Kerry on Letterman and Regis and Kelly

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Great appearances...he really does have a great sense of humor in there...

My fav. quote from Letterman was when discussing the debates and the arguments over them Kerry said "they decided George Bush will sit in Dick Cheney's lap"

He defended his votes on the war on Letterman quickly and precise , and said he doesn't regret the votes at all. He said he still stands by voting against the 87 billion funds, esp now that he's finding out most of those funds aren't even being put to use. He strongly hammered Bush on Iraq, but also talked about other stuff..

His appearance on Live with Regis & Kelly was more laid back, less talk of issues, more every day talk...

Great appearances IMO..

Chris

[strandinthewind]

It was. But, I am GREATLY worried the Dan Rather INSANE screw up (WHAT THE FU&* was that IDIOT THINKING :mad: ) will tarnish Kerry and make W even more bulletproof that he sadly already is. AND - CBS knowingly and willfully leaked this info to the Kerry campaign, which makes Kerry look involved in this. This can do nothing but bode well for the Bush campaign because now all attacks on W's service in the NG will be suject to "what now - wasn't the last forgery enough" - sad - very true.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

He also took over Letterman's Top 10 List of the night for him


three of them were :

"cheney can claim bush as a dependent"

"hundred $$ penalty if you pronounce nuclear--instead o nucular"

"george bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our into future"

[ShangriLaTroubl]

It was. But, I am GREATLY worried the Dan Rather INSANE screw up (WHAT THE FU&* was that IDIOT THINKING :mad: ) will tarnish Kerry and make W even more bulletproof that he sadly already is. AND - CBS knowingly and willfully leaked this info to the Kerry campaign, which makes Kerry look involved in this. This can do nothing but bode well for the Bush campaign because now all attacks on W's service in the NG will be suject to "what now - wasn't the last forgery enough" - sad - very true.


I think after this both campaigns will probably just leave the Vietnam and Guard Service questions alone...as you saw when CBS aired the special John Kerry distanced himself from it, and refused to even answer questions pertaining to it..this election needs to be about real issues....there are MANY real issues at stake...and people go on and on about undecided voters and all that, and the truth is there isn't THAT MANY undecided voters..sure there are a lot...but there's not many democrats who will vote for Bush...so I think victory is fair game here (hopefully fair, who knows with this Admin.) and whoever wins will win by a very slim margin
I don't think this CBS thing will tarnish Kerry...I don't think anything is going to come out saying Kerry's campaign initiated this...even if he was told about it, it doesn't matter...

Chris

[strandinthewind]

I think after this both campaigns will probably just leave the Vietnam and Guard Service questions alone...as you saw when CBS aired the special John Kerry distanced himself from it, and refused to even answer questions pertaining to it..this election needs to be about real issues....there are MANY real issues at stake...and people go on and on about undecided voters and all that, and the truth is there isn't THAT MANY undecided voters..sure there are a lot...but there's not many democrats who will vote for Bush...so I think victory is fair game here (hopefully fair, who knows with this Admin.) and whoever wins will win by a very slim margin
I don't think this CBS thing will tarnish Kerry...I don't think anything is going to come out saying Kerry's campaign initiated this...even if he was told about it, it doesn't matter...

Chris

Well I agree to a point and think that all rational people should see it this way, but I fear they will not. People do not and cannot make such distinctions IMO. AND - that one of higher ups in CBS called Joe Lackhart to tell him that this story was breaking and that he needed to call their source for whatever reason (apparently to help further the Kerry campaign's strategy) and Lockhart called him, does smack of collusion in the fraud. I hope people can see the difference, but that is a large leap for a non-caring about details public to make :cool:

Also, that Gallop poll has me a little worried. It will be interesting to see if W can maintain any lead in the next two weeks. AND - W is a good debater in the eyes of the public. So, there is that. AAARRGGGHHHHHH - it is all so depressing to me.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

AND - W is a good debater in the eyes of the public. So, there is that. AAARRGGGHHHHHH - it is all so depressing to me.


He did good in the Gore/Bush debates...mainly because Gore agreed with him so many times..This year there are STRONG distinctions between the two candidates. People are more emotionally tied to this election, because of the war in Iraq, 9/11, gay marriage, etc..I think Bush's campaign might be a little worried about this debate..hence the reason they didn't want to do the Town Hall debate where undecided voters get to ask the questions--Bush isn't good when he's caught off guard...and now he's looking like he has something to hide, only wanting 1 or 2 debates....and Kerry has been saying for months, he would like to debate once a week , every week leading up till Nov. 2
I think the debates are when Kerry will really shine--hopefully people watch them with open eyes. Kerry has , as his campaign has progressed , found a way to be precise in what he says, articulate, and still keep it simple...

Chris

[dissention]

It was. But, I am GREATLY worried the Dan Rather INSANE screw up (WHAT THE FU&* was that IDIOT THINKING :mad: ) will tarnish Kerry and make W even more bulletproof that he sadly already is. AND - CBS knowingly and willfully leaked this info to the Kerry campaign, which makes Kerry look involved in this. This can do nothing but bode well for the Bush campaign because now all attacks on W's service in the NG will be suject to "what now - wasn't the last forgery enough" - sad - very true.

