White House Outs CIA Agent
- Thread starter subgenius
- Start date
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Peter Fitzgerald is as ethical and honest as they come. He has shown here in Illinois that he's not afraid to prosecute high level politicians, as his curent prosecution of former GOP Gov. George Ryan (and dozens of cronies) shows. This was an excellent choice, I just hope it doesn't distract him from his day job - prosecuting corrupt Illinois politicians!fishbob said:
FALFURRIAS, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush on Thursday sought to distance himself from an investigation into whether someone in his administration illegally leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer.
"I'm not involved with the investigation in any way, shape or form," Bush told reporters here after wrapping up a hunting trip with his father and a family friend.
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/357662|top|01-01-2004::22:03|reuters.html
Good position especially if the probe (as is likely) exonerates you. Then there's no claim of undue influence. Which is why an outside investigator was a good idea all along.
I still am puzzled though at the rationale supporting Bush's decision to not even ask his staff about it at the outset.
"I'm not involved with the investigation in any way, shape or form," Bush told reporters here after wrapping up a hunting trip with his father and a family friend.
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/357662|top|01-01-2004::22:03|reuters.html
Good position especially if the probe (as is likely) exonerates you. Then there's no claim of undue influence. Which is why an outside investigator was a good idea all along.
I still am puzzled though at the rationale supporting Bush's decision to not even ask his staff about it at the outset.
Sources with knowledge of the case tell TIME that behind closed doors at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, nearby the Capitol, a grand jury began hearing testimony Wednesday in the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html
Hope they subpoena Novak, he refuses to testify and they jail him for contempt, the traitor.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,581456,00.html
Hope they subpoena Novak, he refuses to testify and they jail him for contempt, the traitor.
A couple of the panelists on the McLaughlin show (gosh that guy is funny) claimed that there will be indictments soon.
Here's an update, though it doesn't mention indictments:
Top Bush Aide Is Questioned in C.I.A. Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President Bush's press secretary and a former White House press aide testified on Friday to a federal grand jury investigating who improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer, the press secretary and a lawyer for the aide said on Monday.
The appearances of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, and the press aide, Adam Levine, reflected what lawyers in the case said was the quickening pace of a criminal inquiry in which a special prosecutor is examining conversations between journalists and the White House.
When he was asked by reporters on Monday whether he had been questioned in the case, Mr. McClellan said he had been filmed by news organizations as he emerged from the federal courthouse. "I think that confirms it for you," he said.
On Monday, a lawyer for Mr. Levine said the White House aide had also appeared on Friday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/p...000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
Here's an update, though it doesn't mention indictments:
Top Bush Aide Is Questioned in C.I.A. Leak
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — President Bush's press secretary and a former White House press aide testified on Friday to a federal grand jury investigating who improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer, the press secretary and a lawyer for the aide said on Monday.
The appearances of the press secretary, Scott McClellan, and the press aide, Adam Levine, reflected what lawyers in the case said was the quickening pace of a criminal inquiry in which a special prosecutor is examining conversations between journalists and the White House.
When he was asked by reporters on Monday whether he had been questioned in the case, Mr. McClellan said he had been filmed by news organizations as he emerged from the federal courthouse. "I think that confirms it for you," he said.
On Monday, a lawyer for Mr. Levine said the White House aide had also appeared on Friday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/10/p...000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
Monketi Ghost
Confusion Reactor
- Joined
- May 21, 2003
- Messages
- 25,141
Somebody's gotta pay for that crap.
Criminal probe implicates Cheney subordinates
Posted: February 13, 2004 - 10:29am EST
by: Jerry Reynolds / Washington D.C. correspondent / Indian Country Today
WASHINGTON - The FBI has traced the criminal exposure of a CIA covert agent to the office of Vice President Richard Cheney, according to the Insight on the News online wire service.
Richard Sale, a United Press International correspondent, quotes unnamed federal law enforcement officials in the Feb. 5 article that has been little-noted by mainstream U.S. media outlets. (Finally though, on Feb. 11, the English Manchester Guardian drew on some of Sale’s information as a source for its own story. The Guardian reported that three of the five individuals under FBI scrutiny worked for Cheney.) These same mainstream outlets have kept the Valerie Plame case in circulation, so that the basic outline is well known. But Sale’s report is early word on widespread speculation that Cheney subordinates leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent.
In a sequence of events first noted in the Washington Post and related exhaustively since, political columnist Robert Novak ended up revealing Plame’s undercover CIA career in print. Novak followed a tip whose trail now leads to the U.S. executive branch. Plame associates and her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, say the exposure has jeopardized her person and canceled her career.
If proven, the leak to the press that "burned" Plame (in espionage slang) could have consequences for other careers too. (The Guardian, for instance, reported that Cheney’s political career is at stake.)
http://www.indiancountry.com/?1076686296
Posted: February 13, 2004 - 10:29am EST
by: Jerry Reynolds / Washington D.C. correspondent / Indian Country Today
WASHINGTON - The FBI has traced the criminal exposure of a CIA covert agent to the office of Vice President Richard Cheney, according to the Insight on the News online wire service.
