For those of you who think that the investigation is over...

[aps]

Well libs time to start looking for another watergate cuz the the Libby prosecutor said the wars not on trial and that this is a narrow case and no covert agent has been outted repeat no OUTTING of a covert agent has occurred so ha you're all wrong, have been wrong, and will probably continue being wrong just like I've been saying all along that Plame was not a covert agent. This isn't the real story anyways it's a liberal media inspired smoke screen to hide the fact that Plame sent her Kerry campaign worker biased with no history in intelligence gathering husband Joe Wilson to Niger for the sould purpose of discrediting the administration.

If you look at Bush's approval rate, he is already in Watergate status, as he is as unpopular as Nixon was right before Nixon resigned.

There, there, Trajan. It will be okay. Just because the majority of Americans question the President's integrity and wonder whether he lied to us about the intelligence that caused us to invade Iraq, doesn't mean that it will be considered another Watergate if it's determined that he did lie.

I love seeing how defensive many of the repubs on this board are. It means that they are worried.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

If you look at Bush's approval rate, he is already in Watergate status, as he is as unpopular as Nixon was right before Nixon resigned.

There, there, Trajan. It will be okay. Just because the majority of Americans question the President's integrity and wonder whether he lied to us about the intelligence that caused us to invade Iraq, doesn't mean that it will be considered another Watergate if it's determined that he did lie.

I love seeing how defensive many of the repubs on this board are. It means that they are worried.

defensive? I stated a fact here buddy the prosecutor himself said that this is a very narrow case, is not going to put the war or the administration on trial, and that Plane was not covert, you have no case other than perjury give it up. Start trying to win elections with votes buddy.

 

[tecoyah]

defensive? I stated a fact here buddy the prosecutor himself said that this is a very narrow case, is not going to put the war or the administration on trial, and that Plane was not covert, you have no case other than perjury give it up. Start trying to win elections with votes buddy.

He is correct in this....Bush is not on trial, nor is the war. I think the closed session of congress is doing that.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He is correct in this....Bush is not on trial, nor is the war. I think the closed session of congress is doing that.

The closed session of congress is total b.s. and will go nowhere Senate minority leader Reid used a seldom enacted law that required no vote and in effect took democracy out of the process, the senate majority leader is outraged and says that Reid went behind his back and that he can no longer work with Reidd.

 

[tecoyah]

The closed session of congress is total b.s. and will go nowhere Senate minority leader Reid used a seldom enacted law that required no vote and in effect took democracy out of the process, the senate majority leader is outraged and says that Reid went behind his back and that he can no longer work with Reidd.

Yes...I am well aware of the Facts involved with the process, and the reaction to use of the clause. I do however, see why it was done, and am sickened that it took such a step to get an investigation going. Had the Adminstration not blocked every other avenue available to the Minority party, I doubt they would have done so. The tactics are not at all pleasant, but then, neither is Hiding from the police.

 

[aps]

defensive? I stated a fact here buddy the prosecutor himself said that this is a very narrow case, is not going to put the war or the administration on trial, and that Plane was not covert, you have no case other than perjury give it up. Start trying to win elections with votes buddy.

I have never said that this investigation relates to the war. It does raise a tangential issue of whether the Bush administration exaggerated the intelligence. That's it.

But for you to say that the statute was not violated is premature. What Fitzgerald was saying at his press conference was that Libby threw sand in his eyes, so he was unable to make a determination as to whether the statute was violated. I'm not saying that the statute was violated, by the way.

 

[aps]

The closed session of congress is total b.s. and will go nowhere Senate minority leader Reid used a seldom enacted law that required no vote and in effect took democracy out of the process, the senate majority leader is outraged and says that Reid went behind his back and that he can no longer work with Reidd.

Trajan, why not just wait until the report comes out? This is why I see you as so defensive. You keep arguing that nothing will come of the issue of whether the Bush adminstration lied about the intelligence. I think Americans are becoming more concerned about this, and the Senate will have to address this issue.

Oh, is little Fristy upset because Reid did not consult him? I agree that normally when someone is going to invoke that rule, they usually tell the opposing side. But normally, senators do not campaign against other senators, but Frist went to Daschle's home state and campaigned against Daschle. Therefore, Frist's outrage falls on deaf ears.

 

[aps]

Bush is in Argentina right now. Someone asked him about whether he was going to keep Rove or not. He said that the investigation on Rove was continuing and that he would not comment.

Stop arguing that the investigation is over because it is not.

 

[Binary_Digit]

no covert agent has been outted repeat no OUTTING of a covert agent has occurred

Ok, so Plame was not covert. If that guarantees no law was broken, then why did they appoint a Federal prosecutor to figure out who dunnit?

 

[aps]

Ok, so Plame was not covert. If that guarantees no law was broken, then why did they appoint a Federal prosecutor to figure out who dunnit?