:nod:

I'm freaking out at this point. The campaign is in complete and utter disarray. Mary Beth Cahill really f*cked it all up beyond repair with the goody two shoes line of defense. They let the Swift Vets walk all over them, didn't respond forcefully enough, and it was all downhill from there. THEN - they took too long in restructuring the campaign. It doesn't help matters that they haven't wooed Carville away from CNN long enough to do much of anything (the guy is a genius and blows his own wife away). We need a miracle, at this point.

[strandinthewind]

:nod:

I'm freaking out at this point. The campaign is in complete and utter disarray. Mary Beth Cahill really f*cked it all up beyond repair with the goody two shoes line of defense. They let the Swift Vets walk all over them, didn't respond forcefully enough, and it was all downhill from there. THEN - they took too long in restructuring the campaign. It doesn't help matters that they haven't wooed Carville away from CNN long enough to do much of anything (the guy is a genius and blows his own wife away). We need a miracle, at this point.

ITA - but I thought this in the D nominee stuff and Kerry finished strongly, which is what his strongsuit supposedly is. So, we shall see. I hope he wins, will vote for him, and encourage others to do the same. But, he needs to quit pussyfooting ( :laugh: :eek: ) around and get to it.

BTW - although I despise him - Rove is a genius.

[dissention]

ITA - but I thought this in the D nominee stuff and Kerry finished strongly, which is what his strongsuit supposedly is. So, we shall see. I hope he wins, will vote for him, and encourage others to do the same. But, he needs to quit pussyfooting ( :laugh: :eek: ) around and get to it.

BTW - although I despise him - Rove is a genius.

Yeah, but this CBS stuff is the final nail in the coffin. Plus, the conservative media didn't latch onto the Kitty Kelley book, they didn't take Cheney to task over his "we'll be attacked if JK is president" remark, etc. We're dead. And I'm furious at myself for supporting John Kerry. I totally should have gone for Howard Dean and now I'm literally kicking myself.

[strandinthewind]

See and although I gave Dean $$$$$$$, I think Edwards was the star of them all. But, we shall see what happens. Like Gore, if Kerry loses, he no one to thank but himself!!!!!!!

[estranged4life]

We're dead. And I'm furious at myself for supporting John Kerry. I totally should have gone for Howard Dean and now I'm literally kicking myself.

ya could do what the very few "liberals" Democrats (Not to be confused with those other Democrats in this state, Ya know the ones...) in Oklahoma have done, Which is support whoever is listed as an "Independent" on the ballot come this November.

As for me, I'm voting for the "Kenny McCormick/Elmer Fudd" ticket, Because 2 fictional characters are better suited running this country than the real live candidates who WONT shut the hell up about what happened with their military service before I was born (ie pre-1970)

Brian "The undertow will carry us all out to sea" j.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

ya could do what the very few "liberals" Democrats (Not to be confused with those other Democrats in this state, Ya know the ones...) in Oklahoma have done, Which is support whoever is listed as an "Independent" on the ballot come this November.

So you would rather have Bush than Kerry? wow

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

The Kerry camp is doing pretty good..it's hard to trust the polls ,because one poll might have Bush up 10 points, and another have it a dead tie..I for one think this election will be even closer than 2000

Chris

[ShangriLaTroubl]

GOP Senator Admits He May Not Vote for Bush
By Staff and Wire Reports
Sep 21, 2004, 03:36
Email this article
Printer friendly page

U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican moderate from Rhode Island, said publicly Monday what other GOP lawmakers have admitted privately: he might not vote for President Bush in the Nov. 2 election.
Chafee stressed, however, that he has no plans to bolt his party, and that if he does not back Bush he will write in the name of another Republican.

His spokesman Stephen Hourahan said afterward that if Chafee does write in a name it would be that of Bush's father, former President Bush.

"I'll look at my options," Chafee said in a brief interview on Capitol Hill after discussing his indecision about the current president earlier in the day with reporters in his home state.

Asked if he might not vote for the president, Chafee said: "That's accurate." His office said this has been his position for months, though it has gotten little, if any, attention in Washington.

"There is no secret that on some very important issues I have difference with the current administration," Chafee said, listing abortion rights, the environment and war in Iraq.

"Like all Americans we are looking for some answers to key questions in the weeks ahead," Chafee said. "You wait until November 2 and make your choices."

Republican leaders in both the House and Senate have worked behind the scenes in recent weeks to quell rising unrest within their party. A number of GOP House and Senate members have said privately they don't support President Bush's actions and wish they had another choice in the November elections.

On the other side of the aisle in the Senate, Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia has long backed Bush over his own party's nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Chafee's comments on Monday drew mixed reaction from fellow senators.

"It's unfortunate," said Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican.

"He is a gutsy and principled guy," said Sen. Thomas Carper, a Delaware Democrat. "He marches to his own drummer."

"He is a good fiscal conservative," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said with a chuckle.

"What I like about him is that he can be a Republican senator and at the same time say he is unsure about a Republican president," Graham said. "He is a breath of fresh air in politics."

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Three of the latest polls - Pew, Harris, and Investors Business daily - have the race at dead even or up one or down one. This is only 2 weeks after the RNC...not bad.. And they say on average incumbents usually leave their convention with about a 20 pt lead...not the 5-10 Bush got. Incumbent Jimmy Carter was up on average 8 pts all the way into October, and Reagan won.

