Lemon Tetra
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5
How do you "out" a person that works at CIA Headquarters? Any covert status was lost when she retained her name at CIA Headquarters.
Breaking: We May Get a Perp Walk Yet In the CIA Leak
- Thread starter bountyhunter
- Start date
- Status
DRZinn
Member
Wrong there too, pal. A statute of limitations means you broke the law, but they can't do anything because they didn't find out in time. What happened here is that the law specified a period of time and that period of time had passed, thus the law was not broken.
bountyhunter
member
Yeah, I am so tempted to sticky this one.
I am old enough to remember how Spiro Agnew was screaming "politics" right up until the moment he copped a plea and became a convicted felon.
Never a good idea to make predictions like the one you just signed your name to.
bountyhunter
member
And you are a non-poster since you resort to lies, as I never once stated I thought Bush would be the one facing charges. It will be either Rove or Libby, depending on how concise the lies they told the investigators were. If they screwed up, they will be facing obstruction charges.
If not, they will simply face a time period where the sleazy things they did will be daily news and force their boss (Bush) to either do what he originally said he would do (fire anybody who leaked information) or try to sell the flip-flop position he back pedaled to when he found out Rove was a leaker (only fire somebody if they are convicted of a crime).
Either way, more damage to his admin and a fresh legacy of corruption.
bountyhunter
member
The law is not only to protect the agent but those people and groups they asociate with. The law reads that the agent had to be "active covert" within the last five years, but as documented above: the Rove/Libby outing still did damage by exposing a CIA front organization even though her covert opp ended six years before the disclosure.
bountyhunter
member
From GoRon:
This is hysterical...... over on Glock talk: when the DeLay controversy first broke some months back, some dipstick put up a thread titled:
DeLay Indicted!
As a joke and proceeded to spew all the reasons it was bogus, he would never be indicted, yadda, yadda, yadda.....
He sure got some funny posts on that same thread when it turned out to be true a couple of months into the affair.
That's OK: plenty of good names to re-register under when it blows up in your face.
This is hysterical...... over on Glock talk: when the DeLay controversy first broke some months back, some dipstick put up a thread titled:
DeLay Indicted!
As a joke and proceeded to spew all the reasons it was bogus, he would never be indicted, yadda, yadda, yadda.....
He sure got some funny posts on that same thread when it turned out to be true a couple of months into the affair.
That's OK: plenty of good names to re-register under when it blows up in your face.
bountyhunter
member
I've alerted the media that you have declared this a non-story, but some of the ultra left wing sites like FOX news are still running it:
http://www.foxnews.com/
'Politics at Its Sleaziest'
Transcript: Rep. Tom DeLay speaks about his indictment on 'FNS'
You know those guys.... they will do anything to keep alive a story that puts the admin in a bad light.
JohnBT
Member
5 posts in a row. What's the record? Anybody know?
John
John
scout26
Member
Ohhhhhh John, you ruined it !!! I equated it to "The Sound of One Hand Clapping."
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
No fan of ol' Slick Willie. He should have said,"A federal prosecutor, special or not, has no business asking about whether I have had sex with any consenting adult. You, sir, can go urinate up a rope. I am not taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self incrimination. There is nothing in this line of questioning that can incriminate me. I am refusing to answer idiotic questions posed by an idiot. Please go have sex with yourself, Mr. Starr."
Yes, Slick committed perjury there. Fact remains that he wasn't being questioned about a crime. He was being questioned about the commission of an act that, while an embarassment, was not a crime. A prosecutor can question me about anything? Whether a crime or not? If so, we need to drastically limit the power of prosecutors.
It's amazing how many people support unjust treatment of people with whom they disagree while claiming to love justice.
bountyhunter
member
Amen, and call anybody who voices an opinion they don't like a traitor while claiming to be for free speech.
scout26
Member
BH,
If I can get W to apologize and give you back the cookie he (allegedly) took from you in kindergarten, can you give it a rest ????
If you want to debate his policies, fine. I'll be more then happy (in fact I would look forward to a lively debate). I disagree with him about spending, his Supreme Court Nominations, and the role of government in our lives.
But the ad hominem attacks are really wearing thin.
Byron,
Excellent Post. While I could not stand Mr. Clinton either as a person or as my CINC (<-one of the major reasons why resigned my commission.), Ken Starr went toooo far. But then I also saw it as something to the effect of the Watergate birds coming home to roost, so to speak.
If I can get W to apologize and give you back the cookie he (allegedly) took from you in kindergarten, can you give it a rest ????
If you want to debate his policies, fine. I'll be more then happy (in fact I would look forward to a lively debate). I disagree with him about spending, his Supreme Court Nominations, and the role of government in our lives.
But the ad hominem attacks are really wearing thin.
Byron,
Excellent Post. While I could not stand Mr. Clinton either as a person or as my CINC (<-one of the major reasons why resigned my commission.), Ken Starr went toooo far. But then I also saw it as something to the effect of the Watergate birds coming home to roost, so to speak.
Desertdog
Member
I my memory serves me right, the reason for the law was that someone whom had access to covert agents names and locations wrote and published a book listing a lot of the covert agents around the world. A number of them disappeared without a trace.
0007
Member
Actually, yes, I am. Not knowing what that little theiving s*** took and burned means just that. We don't know what he was covering up - or who he was covering up for. Anything from simple illegal contributions to demo campaigns to what could be overtly treasonous actions by an administration not exactly known for abiding by the law.
bountyhunter
member
I'll assume you actually know what ad hominem means, and in that case we will see if you are man enough to admit when you are wrong:
I have reviewd EVERY post I put up in this thread and there is no ad hominem attack on Bush or anybody else.