Binary, I have asked that question and no one seems to have an answer. It's called logic. The case would not have been referred to a special prosecutor had a covert agent had not been outted. That is the primary element to violate the statute. If she was not covert, there would be no need to investigate it.

 

[alienken]

Ok, so Plame was not covert. If that guarantees no law was broken, then why did they appoint a Federal prosecutor to figure out who dunnit?

Answer- Politics. Dems. are using prosecutors to take down their opponents that they could not take down themselves in the elections. Look at the Tom Delay case. The dems know about the Rep. rule that if any leader in Congress is indited they have to give up their leadership role. The prosecutor that is after Delay was the same one who indicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. When the trial started, the prosecutors opening statement was "we have no case, move to dismiss.". That is the kind of politics that are present. I just don't see any validity in any of the cases.

 

[scottyz]

Answer- Politics. Dems. are using prosecutors to take down their opponents that they could not take down themselves in the elections. Look at the Tom Delay case. The dems know about the Rep. rule that if any leader in Congress is indited they have to give up their leadership role. The prosecutor that is after Delay was the same one who indicted Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. When the trial started, the prosecutors opening statement was "we have no case, move to dismiss.". That is the kind of politics that are present. I just don't see any validity in any of the cases.

Ashcroft and Fitzgerald are Dems?

 

[aps]

Ashcroft and Fitzgerald are Dems?

No scottyz. Those poor republicans were forced, I tell you, forced, to refer the issue for investigation because of the democrats.

 

[Canuck]

Deluded and stumbling ,fools!
The congress has stired with elections coming up.
They now have seen the evedence ,that proves that BUSH has gone beyond
impeachment.He has harbored liars ,deceivers
,and mahap even formented the Valarie plame outing ,to avenge Wilson's
cry for freedom ,truth,and justice.

That the Italians have been forth coming in their findings which place the lies at the White House, at least as high as Cheney.And the facts that Cheney and rove and libby all went to the CIa at the time and pecificaly looked for files on wilsin and his wife

At this stage there is a plea bargaining going down and there is a clear indication that Cheney is about to resign and rove is about to fry

this pic is of a man that is going against all he believes in and is lying
you can see it in his face

 

[Alastor]

I accept that the wording of the verbatim laws allows wiggle room on the issue as it currently stands.

However, I didn't approve when Clinton "deceived" the nation (which most of us call lying) nor do I approve of the current White House outting a covert operative (and all her cohorts and contacts) and lying about it.

No matter how it's phrased or parsed.

 

[Squawker]

At this stage there is a plea bargaining going down and there is a clear indication that Cheney is about to resign and rove is about to fry

That is wishful thinking. Full pants Berger only got a fine for stealing classified material. I think Libby walks with a slap on the wrist.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What he said instead was that since Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first ...

Loosely speaking, this is true. More accurately, though, Libby denied what was probably more than a month of his discussion and inquiry into the affair with representatives from different government agencies. Not only did Libby "forget" about these efforts, he "remembered" things that didn't happen.
so, loosely speaking, one could be both correct and vague by saying "Libby seems to have lied about whom he heard about it from first." but the vagueness robs it of some of it's meaning. Can't help but wonder if this truncation of meaning is intentional.

... (not a very important aspect to begin with) ...

If it wasn't "a very important aspect to begin with," I suspect that Mr. Libby's memory would have been more up to par than it was.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If Fitzgerald had a good case it wouldn't have taken him two years to get an indictment.

What is the basis of this judgment? I mean how did you decide how long it should have taken him?

During the process Libby probably did make conflicting statements.

His statements did not conflict with each other. The statements conflicted w/ the paper trail.

What happened to the "It's no big deal to lie under oath" Clinton apologists?

I'm wondering what happened to the rest of my "Character Counts" crew?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Crime? What crime? There hasn't even been an indictment as yet on the 'outing' allegation. The continued description of Plame's identity as having been 'leaked' is popular but it remains unproven that 'leaked' is an appropriate description ...

So, what's you pet theory as to why the CIA initiated this investigation?

Were they malicious? Or were they merely incompetent?

Is the CIA a part of The Liberal Conspiracy© to overthrow the Bush Administration?
What gives? If Mrs. Wilson's relationship to the CIA was not classified, why'd did these numerous agencies (CIA, DoJ, FBI etc) all get together and deiced to defraud the US government by holding such an investigation when there was no grounds for it?
Or, does the CIA lack the ability to determine if Mrs. Wilson's employment w/ the CIA was classified or not? So they decided to have the investigation to find out?

What would you find an acceptable level of proof? I've shown thirsty horse, Stinger, a CIA letter on CIA letterhead describing the investigation as

"... an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover."
​

And describing a

"... a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. "
​

I also Showed Stinger where someone who was a spokesman for the CIA "confirmed that she was an undercover operative."

Yet, Stinger's still thirsty.

So, again, I ask:

What would quality and quantity of evidence would it take to convince you?
​

 

[scottyz]

If Fitzgerald had a good case it wouldn't have taken him two years to get an indictment.