So here is the top 10 list from Letterman, read by John Kerry - quite funny :

10. No estate tax for families with at least two U.S. presidents.

9. W-2 Form is now Dubya-2 Form.

8. Under the simplified tax code, your refund check goes directly to Halliburton.

7. The reduced earned income tax credit is so unfair, it just makes me want to tear out my lustrous, finely groomed hair.

6. Attorney General (John) Ashcroft gets to write off the entire U.S. Constitution.

5. Texas Rangers can take a business loss for trading Sammy Sosa.

4. Eliminate all income taxes; just ask Teresa to cover the whole damn thing.

3. Cheney can claim Bush as a dependent.

2. Hundred-dollar penalty if you pronounce it "nuclear" instead of "nucular."

1. George W. Bush gets a deduction for mortgaging our entire future

[estranged4life]

So you would rather have Bush than Kerry? wow

Chris

because no matter who is the leader of this country nothing ever changes to benefit EVERYONE, It will benefit those in the "winning party".

My family sees the same thing that I do, Doesnt matter who's in office, Nothing will change..."Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss".

Hell, My 60 yr old DEMOCRAT Mother hates Bush and thinks Kerry is not trustworthy...I have to agree, She will not vote for either.

This will be the 5th time I have been able to vote for the president, And as I have done the past 3 times I will vote AGAINST both the Repubs/Demos.

Brian "Need I say more???" j.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

No you need say no more Brian, but if you think our current state is the same now as it was under Clinton---just go ahead and think that..lol


Chris

[amber]

Great appearances...he really does have a great sense of humor in there...

My fav. quote from Letterman was when discussing the debates and the arguments over them Kerry said "they decided George Bush will sit in Dick Cheney's lap"

He defended his votes on the war on Letterman quickly and precise , and said he doesn't regret the votes at all. He said he still stands by voting against the 87 billion funds, esp now that he's finding out most of those funds aren't even being put to use. He strongly hammered Bush on Iraq, but also talked about other stuff..

His appearance on Live with Regis & Kelly was more laid back, less talk of issues, more every day talk...

Great appearances IMO..

Chris
I liked his top ten list for letterman...I was cracking up. I haven't seen Kerry much, but he really does look kinda weird when he smiles...course, I don't care, but i just noticed it. I like how he talked about Bush pushing the global community and his advisors away...
Amber

[amber]

because no matter who is the leader of this country nothing ever changes to benefit EVERYONE, It will benefit those in the "winning party".

My family sees the same thing that I do, Doesnt matter who's in office, Nothing will change..."Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss".

Hell, My 60 yr old DEMOCRAT Mother hates Bush and thinks Kerry is not trustworthy...I have to agree, She will not vote for either.

This will be the 5th time I have been able to vote for the president, And as I have done the past 3 times I will vote AGAINST both the Repubs/Demos.

Brian "Need I say more???" j.
Yeah, my mom calls them the Republocrats, Demopublicans...etc.
Amber

[estranged4life]

No you need say no more Brian, but if you think our state is the same now as it was under Clinton---just go ahead and think that..lol


Chris

my home state went financially downhill after "Slickwilly" was elected...Hasnt recovered under the Repubs Regime either.

I agree with the Democratic candidate (Brad Carson) who is running for US Senate, "We should take care of the people & the problems of our state instead of showing loyalty to the political party".

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

:nod:

I'm freaking out at this point. The campaign is in complete and utter disarray. Mary Beth Cahill really f*cked it all up beyond repair with the goody two shoes line of defense. They let the Swift Vets walk all over them, didn't respond forcefully enough, and it was all downhill from there. THEN - they took too long in restructuring the campaign. It doesn't help matters that they haven't wooed Carville away from CNN long enough to do much of anything (the guy is a genius and blows his own wife away). We need a miracle, at this point.

Strong closer. We will be just fine. The debates are right around the corner.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

One thing Kerry will take care of is this mess in Iraq--

Believe me this chaos, known as Iraq, will not be the same under Kerry as it is under Bush--thousands of Americans have died because of Bush, for no reason...no connection to Al Qaeda, and Bush is slowly determined to turn our government into a totalitarionism... "LISTEN UP WORLD , IF YOU DONT AGREE WITH US, WE WILL BOMB YOU, AND SET UP NEW GOVERNMENTS FOR YOU, AND KILL YOU, BECAUSE YOU CANT FIX THINGS YOURSELF!"

Chris

[amber]

The Kerry camp is doing pretty good..it's hard to trust the polls ,because one poll might have Bush up 10 points, and another have it a dead tie..I for one think this election will be even closer than 2000

Chris
I hope that's not true, but i'm looking forward to seeing the new devious, lie filled way Bush et. al. will find to steal it, if it is very close...Perhaps he will have a whole state declared mentally insane? Maybe he'll erase the identities of democrats in key urban areas?(again) only this time he will erase them so thoroughly, that no evidence will get back to his campaign.... :shocked:
AMber

[gldstwmn]

This can do nothing but bode well for the Bush campaign because now all attacks on W's service in the NG will be suject to "what now - wasn't the last forgery enough" - sad - very true.

They should have immediately hit back with FORGED URANIUM DOCUMENTS from Niger.
Don't worry about Gallop. Their method is skewed.
Kerry will mop the floor with George in the debates. He doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[gldstwmn]

I hope that's not true, but i'm looking forward to seeing the new devious, lie filled way Bush et. al. will find to steal it, if it is very close...AMber

You're already watching it. Swift Boat Vets and the CBS controversy. The story isn't the docs, the story is Shrub's desertion. Now who do you think is helping the media spin this? Karl Rove. They are desperate. this is a horse race. Don't let anybody tell you any different. They want you to think Kerry can't win.

