Bush claims privilege to withhold CIA leak records - Page 2

Comrade Ogilvy · 07-17-08, 10:01 PM

Section eight...figures!!!!!! ...Haaaaaaaaaa...Haaaaaa.

section eight · 07-17-08, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orius

I find it ironic that a past President was impeeched for an interoffice affair, while this one has done more than enough to warrant his own trial. Obstruction of justice, to name one.

Executive Privilege can not be overruled unless the prosecutor can prove that the testimony is pertinent to proving a crime but since no crime even occurred due to the fact that Plame's name had been leaked long before Bush was in office that will be quite impossible.

Coolguy · 07-17-08, 10:48 PM

Like I said, this is nothing more than political grandstanding.
To equate Clinton's "lying under oath" with anything Bush has done, is in my opinion, ridiculous.

The bias in the above article from an Associated Press Writer is clear.

Fact: After a lengthy investigation, no crime of having revealed Plame's status has ever been charged.
Yet speculation still abounds.

All we have is speculation that the Admin did something nefarious.
Yet when one looks at all the facts regarding the issue it is clear that there is more credence to it being nothing more than a politically motivated witch hunt.
And yes, I realize that there is speculation on this side of the coin too, yet that speculation has more to back it up than anything possibly done by the Admin.

So the question is; To what side do the facts and speculation give more credence?

.

By Binary_Digit
Yeah right... Even if that's true, I don't see how you could think it changes anything. It's against the law to knowingly provide classified information to people not authorized to have it. Someone still may have committed a crime.

It changes everything, and gives more credence to it being nothing more than political a witch hunt.

You might want to look up what is a defense to the charge and see why it changes everything before you read what follows.

Quote:

United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4
§ 422. Defenses and exceptions
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4 - Wikisource

Unfortunately the link to the Amicus Brief in the following is no longer good.

Quote:

National Review Online
Andrew C. McCarthy - Contributing Editor
July 18, 2005, 8:01 a.m.

Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.
Andrew C. McCarthy on Valerie Plame on National Review Online

You might want to read this also. It is linked to in the above piece.

Quote:

National Review Online
Clifford D. May - Contributing
July 15, 2005, 8:27 a.m.

Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame?
How about the least likely suspect?
Clifford D. May on Joseph Wilson on National Review Online

.

By Binary_Digit
Yeah right... I'm pretty sure whatever timeline you're using to come up with this claim is flawed, but perhaps you could show your "evidence" of this?

I have never seen anyone show the timeline to be flawed.
Be my guest. It is from the 'Sweetness & Light' Blog.

Quote:

When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame
Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)
When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame | Sweetness & Light

The bottom line is that Plame had already been exposed and the reason why they can not charge Wilson with it is the same reason they can't charge anyone in the Admin.

winston53660 · 07-17-08, 11:36 PM

I wonder if the government can listen in on Bush's phone calls now?

cascadian · 07-18-08, 02:43 AM

If you say someone works for the CIA, you have outed them. Any chance of them being undercover is lost. Belaboring the point that Novak didn't say she was undercover is a red herring.

If someone is undercover, how the hell do you know that they work for the CIA to begin with? Novak's knowledge isn't as important as his source's knowledge. It is highly likely that anyone who knew she worked for the CIA would know that fact shouldn't be revealed.

Coolguy · 07-18-08, 07:43 AM

Simply saying someone works for the CIA isn't outing them unless they were covert.

As for Novak being a red herring. ???
If having read the above information, it would have been clear that Novak isn't the gist, but that Plame's covert status had already been revealed prior to this whole affair.

The red herring is this whole affair to begin with.
It is pretty clear from the sequence of events that this was a politically motivated attempt to damage the administration.

aps · 07-18-08, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coolguy

This is nothing more than political grandstanding.

Plame was already outed, even the MSM knew it, but didn't bother to report it.
On top of that, the Plame/Wilson's outed her before any reports of an Admin leak.

Glad to see you still have the GOP talking points memorized.