Posted on 10/24/2005 6:28:34 PM PDT by nj26
Yes, I am at work and don't the time to find it, but yes I recalled he called Joe around Columbus day.
That certainly is odd. I can't imgaine he called just to say hi. Interesting indeed.
Norm left them on the bar at Cheers. Woody threw them away.
Anyone seen what our friend Larry Johnson is up to these days?
http://www.counterpunch.org/johnson10072005.html
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=93534;title=APFN
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/a_new_tidbit_on.html
You say that Plame was not a covert agent. What is the source on this? Help me here. I really want to know. I thought she headed up a fake company or something and was covert. If she wasn't covert why the DOJ investigation?
Some on here have said the stranger was Larry Johnson...but I have never seen any sourcing on that.
Fitz called Wilson on Sept 29th
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-na-leak7oct07,1,6072069.story
"However, there was an additional sign that Fitzgerald continued to investigate aggressively. He phoned Wilson on Sept. 29, the same day Miller, the New York Times reporter jailed for refusing to divulge her confidential source, was released from jail after agreeing to testify in the case. She testified the next day."
Thanks!
I've afraid you're correct, in that Bush doesn't seem to have what it takes to defeat these rabid leftists. He's shown remarkable ability to outsmart and outfox the left, but I'm not positive that isn't just good advice from people like Rove and Cheney (I LOVE Cheney!).
I felt that GWB's dad let us down when he allowed himself to be manipulated by the leftists, and resultantly, he allowed himself to lose to Slick Willy, and I was afraid GWB would let us down too. I have found him to be much more determined than his dad, but also lacking in many ways (as your post pointed out).
The lefties are 100% incorrect when they call us brainwashed and in lock-step every time we defend Bush against their non-stop litany of lies. Especially since we voice our disapproval of many things Bush has done or has NOT done. Bottom line, ANY Republican had to be better than ANY DemocRAT (socialist), especially Gore or Kerry. And I found myself voting against the DemocRATS, more than voting 'for' GWB. Still, all in all, I have done more than my share of defending Bush on the Iraqi war, cause I believe that he is at least doing the correct thing there. The WMDs WERE there. Saddam WAS a threat to us indirectly re: the oil supply and flow, and his sponsoring of terrorists. Iraq DID provide a foothold (a good start) in the middle east for the US. Going into Iraq took vision, a quality the tunnel-visioned leftists do not have. The case for going into Iraq could have been made better, though. That's one way I think Bush let us down.
At any rate, we now need someone like Tom DeLay leading the Republicans. Someone with an equally clear vision, determination and pardon the expression....someone with BALLS! Someone who isn't afraid to stand up to the leftists and say enough is enough. Someone who can take a situation handed to him and turn it around to his advantage (see DeLay mugshot that never was). Someone who can and WILL go to the people of America and put his case on the table, argue it, and WIN in the arena of public opinion. Bush just comes off as wheedling when he tries to make his case, and doesn't have the Reaganesque manner it takes to sway public opinion overwhelmingly over to his stance. Also, I find it somewhat hypocritical for Bush to talk about national security on one hand, and then to allow our borders to remain open, thus allowing virtually open access to terrorists.
Don't get me wrong here. If Bush were the only Rep candidate we had to choose from vs. a Dem, I'd vote for him again. But now we know Bush is not strong enough to combat the tactics we are up against. We need a superhero.
"Sad to say but Bush is not the leader we need for the times were are in but we are stuck with him and I see no one on the horizon."
Thanks for keeping track of that.
This is long, but it was written by two of the authors of the law. If you are still not convinced, then you must expect that someone will be indicted for breaking this law. I guess we will see which of us was right.
here is the law
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html
The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?
By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford
Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21
Why have so many people rushed to assume that a crime was committed when someone "in the administration" gave columnist Robert D. Novak the name of CIA "operative" Valerie Plame? Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged: The agency sent him to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country, although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger.
Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."
It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.
When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.
There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.
Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."
There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?
The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.
Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues.
Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
The Vice President has to be impeached first before he can be tried for a crime. The reason Agnew stepped down was becuase he knew that an impeachment proceeding would happen and that he would probably convicted in the Senate. I am quite sure there was some serious plead baragining going on to have Agnew step down and avoid an impeachment trial.
Article II, Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Please note the phrase "Vice President and all civil officers of the United States" Whatever protection the President has under this section applies to the Vice President and the President's officiers as well. Pretty plain English to me. Doesn't say "Only the President, and not the Vice President and other civil officiers of the United States," now does it? The reality is the Constitution is unclear on the matter of impeachment before or after criminal proceedings. An argument can be made that the President isn't immune from proscuetion. Yes, I know, everyone interepts that section to mean the President has to be impeached first. But the bottomline is that Bork was arguing out of his rear end to somehow say the Vice President didn't enjoy the same legal protection as the President. The DOJ's memorandums on the subject are flawed and wrong.
The matter has not been decided. It will take a legal case before the SCOTUS to decide what Article II, Section 4 says, though like I said it is pretty clear and not subject to "That depends on what 'is' is" parsing. There is a crying need for a Constitutional amendment to clearly define who and what is protected under Article II, Section 4. I would argue that the Vice President should have exactly the same protections as the President, and even extend that priviledge to the Cabinet officers, otherwise it exposes the Executive Branch to all sorts of mischief.
I am. I admit it. I am a unforgiving, relentless optomist. I knew Bush was going to win re-election well before Lurch was the nominee. I knew we were going to win Bush v. Gore (there were even stronger arguments before the USSC that Scalia was not able to get to at the time).
I believe the DUmmies are pissing in the wind with this in the entirety -- not the least reason of which is that what goes around comes around and around; and Peter Paul is one bright, persistent, and gutsy FReeper (so Hillary, call your lawyer today).
I appreciate what you and the other eternal skepticist Torie add to the place, so I never want to gig you guys too harshly.
Nor have I. Johnson is a possibility, but it's all speculation.
Hey, I was agreeing with your post. I have lived 60 years seeing every glass as half full vs. half empty and this attitude has served my life very, very well.
Retired at 59 yrs, 2 days and have never looked back, never will. Go GWB!
Cheers!
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.