posted 03-14-2007 08:26 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Larry C. Johnson doesn't seem to have much regard for the idea of "innocent until proven guilty" does he? Or did I miss the indictment and trial of Karl Rove? Also, his interpretation of the law seems to be a unique interpretation. And if Fitzgerald had "some support" for Plame actually being a covert agent I guess it wasn't quite strong enough to actually prosecute anyone for it.

I'd also be curious to know when Fitzgerald threw in the Title 18 & Non-Disclosure charges, prior to the start of the investigation or at some point afterwards when he realized he didn't have enough to actually make a charge under the Identities Act. Or maybe it's a game of throwing in every conceivable charge possible hoping that something may actually stick to somebody.

My opinion of Starr is the same as my opinion of Fitzgerald. They and the politicians deserve each other.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


63 posted 03-14-2007 10:43 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Excuse me officer, you only stopped me for speeding.  Therefore -- you can't arrest me for the 20 kilo's of cocaine you found in my car.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


64 posted 03-15-2007 05:23 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

...or $90,000 in the freezer.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


65 posted 03-15-2007 05:35 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

That's a great example -- 'Dollar Bill' Jefferson, by an extention of your logic in the Libby case a) hasn't been charged with a crime and b) the only evidence that might be used to charge him with a crime was generated in a 'Sting' that could easily be called entrapment.  You should be defending him and questioning his investigation.

quote:

Jefferson has been under investigation by the FBI for suspected corruption since March 2005. Since that time, he has been named in the guilty pleas of two associates. On 15 May 2006, Jefferson called a press conference at which he announced that he did not intend to resign, despite expecting to be indicted on corruption charges. On 20 May 2006, Jefferson's Congressional offices were searched by the FBI, "believed to be the first-ever FBI raid on a Congressional office,"[5] raising concerns that it could "set a dangerous precedent that could be used by future administrations to intimidate or harass a supposedly coequal branch of the government."[6] See below.

An investigation of Jefferson by various agencies began in mid-2005, after an investor came to authorities. Jefferson is alleged to have received over $400,000 in bribes through a company maintained in the name of his spouse and children. The money came from a tech company named iGate, Inc. of Louisville, Kentucky, and in return, it is alleged, Jefferson would help iGate's business. Jefferson was to persuade the U.S. Army to test iGate's broadband two-way technology and other iGate products; use his efforts to influence, possibly through bribery, high-ranking officials in Nigeria, Ghana, and Cameroon; and meet with personnel of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, in order to facilitate potential financing for iGate business deals in those countries.[7]


[edit] FBI investigation of bribery and fraud
On 30 July 2005, Jefferson was videotaped by the FBI receiving $100,000 worth of $100 bills in a leather briefcase at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Arlington, Virginia.[8] Jefferson told an investor, Lori Mody, who was wearing a wire, that he would need to give Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar $500,000 "as a motivating factor" to make sure they obtained contracts for iGate and Mody's company in Nigeria.[9] A few days later, on 3 August 2005, FBI agents raided Jefferson's home in Northeast Washington and, as noted in an 83-page affidavit filed to support a subsequent raid on his Congressional office, "found $90,000 of the cash in the freezer, in $10,000 increments wrapped in aluminum foil and stuffed inside frozen-food containers." Serial numbers found on the currency in the freezer matched serial numbers of funds given by the FBI to their informant.

Late in the night of 20 May 2006, FBI agents executed a search warrant[10] at Jefferson's office in the Rayburn House Office Building.

The affidavit used to support these raids included, among other allegations:

The FBI videotaped Jefferson receiving a stock certificate from Mody for a company set up in Nigeria to promote iGate's technology. Jefferson predicted the deal would generate $200 million annually after five years.
Jefferson told Mody that he wanted a similar financial stake in the business in Ghana.
Jefferson sought $10 million in financing from Mody to take over iGate and install "confidants" on the new board. In two payments, Mody wired $89,225 to the ANJ Group LLC, a company controlled by Jefferson's family.
Jefferson lent $4,800 of the money Mody gave him to an unnamed congressional aide. Another $4,900 was given back to the FBI by one of Jefferson's attorneys.
The FBI claims it has uncovered "at least seven other schemes in which Jefferson sought things of value in return for his official acts."[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Jefferson




Investigations begin (or should) because of 'probable cause' Denise.  The CIA obviously considered the Plame leak to be criminal or they wouldn't have referred it to the FBI for investigation.  Certainly the CIA knew whether or not Valerie Wilson was a 'Covert' agent or not.

But in addition to the leaking of a covert agent's identity -- it was also the unauthorized disclosure of classified information (unless of course -- the President had selectively 'declassified' it for political purposes the way he's selectively declassified other information) so both crimes were under investigation.  

The knowledge of Armitage as Novak's source though was no reason to stop investigating -- since other reporters were leaked to by other sources and the question of how the classified information came into the possession of those leakers and Armitage is all part of the question to answered in an investigation.

You, like Johnson -- are perfectly at liberty to accuse Jefferson, and even entitled to think he's guilty.  Only a court of law has to presume innocence.

If you want to keep this up though -- you too will at some point have to join OJ in his search for the real killers -- since he was acquited in a criminal trial -- but found responsible in a civil trial.

As in that case -- this one will be interesting again when the Wilson's civil case reaches court.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


66 posted 03-15-2007 06:19 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You, like Johnson -- are perfectly at liberty to accuse Jefferson

...along with any person level-headed enough to view the evidence.

But it was entrapment! They tricked him! what a sneaky thing to do, for sure. We should all side with him for for being so deceived that he actually got caught. They actually searched his office! Is there no justice left???

They didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Let's go entrap a senator today." There had been lengthy investigations and plenty or reason to believe the man was dirty. Are you against sting operations then....foul play, perhaps?

Interesting that, with the Democrats being so gung-ho about justice being done on so many fronts, they have no problem with this one dragging out. Had it been a Republican caught with almost a hundred grand of bribe money in the freezer, they would be applauding the sting operation results and demanding the evil-doer be in jail immediately. Instead we get "innocent until proven guilty" and charges of entrapment and boot out Gonzales for not doing his job. Well, I agree there. If Gonzales had done his job, this meathead would have gone up the river long ago.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


67 posted 03-15-2007 10:15 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Oh Yah
We would be so much better
With Hilary at the helm


.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


68 posted 03-16-2007 06:36 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

And yet no one was charged for violating the Identities Act law and no one was convicted for revealing Classified Information, the supposed reasons for the investigation in the first place.

I already said that if Libby committed perjury then he has to face the music. My main problem with all of this is that Democratic politicians are held to a different standard of justice.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


69 posted 03-16-2007 01:15 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

According to Plame's testimony before Congress today, she was covert at the time of her outting.  That should settle that.
Alicat
Member Elite
since 05-23-99
Posts 4277
Coastal Texas


70 posted 03-16-2007 02:52 PM       View Profile for Alicat   Email Alicat   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Alicat

Good thing she never ever never told a lie then.  But where was her paper trail?  Oooooh.  Forgot.  She don't need one.  Surely, her word is good enough.  Afterall, she never had an occupation were telling lies with a straight face is a requirement.

Besides which, had she been Covert then Fitzgerald would have put Armitage in prison for violating the protection acts for covert agents.  She might have been 'Classified', but that is not 'Covert'.  As far as I know, unless there are secret Bush prisons for CIA outters, noone has been tried, noone has been taken to court, noone has been before a judge receiving sentencing who has broken that Act in this instance.  Libby was for perjury during the investigation, not for leaking classified information.  That's the job of certain political outlets, like the New York Times, Boston Globe, LA Times, Time Magazine and the Associated Press.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


71 posted 03-16-2007 07:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, Iliana, if "that settles that" and someone simply stating something makes it a true fact, you must feel the same about statements from everyone, even GW. Why do I doubt that is so?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


72 posted 03-16-2007 07:58 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

And yet no one was charged for violating the Identities Act law and no one was convicted for revealing Classified Information, the supposed reasons for the investigation in the first place.



And Al Capone was never indicted for murder, larceny, conspiracy, racketeering -- and OJ wasn't convicted of murder Denise.

Your point is pointless.

quote:

...along with any person level-headed enough to view the evidence.



Although my inclinations would be with your specific intent Mike -- I have to take issue with this philosophy.  Reasonable persons can disagree and if we ever come to the point where we start believing that everyone who disagrees with us is unreasonable (or not level-headed) that will be a sure sign that we are being unreasonable.

quote:

They didn't just wake up one morning and say, "Let's go entrap a senator today." There had been lengthy investigations and plenty or reason to believe the man was dirty. Are you against sting operations then....foul play, perhaps?



Mike -- I'm only extending Denise's (unbiased ) logic regarding the Libby case to the Jefferson case.  I'm not defending Jefferson in the least.

quote:

Interesting that, with the Democrats being so gung-ho about justice being done on so many fronts, they have no problem with this one dragging out. Had it been a Republican caught with almost a hundred grand of bribe money in the freezer, they would be applauding the sting operation results and demanding the evil-doer be in jail immediately. Instead we get "innocent until proven guilty" and charges of entrapment and boot out Gonzales for not doing his job. Well, I agree there. If Gonzales had done his job, this meathead would have gone up the river long ago.



What Democrat has said anything about entrapment or tried to defend Jefferson?  Show me.  Pretend I'm from Misssouri.

The Plame/Libby investigation trial started in 2003 Mike.  It's 2007.  Jefferson's investigation began in 2005.  The only people who are dragging their feet, as you point out, is the JD, if they are indeed dragging their feet.

The firings of the 8 Federal Prosecutors is a different issue entirely -- and worthy of a thread -- perhaps you should start one -- but it is germane to this thread to remind everyone that those prosecutors (including Fitzgerald) serve at the pleasure of the President and the President only.  I'm sure the Jefferson prosecutor will be sure to drag him back into the spotlight in time for the 2008 elections.  Aren't you?    

quote:

Good thing she never ever never told a lie then.  But where was her paper trail?  Oooooh.  Forgot.  She don't need one.  Surely, her word is good enough.  Afterall, she never had an occupation were telling lies with a straight face is a requirement.



Her testimony was made under oath and is impeachable by none other than the CIA -- the same CIA that won't let her publish a book about herself because she's classified.
iliana
Member Patricius
since 12-05-2003
Posts 13488
USA


73 posted 03-16-2007 09:21 PM       View Profile for iliana   Email iliana   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for iliana

Mike, even The Donald is not afraid to face the truth about GW.  I am really surprised that you would think that Ms. Plame would lie under oath in these circumstances especially.  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


74 posted 03-16-2007 09:50 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

There are two understandings of the use of the word covert according to one of the authors of the Identities Protection Act who was on O'Reilly tonight. One usage is an informal usage and the other one is as defined under the Act. She explained that CIA folks often use covert, undercover, and classified status interchangably. She said that Plame may consider herself to have been covert in the more informal usage, thereby not lying when she says she was covert, but that she definitely was not covert as defined under the law in question.

My point is not pointless L.R. My contention is that no one violated the laws in question, and therefore no one was able to be prosecuted for violating them, unlike in the Capone situation.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> The Emanuel Clock   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors