Bob is simply dead wrong on this issue. It is a conspiracy, and it's not being like a "kooky-con" to say so. His take on this issue has simply discredited him in my eyes.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 13, 2005 06:04 AMI like how the talking points now are that Rove 'didn't disclose Plame's name.' No, just that she was Wilson's wife. Well, without naming names, I wish we'd impeach Laura Bush's husband.
Posted by CapD at July 13, 2005 07:07 AMAre you saying that Rove revealed the actual name "Valerie Plame (or Wilson)" or just that the person in question was Wilson's wife? Determining exactly what Rove told to who is very important because if Rove didn't give out the actual name "Valerie Plame" then that is further proof that there were other leakers besides Rove because if Rove didn't give out the name, then someone else did. (Now, Rove outed Plame whether or not he gave out her name, that is certain but that's a different issue than exactly what he told Cooper or Novak or whomever).
Posted by RJ at July 13, 2005 09:58 AMYou said:
If the CIA did not believe that a crime had been committed Patrick Fitzgerald would not have wasted our taxpayer money on this investigation. So, the facts clearly indicate that a crime was committed by one or more people in the Bush administration. Therefore, I am well within reason to call this a crime - and a high crime at that.
I find this quote disturbingly reminiscent of what we have been told for years about Ken Starr's investigation of Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. The right still believes that Clinton was guilty, even though he was cleared and no charges were filed in Whitewater.
For this reason, I am not willing to say a crime has been committed until it is proven to have been committed.
I would say an alleged crime has been committed.
Posted by Oleary25 at July 13, 2005 10:08 AMWho gives a rat's ass whether he gave her name or not, the results are the same.
CaPD, funny line.
Posted by Judith at July 13, 2005 10:10 AMAccording to the law...She was not "covert". Here is the actual text of the law.
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
As you can see, she doesn't fit in this category. You can bank that Rove will not step down, be fired, or have charges pressed against him. Armed with the knowledge that I have given you, this case is closed and you can now move on to the nest conspiracy.
The source for the above excerpt from the law is:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html
Have a nice day.
And we're absolutely sure that the CIA itself was completely unaware of the definition of "covert agent" when it decided to pursue the case two years ago, right Brian?? And the federal prosecutor also has been completely unaware as well when he took this case on more than 18 month ago, right Brian??? No way could Ms. Wilson have been a "covert agent," despite what the CIA thinks, right Brian?? And the Espionage Act of 1917 is completely inapplicable to this case, right Brian???
Conservative troll, please try to think more deeply before you post, and have a great day.
Posted by Herman at July 14, 2005 06:17 AMSilly Herman. Whether or not the CIA or the speacial prosecutor were aware is totally beside the point. The letter of the law is what counts. And, as you can read it is in favor of Rove. To claim that someone broke the law, one has to use that same law as a basis of prosecution. This includes what the said law defines as "covert".
No the Espionage Act of 1917 does not apply. Even if tried it will fail also based on this little tidbit that you cannot possible prove:
Espionage Act Premise:
with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States
Nice try...but facts will win the day.
Posted by Brian at July 14, 2005 08:00 AMBrian,
Yes, it is clear that, unlike you, that special prosecutor appointed by a top official in the Bush Administration is such a dummy!!! Heck, this entire case could have been resolved shortly after the start if that dumb prosecutor had just read what you pointed out. And the CIA, it doesn't even know which of its employees are "covert agents" and which are not! What dummies these people are, unlike you, Brian. You're a genius.
Posted by at July 14, 2005 11:05 AMYessiree, Brian, you're so smart, you can find applicable laws that others simply are unable to find (even special prosecutors)!!!
Posted by Herman at July 14, 2005 11:18 AMAnd you can't stand it...LOL!! Just remember what I told you when it is all said and done.
Posted by Brian at July 14, 2005 02:24 PMAgree Brian! Only liberal idiots could possibly believe that an Ambassador's wife could pass as a "CIA covert agent"! They probably also believe that "Mr and Mrs Smith" was a true story! But hey, who can blame them! Rove is the main culpit responsible for kicking the Democrats into that fetal position soooooooo any conspiracy story is good enough even one as weak as this!
Posted by Dave at July 15, 2005 06:04 PMBrian, Define "injury to the United States?" Not a general statement, you haven't documented anything, a linked definition.
Posted by sage at July 15, 2005 08:57 PM