[estranged4life]

Strong closer. We will be just fine. The debates are right around the corner.

Won't Shrub have a hard time debating when Dick Cheney has him sitting in his lap??? Gotta be hard to have yer hand up yer puppet while sitting, Maybe they can have Cheney gargle some water as Shrub attempts to spout his spiel, Just to see WHO really is in charge....Bwahahahahaa!!!

[DeeGeMe]

Kerry held a press conference earlier this afternoon where he kicked ass too.

[amber]

You're already watching it. Swift Boat Vets and the CBS controversy. The story isn't the docs, the story is Shrub's desertion. Now who do you think is helping the media spin this? Karl Rove. They are desperate. this is a horse race. Don't let anybody tell you any different. They want you to think Kerry can't win.
Yep, I just wonder how far it will really go. As far as I can tell - they'll all stop at nothing... :mad: :eek: Most heinous debacle ever, and all that...
AMber

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Kerry held a press conference earlier this afternoon where he kicked ass too.


Didnt know about that..maybe CSPAN will be showing it.

His public speaking appearances have been really good lately...his speech at NYU yesterday was very good...He has been saying it like it is, defending his voting record, and standing by it, saying why Bush is wrong for America, what Bush has done wrong in Iraq, and what he wouldve done differently...and what he plans to do even though Bush has already messed everything up..

Chris

[strandinthewind]

You're already watching it. Swift Boat Vets and the CBS controversy. The story isn't the docs, the story is Shrub's desertion. Now who do you think is helping the media spin this? Karl Rove. They are desperate. this is a horse race. Don't let anybody tell you any different. They want you to think Kerry can't win.

Well, with all due respect, the CBS story is not the sesertion, it was CBS' underhand and partisan methods. The story could have been about anything :shrug:

As for the Swift Boat Vets, that was a travesty.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

And for my fellow Georgians, where it often feels like no matter who you vote for here, Bush will win..Many polls had Bush leading in GA with some 20 pts or so in the polls...Well the latest GA Rasmussen Poll has

Georgia: Bush 53% Kerry 42%

Def. not a victory for Kerry, but it's also not looking like the big Bush landslide it was expected to be

Chris

[strandinthewind]

And for my fellow Georgians, where it often feels like no matter who you vote for here, Bush will win..Many polls had Bush leading in GA with some 20 pts or so in the polls...Well the latest GA Rasmussen Poll has

Georgia: Bush 53% Kerry 42%

Def. not a victory for Kerry, but it's also not looking like the big Bush landslide it was expected to be

Chris

We can only hope!!!!

[estranged4life]

Well, with all due respect, the CBS story is not the sesertion, it was CBS' underhand and partisan methods. The story could have been about anything :shrug:

As for the Swift Boat Vets, that was a travesty.


The thing that bothered me about the CBS mess was DNC chairman (Terry 'McWhatshisname') appearring on TV acting like he was so ever happy that these papers appearred...He was to the point where he was salivating like Rev.Jerry Falwell when he saw the take of the Sunday's "offering plates".

Brian j.

[dissention]

GOP Senator Admits He May Not Vote for Bush
By Staff and Wire Reports
Sep 21, 2004, 03:36
Email this article
Printer friendly page


I have mucho respect for any Rethug who didn't vote yes on Iraq. He's got brains. Not a lot, but some. :D

[estranged4life]

I have mucho respect for any Rethug who didn't vote yes on Iraq. He's got brains. Not a lot, but some. :D

this Rethug got sick of seeing the daily beheadings in Iraq...I know I have!

Brian "It's a **** sandwich and we all have to take a bite" j.

[dissention]

Strong closer. We will be just fine. The debates are right around the corner.

He's not that strong, my friend. He whipped Weld into submission, but that was for a Senate seat. It's a much different ballpark this time around. I know he'll kill Shrub in the debates, but he can't come off as too brash or harsh like he did in the '96 debates. That works for us folks in MA and other liberals, but it will not work with the rest of the country. I'm crossing my fingers, though. And it's the Edwards/Cheney debate I REALLY want to see. :lol:

[dissention]

this Rethug got sick of seeing the daily beheadings in Iraq...I know I have!

Brian "It's a **** sandwich and we all have to take a bite" j.

OMG, Full Metal Jacket was on TV last night! :laugh: Love that line.

Also love the one where he says "You move slower than old people f*ck!" :lol:

[DeeGeMe]

Well, with all due respect, the CBS story is not the sesertion, it was CBS' underhand and partisan methods. The story could have been about anything :shrug:

As for the Swift Boat Vets, that was a travesty.

So where's the outrage over Robert Novak? He OUTED a CIA agent, for God's sake. That's a felony, in case you didn't know. Yet, he's still gainfully employed as both a newspaper columnist AND has a regular gig on CNN. Why?

And on a brighter subject, the polls show Kerry within 6 points of Bush in South Carolina. Some maps are now coloring SC as pink--not red. There must be some truth to those polls because John Edwards will be campaigning here tomorrow.

[strandinthewind]

. . . And it's the Edwards/Cheney debate I REALLY want to see. :lol:

Cheney is famous for his temper and for controlling it. Edwards, on the other hand is a smooth talking trial lawyer. So, hopefully Cheney will lose his temper and that will be that.