In fact, he is only a peripheral player in this whole drama in that he foolishly believed Rove was not involved and then found out later he was a leaker and had to backpedal from his original stance of "I will fire anybody who leaks" and morph it into "I will fire anybody who broke the law".
You seem to have a problem distinguishing facts of record and news reports from ad hominem attacks..... the latter was never done or used in this thread, so why don't you stop whining and answer the facts or add something on topic?
GoRon
Member
Its mostly a big deal to the mainstream media and the leftys (redundant I know)
No one is paying attention except news junkies like those of us posting in threads like this.
If they got Rove on something that would cause a ripple for sure.
No one is paying attention except news junkies like those of us posting in threads like this.
If they got Rove on something that would cause a ripple for sure.
El Tejon
Member
"Scooter" draws fire. [Is anyone else not sleeping now that you know we have grown men named "Scooter" with their hands on the reins of power?]
Like El Tejon said, the problem in this non-criminal investigations is not the non-crime itself, but the investigation. "Scooter" is an attorney and an educated man, why do these Eloi go talk to LE? Do they all think they are smarter than the cops or something?
Must be the water out there (or the expensive ties shutting off the oxygen).
Like El Tejon said, the problem in this non-criminal investigations is not the non-crime itself, but the investigation. "Scooter" is an attorney and an educated man, why do these Eloi go talk to LE? Do they all think they are smarter than the cops or something?
Must be the water out there (or the expensive ties shutting off the oxygen).
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
sand in the ump's face
Fitzpatrick had an excellent analogy to baseball yesterday (paraphased):
Someone threw a ball that hit the batter in the head. Now, these thing happen sometimes while playing baseball, and sometimes its entirely by accident. Sometimes tho it's malicious. Scooter Libby isn't charged with throwing the ball, he is charged with throwing sand in the umpire's eyes, obscruring this vision to determine the intent and actions of the ballthrower(s?).
Why should we ALL care?
Not because it was a hummer vs a covert operative...Scooter wasn't charged with either.
But rather, someone (allegedly Scooter) didn't want the prosecutor to know the truth. Someone wanted to obscure the ball from the ump, and in doing so, held up the determination of the intent or criminal malfeasance of the pitcher(s).
It is quite possible that NO crime was committed here. It is entirely possible that no one is responsible for spilling the beans (or tagging the batter), but it *IS* a crime to impede that determination.
lastly, two things to think about: What sort of work will we get out of our intelligence agents if we let it be known that their identity is NOT secret and can be spilled in retaliation for an unpopular opinion?
Further, this killed many people. These folks were her contacts in countries like Sudan and other posts she held. Tradecraft dictates that the host country follow the actions of potential spies very closely. I know that *I* would, if I were in charge of co-intel of a country. It is a virtual certainty that her former acquaintences are now dead and that the networks that she helped to establish are also gone. The countries she was in don't drag a potential spy in for interrogation and gulag ala USSR 1981, they just kill them. And then they kill their family and then their aunts and uncles. They call it excising a cancer, and they don't care how many end up dead. good luck getting further intel from the dead.
The repercussion of this "oops" and "no one cares" can be summed up as a disaster. Trying to obscure the investigation into such a thing is a big deal.
GoRon said:
Fitzpatrick had an excellent analogy to baseball yesterday (paraphased):
Someone threw a ball that hit the batter in the head. Now, these thing happen sometimes while playing baseball, and sometimes its entirely by accident. Sometimes tho it's malicious. Scooter Libby isn't charged with throwing the ball, he is charged with throwing sand in the umpire's eyes, obscruring this vision to determine the intent and actions of the ballthrower(s?).
Why should we ALL care?
Not because it was a hummer vs a covert operative...Scooter wasn't charged with either.
But rather, someone (allegedly Scooter) didn't want the prosecutor to know the truth. Someone wanted to obscure the ball from the ump, and in doing so, held up the determination of the intent or criminal malfeasance of the pitcher(s).
It is quite possible that NO crime was committed here. It is entirely possible that no one is responsible for spilling the beans (or tagging the batter), but it *IS* a crime to impede that determination.
lastly, two things to think about: What sort of work will we get out of our intelligence agents if we let it be known that their identity is NOT secret and can be spilled in retaliation for an unpopular opinion?
Further, this killed many people. These folks were her contacts in countries like Sudan and other posts she held. Tradecraft dictates that the host country follow the actions of potential spies very closely. I know that *I* would, if I were in charge of co-intel of a country. It is a virtual certainty that her former acquaintences are now dead and that the networks that she helped to establish are also gone. The countries she was in don't drag a potential spy in for interrogation and gulag ala USSR 1981, they just kill them. And then they kill their family and then their aunts and uncles. They call it excising a cancer, and they don't care how many end up dead. good luck getting further intel from the dead.
The repercussion of this "oops" and "no one cares" can be summed up as a disaster. Trying to obscure the investigation into such a thing is a big deal.
JJpdxpinkpistols
Member
No_Brakes23 said:
I agree. Actually, this has been a bargain, investigation wise.
Fitz has spend 700 THOUSAND dollars so far to give us an indictment on perjury relating to the outing of a CIA operative. I am sure it will come to a bit more, but that isn't much.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173329,00.html
By comparison, the Starr investigation, which started out investigating a shady land deal, and ended up getting the Prez on a lie about a hummber cost us: over 40 MILLION.
http://news-info.wustl.edu/FEC/1998/starr.html
if you trust the source, here is a breakdown of several investigations and thier costs and net results:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/wwstats.htm
As an American taxpayer I am ok with spending the cost of a home in Silicon Valley to figure out if someone intentionally blew the cover of an undercover operative.
http://realtytimes.com/rtcpages/20050309_siliconhigh.htm
- Status
