Members chris-dax Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Hugh Hewitt interviewed Novak on his radio program yesterday....Novak has a new book out. Here's an excerpt of the interview which is available in it's entirety at the website... HH: Let me ask you, I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 17, 2007 RN: Because Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members misterhinkydink Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Hugh Hewitt interviewed Novak on his radio program yesterday....Novak has a new book out. Here's an excerpt of the interview which is available in it's entirety at the website... HH: Let me ask you, I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 I checked on www.BushIsTheNewHitler.com and they say Novak is owned by the Whitehouse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mmb Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Well, I blame Bush for it. Of course he caused it. He causes everything! - sarcasm off - What I don't under stand is how Bush is believed to be one of the stupidest men alive, but then he's accused of having all these secret plots and ideas. It's one or the other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 17, 2007 What I don't under stand is how Bush is believed to be one of the stupidest men alive, but then he's accused of having all these secret plots and ideas.It's one or the other people.That's easy. Cheney is the real President. George is just the eye candy that got elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tim in WV Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Cheney is the man and Bush is a puppet. Bush is not the President, Cheney and the powers behind him are telling him how high to jump and when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Cheney is the man and Bush is a puppet. Bush is not the President, Cheney and the powers behind him are telling him how high to jump and when. I think we have common ground! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 RN should read the act. It makes no distinction for a covert agent to be "overseas". If the CIA classifies an operative as covert then that is what they are. The CIA stated Plame was covert.Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 That's easy. Cheney is the real President. George is just the eye candy that got elected. That's some pretty damned ugly eye candy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members misterhinkydink Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 What I don't under stand is how Bush is believed to be one of the stupidest men alive, but then he's accused of having all these secret plots and ideas.It's one or the other people. I don't recall anyone ever accusing Bush of plotting. The Administration yes, but Bush the man, no. He doesn't have the intellect to plot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Exactly. Of course the fact that Fitzgerald would have to have charged Wilson for outing his wife previous to all this put the cabash on the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bholder Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 ...RN: Because there was no crime committed under the Intelligence Agents Identity Act. That bill was passed, Hugh, to protect intelligence agents overseas from being outed by left wing forces, and then marked for assassination. It was really a deadly serious act, nothing like somebody sitting in Langley in the CIA headquarters as Mrs. Wilson was, doing analysis. There was no crime committed under that act, and therefore, he was not charged. And so that is the whole problem with the Libby indictment. He was charged for obstructing justice when there was no underlying crime committed, or allegedly committed.... The intent of that act, or any act, is irrelevant. The wording of the law is the the thing that is relevant, and it makes no such distinction. Novak has no more authority to interpret the law than any other citizen. A felony was committed, and essentially admitted to. I'm disgusted that it hasn't been properly prosecuted. Then again, Bush himself has essentially confessed to other felonies (such as violating FISA) and those have gone unprosecuted as well, so I guess it's par for the course. When was the last time a sitting president confessed to a felony during comission of his official duties and got away with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 17, 2007 Of course the fact that Fitzgerald would have to have charged Wilson for outing his wife previous to all this put the cabash on the whole thing. That's a great point that flies over many heads, lug. How can someone be outed, when they've already been outed? Wait. We need to waste taxpayer money, and congress' time on all this stuff. There is a lot of government waste between Clinton investigations and Bush investigations. It's beyond stupid silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members johnny6644 Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Perjury is perjury... obstruction of justice is, well, you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 50calexplorer Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Of course the fact that Fitzgerald would have to have charged Wilson for outing his wife previous to all this put the cabash on the whole thing. That isn't true. Outing an agent is a difficult charge to get a conviction for. D.A.'s commonly charge things they can get convictions for even though they have more charges they can level against a defendant. Look at someone they charge iwth conspiracies, they are way easier to get convictions for than the the actual crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Perjury is perjury... obstruction of justice is, well, you know... Yeah, that guy actually WAS charged, prosecuted, convicted, commuted, on probation, and owes a {censored}eton of money. The article was asking about Armitage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yeah, that guy actually WAS charged, prosecuted, convicted, commuted, on probation, and owes a {censored}eton of money. The article was asking about Armitage.Money which was paid by his friends already. Armitage should be sharing a cell with Libby. How did Wilson out his wife again? "Marriage" doesn't count as an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bnyswonger Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 That's a great point that flies over many heads, lug. How can someone be outed, when they've already been outed? Wait. We need to waste taxpayer money, and congress' time on all this stuff. There is a lot of government waste between Clinton investigations and Bush investigations. It's beyond stupid silly. We needed more info on the blowjob! And the cigars...were they CUBAN??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Never mind that the judge said there was a crime, the CIA said there was a crime, the prosecutor said there was a crime. The right-wing talking tools said there wasn't so there wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bnyswonger Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 Never mind that the judge said there was a crime, the CIA said there was a crime, the prosecutor said there was a crime. The right-wing talking tools said there wasn't so there wasn't. Works great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 17, 2007 Never mind that the judge said there was a crime, the CIA said there was a crime, the prosecutor said there was a crime.The right-wing talking tools said there wasn't so there wasn't.The CIA is neither a judge, nor a jury, thankfully. That's what the special prosecutor was hired to do. Further, here's an article from USA Today (hardly a right wing publication) that has direct quotes from 2 attorneys who actually contributed to writing the law. Here's the full article . . . ."Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities. . . . . .Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act. Like Sanford, she doubts Valerie Wilson, as she now refers to herself, qualified as a "covert agent" under that law. She and Sanford also doubt Fitzgerald has enough evidence to prosecute anyone under the Espionage Act. That law makes it a crime to divulge "information relating to the national defense" that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury" of the nation. But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury. . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 .... . . ."Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.Except if you read the actual act, it doesn't stipulate that anywhere at all. "Serving" (the actual language of the act) and being "stationed" (not mentioned) are two different things. Troops "serve" in the military whether they're "stationed" State-side or elsewhere. I do feel that there are several updates required for the act (mainly due to the nature of modern electronic communication), but Novak, Libby, Armitage et al. acted stupidly, and possibly criminally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted July 17, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 17, 2007 Except if you read the actual act, it doesn't stipulate that anywhere at all. "Serving" (the actual language of the act) and being "stationed" (not mentioned) are two different things. I'll accept the word of the people who wrote the law. They were quoted in the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members takeout Posted July 17, 2007 Members Share Posted July 17, 2007 I'll accept the word of the people who wrote the law. They were quoted in the article. I'm quoting the actual law they wrote, but have it your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.