[estranged4life]

but he can't come off as too brash or harsh like he did in the '96 debates. That works for us folks in MA and other liberals, but it will not work with the rest of the country.

words that you have said...Have to agree with you because that is exactly the political scope here in Oklahoma, What works in MA doesnt work here and vice-versa (I dont think a Mass. US Senate candidate offended a large Native American tribe with rhetoric...A tribe I am a member of!!!)

Brian j.

[gldstwmn]

Well, with all due respect, the CBS story is not the sesertion, it was CBS' underhand and partisan methods. The story could have been about anything :shrug:



Care to elaborate? :)

[gldstwmn]

I have mucho respect for any Rethug who didn't vote yes on Iraq. He's got brains. Not a lot, but some. :D

Lincoln Chaffee is a stand up guy. :thumbsup:

[gldstwmn]

He's not that strong, my friend. He whipped Weld into submission, but that was for a Senate seat. It's a much different ballpark this time around. I know he'll kill Shrub in the debates, but he can't come off as too brash or harsh like he did in the '96 debates. That works for us folks in MA and other liberals, but it will not work with the rest of the country. I'm crossing my fingers, though. And it's the Edwards/Cheney debate I REALLY want to see. :lol:

Care to make a little wager? ;)

[dissention]

Care to elaborate? :)

I didn't quite get that, either. ;)

But, if we really want to talk about his desertion, let's talk about the HUGE gaps in his TEXAS service that are not being talked about instead of Alabama.

[dissention]

Care to make a little wager? ;)

No, I was agreeing that he'll probably whip Bush if he doesn't throttle the guy and whip him into submission like he did with Weld. :laugh: If he does that, he can kiss his hopes of being president goodbye.

[gldstwmn]

Cheney is famous for his temper and for controlling it. Edwards, on the other hand is a smooth talking trial lawyer. So, hopefully Cheney will lose his temper and that will be that.

Uncle Dick wanted his debate sitting down. :laugh:

[estranged4life]

OMG, Full Metal Jacket was on TV last night! :laugh: Love that line.

Also love the one where he says "You move slower than old people f*ck!" :lol:

from that movie memorized, Have since I was about 10 yrs.old.

Believe it or not, But I have had a ton of people tell me I should be an USMC Gunnery Sgt. (aka Drill Sgt.) because I have a way with words and verbal jousting.

Back to the topic at hand...Herman Munster vs. Dick in the Shrub dual

Brian j.

ps-I would post my fave line, But I do not want to offend our fellow female posters....But the line occurs when "Gomer Pyle" is stuck trying to finish the obstacle course.

[strandinthewind]

So where's the outrage over Robert Novak? He OUTED a CIA agent, for God's sake. That's a felony, in case you didn't know. Yet, he's still gainfully employed as both a newspaper columnist AND has a regular gig on CNN. Why?

That is different. Novak did not leak it to a political party in an attempt to get that party's leader reelected and to temot another source into coming forward - CBS did and clearly so and they are bad people for it IMO. As has been discussed many times here, unless collusion can be proved and Novak can be shown to have been working with the Bush administration in an attempt to reveal this source, Novak will never be made to reveal his source and rightly so IMO as I believe in Freedom of the Press, which requires clandestine sources. As for it being a felony, I am unsure Novak's exact actions constituted a felony - he was merely reporting, unless again it can be proved otherwise :shrug:

AND - mind you I think Novak is a sleazeball

[dissention]

ps-I would post my fave line, But I do not want to offend our fellow female posters....But the line occurs when "Gomer Pyle" is stuck trying to finish the obstacle course.

:lol:

I felt so bad for that poor guy. I can only imagine how much that soap beating hurt. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Care to elaborate? :)go to www.cnn.com and read the currently posted article about how CBS apparently worked with lockhart and others in the Kerry campaign before they ran this story. That is wrong no matter who does it.

There are many other articles on this at other sites as well.

[gldstwmn]

go to www.cnn.com and read the currently posted article about how CBS apparently worked with lockhart and others in the Kerry campaign before they ran this story. That is wrong no matter who does it.

There are many other articles on this at other sites as well.

Lockhart is denying. :shrug:

[estranged4life]

:lol:

I felt so bad for that poor guy. I can only imagine how much that soap beating hurt. :laugh:

it hurts as much as seeing Shrub/Dick in office for another 4 years and the beheadings of civilians in Iraq continuing on a daily basis.

Seriously, I come from a military family, Soap wrapped in a towel hurts like a @#$%^&*

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

Lockhart is denying. :shrug:

No he is not. He admits that the high up woman from CBS called him and told him to call the guy in Texas who we now know fabricated the the docs. He was told this guy had a bunch of information. At least they were quoting Lockhart last night on t.v. as saying such. The mere fact that CBS informed Lockhart is a horrible act - period.

I am not saying that the Kerry campaign has officially done anything wrong (although does anyone really believe that CBS did not share the information with the willing to rec. it Kerry campaign) - ALL I am saying is CBS is bad for trying to collude with the Kerry campaign.

[estranged4life]

No he is not. He admits that the high up woman from CBS called him and told him to call the guy in Texas who we now know fabricated the the docs. He was told this guy had a bunch of information. At least they were quoting Lockhart last night on t.v. as saying such. The mere fact that CBS informed Lockhart is a horrible act - period.

I saw something like that on TV this morning, Cannot remember if it was MSNBC or Faux News (Possibly MSNBC though) where it was stated exactly as you have just posted...


Poor ol CBS, They're a wounded animal and the other networks are a hungry wolf-pack goin' in for the kill...Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.


Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

I saw something like that on TV this morning, Cannot remember if it was MSNBC or Faux News (Possibly MSNBC though) where it was stated exactly as you have just posted...


Poor ol CBS, They're a wounded animal and the other networks are a hungry wolf-pack goin' in for the kill...Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.


Brian j.
ITA - I honestly do not know if Rather has any choice to but to reveal all he knows and pray - or resign because his credibility is shot as is CBS' for the most part.

[DeeGeMe]

That is different. Novak did not leak it to a political party in an attempt to get that party's leader reelected and to temot another source into coming forward - CBS did and clearly so and they are bad people for it IMO. As has been discussed many times here, unless collusion can be proved and Novak can be shown to have been working with the Bush administration in an attempt to reveal this source, Novak will never be made to reveal his source and rightly so IMO as I believe in Freedom of the Press, which requires clandestine sources. As for it being a felony, I am unsure Novak's exact actions constituted a felony - he was merely reporting, unless again it can be proved otherwise :shrug: AND - mind you I think Novak is a sleazeball

Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a Felony. It's called Treason. And there are laws in this country for blowing the identity of a covert agent. There's currently a grand jury investigation underway into who leaked the story but all roads lead to the White House. Last time I checked, the WH was controlled by a political party-the Republicans. They were pissed at Joe Wilson for telling the truth so they outed his wife. That wasn't politically motivated? And who did they leak it to? A right-wing columnist/tv talking head. Tell me that he did not put political considerations over national security. Go ahead--I dare you to try and justify that action. Apparently, thus far, the investigation has supboened folks like Tim Russert and reporters from both the NY Times and Washington Post because the White House had tried to get them to leak this story and they wouldn't do it. Novak had no such problems, being the complete and total douchebag that he is, as Jon Stewart likes to call him. Then Novak had the balls to demand last week that Dan Rather reveal his sources for the Memo-gate thing, straight-faced. Ah--the delusions that Republicans tell themselves to justify their dirty work.

And don't tell me that what Rather did is somehow worse than what Novak did. Novak not only endangered the life of this agent, but he revealed the identity of her cover company, and endangered the lives of her contacts around the world.

There are gaps in Bush's record that have never been explained, whether these memos were valid or not. Why has the story become Dan Rather and not the lies told by this president and his rotten-to-the-core administration? Once again, Karl Rove has been successful in making some minor issue the only thing anyone is talking about. There are major, major questions that need to be answered by this administration and instead, we get to hear the cable networks talking 24/7 about Dan friggin' Rather!

[estranged4life]

ITA - I honestly do not know if Rather has any choice to but to reveal all he knows and pray - or resign because his credibility is shot as is CBS' for the most part.

if Rather reveals all it could be very damaging to "Herman Munster" in his bid for the White House...That's why I thought the DNC Chairman was being too damn smug when these papers appearred and he gave 'em his blessing.

Brian j.

[strandinthewind]

Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a Felony. It's called Treason. And there are laws in this country for blowing the identity of a covert agent. There's currently a grand jury investigation underway into who leaked the story but all roads lead to the White House. Last time I checked, the WH was controlled by a political party-the Republicans. They were pissed at Joe Wilson for telling the truth so they outed his wife. That wasn't politically motivated? And who did they leak it to? A right-wing columnist/tv talking head. Tell me that he did not put political considerations over national security. Go ahead--I dare you to try and justify that action. Apparently, thus far, the investigation has supboened folks like Tim Russert and reporters from both the NY Times and Washington Post because the White House had tried to get them to leak this story and they wouldn't do it. Novak had no such problems, being the complete and total douchebag that he is, as Jon Stewart likes to call him. Then Novak had the balls to demand last week that Dan Rather reveal his sources for the Memo-gate thing, straight-faced. Ah--the delusions that Republicans tell themselves to justify their dirty work.

And don't tell me that what Rather did is somehow worse than what Novak did. Novak not only endangered the life of this agent, but he revealed the identity of her cover company, and endangered the lives of her contacts around the world.

There are gaps in Bush's record that have never been explained, whether these memos were valid or not. Why has the story become Dan Rather and not the lies told by this president and his rotten-to-the-core administration? Once again, Karl Rove has been successful in making some minor issue the only thing anyone is talking about. There are major, major questions that need to be answered by this administration and instead, we get to hear the cable networks talking 24/7 about Dan friggin' Rather!

Thank you for the amateur law lesson and you need not dare me to do anything because I agree with you that Novak probably is guilty :laugh: ( I joking here)

Now, if you had an inkling of knowledge about the law, you would know that it requires proof to convict and last I checked, there is none on Novak even though again he probably is guilty as sin. If you know he is guilty and have evidence of a phone call, email, etc., that demonstrates a direct connect with a WH agent who told Novak he was giving Novak this information in an attempt to deliberatly leak this information, let's see it. I submit you can find none and thus you will have no conviction in a court of law and nor should you.

