Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sooo

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sooo

    Which Bush administration offical(s) do you think will end up in orange jumpsuits when all said and done over the Wilson leak?

    I say we start a pool.
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

    – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

  • #2
    Nobody. Leaks are pretty much impossible to prove.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Tex
      Nobody. Leaks are pretty much impossible to prove.
      I pretty much agree, though hope like hell that it ends up being Rove.
      I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

      Comment


      • #4
        http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/12/aol10.shtml
        Editor-in-Chief
        GameSquad.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Don Maddox
          Getting a bit subversive there, soldier?

          The http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com link off of that page was just too freakin' funny. About choked on my lunch, laughing so much while reading the top 11 excuses for Dubya hocking a loogie on the White House lawn...
          I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

          Comment


          • #6
            lol ...

            I am happy that I successfully clicked out the big dialog
            Attn to ALL my opponents:

            If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

            Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

            Comment


            • #7
              First:

              TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > Sec. 1. > Sec. 4.

              Sec. 4. - Misprision of felony

              Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
              and

              18 U.S.C. §3

              Accessory After the Fact

              Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

              Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than ten years.
              Now Venn diagram time.

              Where the set "senior administration official" overlaps the set "administration aide," we have our leak. Now how many warm bodies inhabit that space? Those quotes come direclty from Novak's writings.

              Here's a start:

              George W. Bush
              Dick Cheney
              Karl Rove Senior
              Condi Rice
              Andy Card
              Ari Fleischer (Novak story showed up on Ari's last day--run Ari, RUN!!)
              John Walters
              Josh Bolten
              Michael Gerson
              Albert Gonzales
              Dan Bartlett
              Greg Mankiw
              Stephen Friedman
              John Gordon
              Scooter Libby


              So how do we investigate?

              The Weekly Standard Precedent:

              Can't we just put The Weekly Standard on the case?

              Last week, and I quote, "At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether [Wesley] Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove."

              Can we try that again?

              I don't mean to pick on any particular 'top White House official'. But the Standard's put Rove's name in the mix. And his phone logs seem readily searchable. So, just at random, let's try him.

              How many calls to Bob Novak, say in the second week of July.

              Presumably it can't be too difficult, take too long, or involve any issues of privilege since White House staffers did a similar search on behalf of a junior staffer at the Standard only a week ago.

              Believe me, Matthew, you get that search done and you'll have a real story on your hands.


              -- Josh Marshall
              Now, Tom T's blog has presented us this with this, hypothetical scenario - the showdown at high noon:

              QUESTION: All right. If that's the case, then why does he even need an independent investigation? Why doesn't he simply call those who are responsible to come forward --
              McCLELLAN: Do you have something to bring to our attention? I mean, let me make clear, if anyone has information about this leak of classified information, they need to report it to the Department of Justice -- anyone.


              The media types don't want to set a precedent of revealing anonymous sources, and the White House knows it. So who blinks first?

              Calpundit: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002284.html

              Damage Control Roundup:

              -Lots of parsing of Robert Novak's original column. However, the entire scandal is now based on more recent evidence. Novak's column doesn't matter anymore


              -Novak's statement today that Plame wasn't a covert operator. But again, we already know that Plame was (is) a "case officer in the CIA's clandestine service." What Novak says doesn't matter anymore.


              -Novak again: the White House didn't call him, he called them. This really doesn't matter either: the "senior officials" still volunteered the information about Plame, regardless of who made the calls. What's more, we also know that these officials did call several other reporters.


              -Washington insiders already knew that Plame worked for the CIA. Maybe, although that hardly justifies spreading it around to half a dozen reporters in an effort to make sure that everyone in the world finds out. Besides, if it was common knowledge, why systematically call a bunch of journalist insiders to let them know?


              -Maybe the leakers didn't know Plame was covert. I guess that's possible, and if it's true it means they were just ignorant rather than felonious. But these are senior people we're talking about, and they know better. You don't blab about CIA agents to the press. Period.

              (In any case, the general line that maybe this isn't really such a big deal has already been scuttled from the very top by Scott McClellan, who said this morning that the president believes that "leaking classified information, particularly of this nature, is a very serious matter" and that anyone who did this would be fired "at a minimum." So it's a big deal.)


              -The whole thing doesn't make sense. Maybe not, but it seems to have happened anyway.


              -Joseph Wilson might not be entire trustworthy. Perhaps, and he certainly has his own agenda. But the facts speak for themselves, so Wilson himself really doesn't matter.


              -Democrats are so gleeful over this that it therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. Or, alternately, it's just internecine warfare within the administration, and therefore shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously, this is just a desperate ad hominem designed to change the subject.

              Novak on Crossfire a couple days ago:

              Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction.
              Novak in Newsday July 22:

              Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
              So which of those two is the lie? Gosh, I simply can't imagine!

              Let me just add that I am in complete agreement with Rumsfeld:

              http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16553

              There's so much more about this.. huge story but not getting all that much airtime.

              However, I do believe when all is said and done, orange jumpsuits it will be.
              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X