Posted on 12/05/2004 4:30:47 PM PST by Snapple
One intriguing possibility, noted by several lawyers familiar with the case, is that Novak may have invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and that Fitzgerald has not yet chosen to give him immunity from prosecution to compel his testimony.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
And when the source has signed a waiver of that confidentiality, the reporters ought to speak.
Period.
The only one saying that is Wilson and his friends in the media. It is a ludicrous, not to mention impossible, charge.
what is widely known in Washington is not necessarily known in other countries. And "working at the CIA" is not the same as being a NOC.
So are you saying it's not a crime in this case and that the first President Bush is wrong about such an act being treason?
Just asking, because I consider keeping our NOCs under cover important. I care much more about my country than my political party.
So far the only evidence of national security being damaged for political motives comes from the Wilson lies, backed by the CIA rogues, about his trip to Niger and the attempt to smear the Bush administration with those lies.
"Probably" and "may have" do not an airtight case make.
As has been pointed out countless times, Cliff May said a dem friend of Wilson's told him about Plame's role in sending her beloved spouse Niger way before Novak's column ran. May decided not to write about it but then Novak did.
The only actual evidence so far is that the story was given out by a pro-Wilson faction in order to explain why he was sent on a "mission" for an administration he did not support. As May explained, the dem told him that Plame worked at the CIA (nobody has confirmed she was undercover at the time nor had been for years and years) and therefore the Wilsons were pro-American first, political partisans second.
Of course, that turned out to be a lie.
It would only apply if Plame was that type of operative.
Welcome to Free Republic, "redstatemomma".
Democrat scumbag and documented liar Joseph Wilson got in way over his head when he colluded with the rats to try to undermine the Bush Administration to advance a political agenda. I have to believe his wife was on the same page as him.
The Bush Administration is way too smart to do anything as brazenly illegal as leak the name of an active CIA undercover operative. Anybody who believes that claim is an idiot. I think that a trap was laid for the rats and their allies in the liberal newsrooms and I think there's a whole lot more squirming to come. Fasten your seatbelt.
Well, where to begin (besides saying that I get sick to my stomach to think that someone as careless with facts as yourself is a "journalist").
First, where is your evidence that Plame was undercover?
Where is your evidence that any "leaking" came from the WH? You have none.
President Bush called the leaking of classified information treason, and that is what Fitzgerald is looking into. It isn't from the angle you naively assume.
As to what you wish President Bush to do to demonstrate a desire to get to the bottom of, that is an outrageous proposition to claim he should insert himself in an investigation. He has ordered his staff to comply and they have.
If you haven't noticed, (and clearly you haven't), Libby was being smeared by "journalists" like your careless and thoughtless self with allegations that he was the leaker of Plame's name. An impossibility since he lacked the knowledge of the trip and the parties involved, as any citizen who read up on the matter could discern, but that didn't stop "journalists" from writing it up. Libby has waived confidentiality in order that his name be cleared for the record. And once the reluctant reporters testify, guess what? They've been admitting Libby never mentioned the Wilsons, let alone Valerie Plame.
You don't know that it is. It's an assumption perpetuated by pro-Wilson/anti-Bush reporters.
Oh pleeez. Stop the melodrama. I'm not saying that Novak made the right decision but I think we have to look at the political intent and histories of those crying the loudest. Since when has a little thing like treason stopped the rats?
Are you aware that a democrat friend of Wilson's was telling at least one reporter (Cliff May) prior to the publication of Novak's column, that Wilson went to Niger at the suggestion of Wilson's wife who worked at the CIA? Evidence to date is that Plame was working at Langley and wrote a memo recommending her husband---something he and other CIA officials had denied.
Novak performed a great service by informing us why Wilson went to Niger and then proceeded to lie about many aspects of it in order to try and bring down President Bush.
I don't believe for one minute you care more about the country than political party. One so cavalier with the facts is not credible in my book.
Melodrama?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Now do tell...what do the Rats have to do with the Plame leak? Did a Rat call Novak?
Yes I am aware of that.
Cavalier with which facts, exactly?
Sorry, but outing a CIA agent isn't doing any of us a service. Anyone who thinks it is has blinded themselves with politics.
A Rat told Cliff May as I pointed out above.
Novak described a long conversation with an administration official (he later stated one who did not work in the WH) and during that conversation when Novak brought up Wilson's recent op-ed piece, this official mentioned how wifey had recommended him. That's it. Novak called the CIA, got a pro-forma "don't publish" but they didn't press it as Novak said they would have if she was, for instance, an undercover agent, so he wrote it up.
You are extremely cavalier with the facts.
I ask again, what is your evidence (beside's Wilson's say-so) that Valerie Plame was undercover or had worked in that capacity for 10 years or so.
I'll wait.
And you might as well explain why, if you are aware that the only solid evidence to date is of a democrat telling about Plame's employer being the CIA, why you made your comments above about the WH looking like the source.
I can't wait to hear this.
I'll take your reply to mean that you cannot tell me which facts mentioned in my posts that I have been cavalier with.
I'll wait too.
Have a nice night.
My goodness, I outlined explicitly in several posts what facts you are in error with.
I also asked you a few questions which you continue to ignore.
Everyone can see what you are.
On thing though...
"...why you made your comments above about the WH looking like the source."
Stems from the contant leaks from the investigation about WH personnel being questioned and reports that President Bush was speaking with a criminal attorney.
Gee, well, if it's all that tidy, then...
Why is there an investigation wasting our money and time?
More cavalier handling of facts.
The "leaks" are in fact the WH spokesperson informing reporters on the record of the cooperation of the WH, including President Bush, in the investigation.
That is not a leak, dear. It is called transparency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.