I just think it is hysterical when people do what you just did - hate it when the other guy does it and then turn a blind eye when your guy does essentially the same thing :rolleyes: If you are okay with CBS working with a political campaign, then you must be okay with Novak doing it, if it can be proved that that is what Novak did, which and again, I submit you cannot. I agree the stakes are different in that CBS put no one's life in danger, but the principle is the same in that networks (which last I checked Novak was not :shrug: ) should not work with political parties and then claim to be unbiased. CBS is in deep water here - and rightly so!

P.S. Rove is probably calling this the easiest ace he has ever played. He essentially did nothing , Rather made a fool of himself and CBS, and now the remainder of the media is going after one of their own (who is not well liked) and it aint pretty. Rather is to balme - period :shrug:

Tone - explaining and a little taken aback that you dared me to do anything :laugh:

P.S. this conversation has already been had here

http://www.ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=15679&page=1&pp=15&highlight=novak

particulary from page three onward

but that does not mean we cannot have it again :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

if Rather reveals all it could be very damaging to "Herman Munster" in his bid for the White House...That's why I thought the DNC Chairman was being too damn smug when these papers appearred and he gave 'em his blessing.

Brian j.

I have that feeling as well, but Rather will never do that - so . . . I see him resigning over this or CBS will fire him. I mean they have no credibility left (no pun intended) :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

No he is not. He admits that the high up woman from CBS called him and told him to call the guy in Texas who we now know fabricated the the docs. He was told this guy had a bunch of information. At least they were quoting Lockhart last night on t.v. as saying such. The mere fact that CBS informed Lockhart is a horrible act - period.

I am not saying that the Kerry campaign has officially done anything wrong (although does anyone really believe that CBS did not share the information with the willing to rec. it Kerry campaign) - ALL I am saying is CBS is bad for trying to collude with the Kerry campaign.

He spoke to them for a few minutes. Here's what you linked me to on the CNN home page:
Kerry adviser denies role in CBS report on Bush

[gldstwmn]

Revealing the identity of a CIA agent is a Felony. It's called Treason. And there are laws in this country for blowing the identity of a covert agent. There's currently a grand jury investigation underway into who leaked the story but all roads lead to the White House. Last time I checked, the WH was controlled by a political party-the Republicans. They were pissed at Joe Wilson for telling the truth so they outed his wife. That wasn't politically motivated? And who did they leak it to? A right-wing columnist/tv talking head. Tell me that he did not put political considerations over national security. Go ahead--I dare you to try and justify that action. Apparently, thus far, the investigation has supboened folks like Tim Russert and reporters from both the NY Times and Washington Post because the White House had tried to get them to leak this story and they wouldn't do it. Novak had no such problems, being the complete and total douchebag that he is, as Jon Stewart likes to call him. Then Novak had the balls to demand last week that Dan Rather reveal his sources for the Memo-gate thing, straight-faced. Ah--the delusions that Republicans tell themselves to justify their dirty work.

And don't tell me that what Rather did is somehow worse than what Novak did. Novak not only endangered the life of this agent, but he revealed the identity of her cover company, and endangered the lives of her contacts around the world.

There are gaps in Bush's record that have never been explained, whether these memos were valid or not. Why has the story become Dan Rather and not the lies told by this president and his rotten-to-the-core administration? Once again, Karl Rove has been successful in making some minor issue the only thing anyone is talking about. There are major, major questions that need to be answered by this administration and instead, we get to hear the cable networks talking 24/7 about Dan friggin' Rather!

Yup. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

He spoke to them for a few minutes.

You are missing my point and it makes no difference. That CBS called the Kerry campaign is a clear effort of their partisanship. Why didn't they call the Bush campaign and tell them the same thing :shrug: and warn them it was coming? If they had done that instead of calling the Kerry campaign - would ou still be making the same argument? Thus, CBS' actions are what can be only construed as an attempt by one of the largest media companies to concert their efforts with a poltical campaign. I hated it when Brit Hume of Fox did it and I hate it now. The media is supposed to find the facts, not make them up and then feed them to a political party it favors. So, I am not blaming Lockhart (again, does anyone really think that is all that transpired :rolleyes: ) - I am blaming CBS.

Unfortunately, CBS' error of judgement is a win win for W and his campaign because from now one, every time someone brings up W's service, the R's are going to say something to the effect of "are we back to the forged docs. again" - that is sad - but it is true :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Thank you for the amateur law lesson and you need not dare me to do anything because I agree with you that Novak probably is guilty :laugh: ( I joking here)

Now, if you had an inkling of knowledge about the law, you would know that it requires proof to convict and last I checked, there is none on Novak even though again he probably is guilty as sin.

You have no idea what the evidence is because the Grand Jury is meeting in secret. Are you telling us you know the details of Fitzgerald's case?

[strandinthewind]

Yup. :nod:
Again, please show me the facts that indicate Novak was treasonous, which BTW is a crime requiring intent. I submit you or anyone else cannot.

AND - I freely admit Novak is probably guilty as hell. But, he did the same thing Rather and CBS did - thus a spade is a spade.

[strandinthewind]

You have no idea what the evidence is because the Grand Jury is meeting in secret. Are you telling us you know the details of Fitzgerald's case?

Who are they indicting again? Is it Novak? No, it is not, or at least that is what they are saying. AND - if they do indict him, they better have that clear link I mentioned or the judge should and probably will dismiss it. Go back and read the law in that previous thread I posted a link to. I am not making this up.