Richard Sale, a United Press International correspondent, quotes unnamed federal law enforcement officials in the Feb. 5 article that has been little-noted by mainstream U.S. media outlets. (Finally though, on Feb. 11, the English Manchester Guardian drew on some of Sale’s information as a source for its own story. The Guardian reported that three of the five individuals under FBI scrutiny worked for Cheney.) These same mainstream outlets have kept the Valerie Plame case in circulation, so that the basic outline is well known. But Sale’s report is early word on widespread speculation that Cheney subordinates leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent.
In a sequence of events first noted in the Washington Post and related exhaustively since, political columnist Robert Novak ended up revealing Plame’s undercover CIA career in print. Novak followed a tip whose trail now leads to the U.S. executive branch. Plame associates and her husband, former U.S. ambassador Joseph Wilson, say the exposure has jeopardized her person and canceled her career.
If proven, the leak to the press that "burned" Plame (in espionage slang) could have consequences for other careers too. (The Guardian, for instance, reported that Cheney’s political career is at stake.)
http://www.indiancountry.com/?1076686296
Yeah, he'd invoke the journalist privilege. But they could jail him for contempt.clk said:
While we don't know who leaked it to him, yet, we do know he's a traitor because there was no newsworthiness to leaking her name, in the opinion of journalistic ethics experts.
They don't need him though, they know who did it by now through phone records. Indictments imminent. Then trials. Then pardons.
subgenius said:
I didn't realize there was a journalistic privilege. Is that similar to the 5th amendment? I don't see why they didn't call Novak first, since it's clear he knows who did it. If he talked, then the problem would be solved. If he didn't talk, then they could just jail him and then look through the phone records.
The privilege is an outgrowth of the 1st Amendment.clk said:
They don't need him though because they have the White House phone records of calls to him.
Although there is apparently no law against what he did it is treasonous nonetheless and he should be ostracized by the community.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I care less about the treason than the hypocrisy. I don't think the "outing" is going to make a big difference in our intelligence, such as it is. It is just that Novak has been such a big right-wing cheerleader, that when he gets caught doing something absolutely against every right-wing principle, then he ought to be suffering the rightous wrath of the right. Instead, they shuffle their feet and hem and haw and say nothing much. I want to scream out, "where is this patriotism you people claim to stand for?"subgenius said:
Instead, right wingers whine about Kerry appearing (perhaps) in the background of a photo with that "traitor" Jane Fonda, while ignoring the traitor right under their noses.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Duh. They aren't going to admit this sort of thing to "the boss", thereby guaranteeing their election as "sacrificial lamb". They're going to hope it gets lost in the shuffle and their record is unsullied. Really, Sub, you're not usually this naive.subgenius said:
Doh! The point is why didn't he go through the motions of asking, not whether he'd get a response. If he didn't ask because he knew he wouldn't get an honest response, what does that say about his choice of people for his staff. And it looks like he doesn't really want to know. You always give someone the opportunity to 'fess up. Saves a lot of money, and gives you two reasons to fire them if they lie.Tricky said:
Duh. They aren't going to admit this sort of thing to "the boss", thereby guaranteeing their election as "sacrificial lamb". They're going to hope it gets lost in the shuffle and their record is unsullied. Really, Sub, you're not usually this naive.
And you're not usually that contumelious.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Bosses who get the most loyalty out of their staff are those who "stand behind" their people. Bush could have asked in private under the agreement that he would do his best to protect the offender, but we'll probably never know. Politically, it might have been wise to have asked publicly, thereby scoring points with the people. So in answer, (the real answer, not the contumelious one), I'd agree he was politically stupid not to do so. It wouldn't be the first time.subgenius said:
Great word, contumelious. Thank you. I shall make it a more regular part of my lexicon.subgenius said:And you're not usually that contumelious.
But you are wrong. I am often contumelious, just not usually to the good guys.
"So in answer, (the real answer, not the contumelious one), I'd agree he was politically stupid not to do so."
That was my point.
It sure didn't go over well with me.
Effluvial ordure.
(Although it would sound good whispered in your lover's ear, you wouldn't want to be around when they look it up.)
That was my point.
It sure didn't go over well with me.
Effluvial ordure.
(Although it would sound good whispered in your lover's ear, you wouldn't want to be around when they look it up.)
Rumsfeld publicly threatened criminal prosecution whenever "classified information dealing with operations is provided to people who are not cleared for that information."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-012306-4708r.htm
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040223-012306-4708r.htm
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
Of course the Sec of Defense has no authority to declare war, but he could certainly use his influence to urge the President to push for war.
Criminal status meant that the terrorists were a bunch of low-life thugs to be caught, tried, and punished. War status means that the terrorists are an organized force with political aims to be battled and defeated.
If you were a terrorist, which status would you prefer?