Didn't it take Ken Starr 4 years? The Iran Contra investigation took 6 years...

 

[Squawker]

Didn't it take Ken Starr 4 years? The Iran Contra investigation took 6 years...

The original evidense was flimsy in both of those investigations. It wasn't the so called crime that led to indictment, it was the so called cover up. They are all cases that waste time and money IMO.

 

[oldreliable67]

So, what's you pet theory as to why the CIA initiated this investigation?

Simon,

Actually, that is a very good question. Not the my 'pet theory' part; the why did the CIA initiate this thing part is a good question! The answer, I think, is most likely to be multi-part.

Part one is relatively easy: the CIA is required by law to report any instances of suspected leaks of classified information to the Justice Dept for investigation. Remember, the CIA has no law-enforcement investigative authority nor does it have the ability to bring cases before a grand jury for possible indictment. Notice that the requirement is described in terms of "classified" information. In the case of Plame, though she was not within the definition of 'covert' and hadn't been for quite some time, she was 'classified', because she was working on classified material, hence the need to refer the matter to the DoJ. Ashcroft, the AG at the time, recused himself because of his relationship with those involved, hence the special prosecutor. Thats as I understand it - if I've have any of this wrong, I'm sure someone can and will correct me!

Part two is more interesting. there seems to be have been quite a rift between the WH and elements within the CIA going back quite a long way, certainly even before the Clinton administration. It basically appears to be a power struggle between those who would expand the powers of the CIA to include domestic intelligence etc and the politicians who would keep the CIA on a leash (or at least more accountable). Don't have any links to discussions of such just at the moment - on the road away from home this week - will try to gather up such when I return.

The other questions in your post concerning "what would it take to convince me?"...convince me of what? I've no dog in this fight, as the saying goes. I'm only trying to point out some things that a lot of folks seem to be missing (like the details of the statute in question). If Libby lied, then prosecute him. If Rove lied, then prosecute him, too. If the Dems are successful in getting Libby into court and successful in forcing Cheney to testify and Cheney lies, then prosecute him as well.

Personally, at bottom, this whole thing looks more and more like Dems seizing an opportunity for a little Clinton impeachment payback. And quite frankly, I can't say that I blame them for giving it a try. Its just equal opportunity ankle-biting, IMHO. And now its the Dems turn. They all, Reps and Dems alike, strike me as a bunch of under-achievers all striving to be tiddly-winks champion.

 

[Stinger]

Okay, now I understand what you're saying. I'm not saying that Fitzgerald announced at his press conference that he was still investigating Rove. I am saying that Fitzgerald told Rove's attorney that Rove was not off the hook.

Here's more evidence that Rove is still being investigated:

More speculation, not evidence.

Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe,

Pure speculation you have no idea what he is considering.

I give no credibility to a report that says there would be 22 indictments.

You should do the same here.

He's on the hook, my delusional friend. A person whith any integrity would have resigned.

So it is delusional to heed what Fitzgerald said in his news conference? And why should someone who has not been accusd of a crime resign.

What is so transparent is that for the left this has nothing to do with Plame or Wilson, it is just an opportunity to try and damage the current administration. And the people see that and will vote accordingly in the next election.

 

[aps]

So it is delusional to heed what Fitzgerald said in his news conference? And why should someone who has not been accusd of a crime resign.

What is so transparent is that for the left this has nothing to do with Plame or Wilson, it is just an opportunity to try and damage the current administration. And the people see that and will vote accordingly in the next election.

I don't care to get into an argument as to whether or not Rove is being investigated. You'll continue to dismiss what I say. While in South America, someone asked Bush about whether he would keep Rove. He said that the investigation was still going on, so he could not comment.

As for why someone who has not been accused of a crime should resign--Bush promised during his 2000 campaign that he was going to restore honesty and integrity to the White House. He also said he would not hide behind legalisms. McClellan said that neither Rove nor Libby had anything to do with leaking information, but yet, they did. This means that in all likelihood, Rove lied to McClellan.

I would think that someone who says he will restore honesty and integrity would ask Rove to resign. Rove has demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity, or, at a minimum, has given the appearance of lacking honesty and integrity. I believe that the highest office of the United States should have a higher standard. Additonally, Bush said he would not hide behind legalisms, yet he changed his decision to firing anyone involved to firing someone who committed a crime.

Stinger, it's no wonder why so many Americans are questioning Bush's integrity. But hey, the longer he keeps Rove on the job, the worse it makes him look. So let's keep Rove in the White House. :lol:

As for how people will vote in 2006, I have only this to say:

"Pure speculation you have no idea [how people will vote in 2006]."

 

[Binary_Digit]

Why do you people keep blabbing this crap that it's all the Democrats' doing? Check your facts, Fitzgerald is a REPUBLICAN who was appointed by a REPUBLICAN deputy chief of staff. Republicans should be proud that their party is policing itsself, not blaming it on the democrats!