billvon 2,991 #26 October 3, 2003 >>Telling a lie to Congress is a crime. >Clinton did it without any problems. "Impeachment" is "without any problems?" In that case, I am certain Bush will have no problems with any findings by the investigators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #27 October 3, 2003 The difference in your example is the investigation of an allegation against an elected official (the VP), vs. a staffer. Missing documents (ie a gap in phone logs) or denied subpoenas would be a sure sign of a cover-up... Leaks are a way of life in politics... if this was an illegal leak, and it appears the the investigation is being hindered by the SoJ, then yes, a SI would be warranted, but not until then, otherwise it is politicising it unnecessarily. If this "operative" was not overseas and undercover at the time of the leak, it was not illegal, and from what Novak says she was not either. In my mind that is the point that needs to be clarified before you can even discuss a SI. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #28 October 3, 2003 QuoteQuote Clinton did it without any problems. As I recall, he was impeached for it. I'll agree that being impeached is a problem. What punishment did he receive though? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #29 October 3, 2003 Damn', I looked at the title of this thread, and thought it was stories about old flames..... ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #30 October 3, 2003 >The difference in your example is the investigation of an allegation >against an elected official (the VP), vs. a staffer. The other difference is severity and immediacy. Did the VP use a white house phone, and charge _several_dollars_ of illegal campagining to the public? vs. Did an administration official compromise US intelligence efforts by leaking the name of a covert operative? One is serious and immediate; the other can probably wait a bit for political manuevering. >Leaks are a way of life in politics... A poor excuse. Murder is a way of life in DC too (murder capital of the country.) Doesn't excuse it one bit. >If this "operative" was not overseas and undercover at the time of the leak, it was not illegal . . . I have to say I'm disappointed. A national intelligence source has likely been compromised for political gain; the ONLY response you can have to this is to push for a rapid, independent investigation. Coming up with excuses, justifications and caveats is really weak. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #31 October 3, 2003 GWB's statements, that appear to be without merit, could be considered a "high crime" IF: - it is proven that they were deliberate - hard to prove - or it is shown that he misused government resources (CIA, Military, etc) for the purpose of personal political benifit - even harder to prove. He may be guilty of having a bad (or no) plan, or listening to bad advisors, but it is a reach to call it treasonous, and will be dificult to prove up a case for "high crimes". It may cost him an election, but he won't get taken out before then. Funny how not going to Bagdad cost Bush Sr. the election, and going to Bagdad might cost Bush Jr. his. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
frig 0 #32 October 3, 2003 >>Being an incredible dufus is, unfortunately, not >>against the law. >> >>Being a diabolical genius, intent on doing the >>same thing he does every night, trying to take >>over the world, well, that might have some >>repercussions, depending on how he went about >>it. My thoughts exactly. I used to think Bush was just a dumbshit trying to do what he thought was best. Now I think he is a self serving smartshit. He's lucky there is no country more powerful then us or he might find himself the target of a 'strategic military strike'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #33 October 3, 2003 Quote If this "operative" was not overseas and undercover at the time of the leak, it was not illegal, and from what Novak says she was not either. Not really. There are actually at least two different issues here. The most obvious is the leak itself. If knowledge of her activies were classified, then it's illegal to have leaked them regardless of whether or not she was currently active. All classified material has a declassification date, if not reclassified and revealed after that date, then no harm no foul. This however does NOT seem to be the case in this matter and knowledge of her role appears to be classified therefore the leak WAS illegal and depending on how you want to look at the legalities surrounding war -- possibly an act of treason. Further, there is the matter of -who- leaked the information and did they actually have the legal right to have that knowledge in the first place. Classified information is revealed to individuals on a "need to know" basis. The President of the United States probably has a "need to know" of even NOCs, so no problem there. Does a campaign strategist the likes of Karl Rove have a "need to know" about CIA agents . . . I rather doubt it. It's going to be very interesting to see how this plays out.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #34 October 3, 2003 I don't like that a CIA agent, that has a lot of money invested in her, is now no longer able to operate as she would have, any more than you. And the fact that is was done for political puposes sucks more, whether it was done by the administration, or to discredit it, it sucks. As a former intelligence officer, I can appreciate the importance of protecting sources and methods... if an active UC agent had their cover blown, then whom ever leaked it should be shot on the front lawn of the capital building, any one who leaks national secrets should (this would include Clinton and Gore). If it was Rove, if it was Bush himself. Whomever leaked it should be looking for new employment also, because no administration should have staff with such poor judgement. If it was someone from the other side of the fence as well. Novak verified the info with the CIA, and they asked him not to run it, because it might cause her problems in future asignments, but did not tell him not to run it because it would jepordize current operations... there is a difference. You can answer the intial part of the question without a SI, was she an active UC agent? IF so, then a crime has been commited by someone, and it might be someone within the administration, THEN you can talk about a SI. If the answer is no, the drop it, because there was no crime. My question is, this was in the paper in July, it was not important to anyone until late September, why? JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #35 October 3, 2003 >was she an active UC agent? IF so, then a crime has been commited by someone . . Hmm. I think it's been made pretty clear that even if she was inactive, compromising an undercover agent can lead to retaliations against our sources of information. >My question is, this was in the paper in July, it was not important to >anyone until late September, why? Because no one in the White House wanted a big deal made of it, and perhaps the media aren't quite the Bush-bashers people make them out to be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jdhill 0 #36 October 3, 2003 I am very well versed in how classified material is handled, and not handled in many cases... too many people have clearances... and unfortunately the "need to know" criteria, is very loose... did Monica need to know? She had a TS clearance pushed through in a few days... IMO noone but members of the intelligence community (and then only those who work directly with the agent) should have knowledge of the names of specific agents that either are or maybe posted to the field. There are lots of ways this can play out. Some involve there being a crime, some don't. Some involve the administration, some don't. It will be interesting. JAll that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #37 October 3, 2003 Quote My question is, this was in the paper in July, it was not important to anyone until late September, why? No. It was being talked about MUCH earlier than that. It just takes a while for the ball to get really rolling on things like this. White Water wasn't built in a day either. HERE is an article from September 2 if that makes you feel any better. HERE is one from July 24. I'm certain there are others. I will admit that these appear to be somewhat grassroots efforts, but clearly it's part of the back-chatter of the belt-way.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