[gldstwmn]

You are missing my point and it makes no difference. That CBS called the Kerry campaign is a clear effort of their partisanship.

No it's not. They would normally call either campaign for their take on it. I'm sure the Bush campaign was called as well.

[gldstwmn]

Who are they indicting again? Is it Novak? No, it is not, or at least that is what they are saying. AND - if they do indict him, they better have that clear link I mentioned or the judge should and probably will dismiss it. Go back and read the law in that previous thread I posted a link to. I am not making this up.

We don't know who is being indicted yet. Answer the damn question. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

No it's not. They would normally call either campaign for their take on it. I'm sure the Bush campaign was called as well.

They were? I have not read that. In fact, no one knew this guy was the source until CBS revealed it the other day :shrug: AND - there is more to it than that. CBS sought the Kerry campaign to corroborate their source. That is just wrong and partisan. I am a little taken aback that you are not admitting this. Again, a major network is not supposed to be working for a campaign.

[strandinthewind]

We don't know who is being indicted yet. Answer the damn question. :laugh:

First of all, she said Novak was guilty of treason and then went on about the roads leading to the WH. Well, great, but how does that implicate Novak. It does not, unless, as I said, there is evidence directly linking Novak to some plot, which has yet to surface.

I know what I have read in the press and in every article I have read, it ain't Novak - they are going after the WH and I hope they get them. Again, if they indict Novak, which there is a remote chance they could, they better have a clear link that shows a deliberate act on his part, otherwise the case will never fly. How could it? That is the answer to your question :D

All of this was discussed in that previous thread. Go back and re read that if you do not believe me.

[Nixxxed]

I for one think this election will be even closer than 2000

I think the Kerry folks think this too. I just got an e-mail from Mary Beth Cahill begging for money to fund the next recount! :eek:

Here's an excerpt:


We've got to spend every dollar as carefully and wisely as we can between now and November. And as we learned in Florida in 2000, we have to expect the unexpected on and after Election Day. That's why I'm writing to ask for your immediate help on a very special project.

Election Day is several weeks away, but our campaign is already considering our options should John Kerry or George Bush pursue a recount like the famous Florida ballot dispute in 2000. That year, the Bush campaign raised more than $14 million in the Florida crisis, compared to Al Gore's campaign, which raised $3.2 million. We can never again be outspent 4-to-1 in such a critical situation.

[DeeGeMe]

Thank you for the amateur law lesson and you need not dare me to do anything because I agree with you that Novak probably is guilty :laugh: ( I joking here)

Now, if you had an inkling of knowledge about the law, you would know that it requires proof to convict and last I checked, there is none on Novak even though again he probably is guilty as sin. If you know he is guilty and have evidence of a phone call, email, etc., that demonstrates a direct connect with a WH agent who told Novak he was giving Novak this information in an attempt to deliberatly leak this information, let's see it. I submit you can find none and thus you will have no conviction in a court of law and nor should you.:

It's pretty apparent that Fox News, which you no doubt watch on a regular basis, hasn't been covering this investigation too closely (for obvious reasons) because phone records have been seized in this case. For some reason, Novak hasn't been the focus of the investigation, from what the news reports say, however. But you cannot deny for one single second that what he did was legally wrong and morally unethical. And you cannot also deny for one single second that there was not 1/1000th of the degree of time spent by Cable pundits on this story as opposed to their coverage of the whole Dan Rather flap. BTW--people working in the communications department for any political party or campaign talk to the press. That's what they're their for (the word communications should be your clue on that). So tell me again why it's such a problem for Lockhart to have spoken to this guy in Texas? Or would you rather discuss the links between the White House, Karl Rove, and the Swift Boat Liars for Bush?

[DeeGeMe]

You are missing my point and it makes no difference. That CBS called the Kerry campaign is a clear effort of their partisanship. Why didn't they call the Bush campaign and tell them the same thing :shrug: and warn them it was coming? If they had done that instead of calling the Kerry campaign - would ou still be making the same argument? Thus, CBS' actions are what can be only construed as an attempt by one of the largest media companies to concert their efforts with a poltical campaign. I hated it when Brit Hume of Fox did it and I hate it now. The media is supposed to find the facts, not make them up and then feed them to a political party it favors. So, I am not blaming Lockhart (again, does anyone really :

Oh--and you're wrong on this point as well. CBS did contact the White House and ask for comment on this and the WH Communications Director, Dan Bartlett did not challenge the document's accuracy. So your argument here would be. . . . ??????

[strandinthewind]

It's pretty apparent that Fox News, which you no doubt watch on a regular basis, hasn't been covering this investigation too closely (for obvious reasons) because phone records have been seized in this case. For some reason, Novak hasn't been the focus of the investigation, from what the news reports say, however. But you cannot deny for one single second that what he did was legally wrong and morally unethical. And you cannot also deny for one single second that there was not 1/1000th of the degree of time spent by Cable pundits on this story as opposed to their coverage of the whole Dan Rather flap. BTW--people working in the communications department for any political party or campaign talk to the press. That's what they're their for (the word communications should be your clue on that). So tell me again why it's such a problem for Lockhart to have spoken to this guy in Texas? Or would you rather discuss the links between the White House, Karl Rove, and the Swift Boat Liars for Bush?

Lord - you do get into a snit easily and I watch all the networks Ms. Smarty Pants :laugh:

- and -

you are not addressing the point I made earlier which was I am not saying Novak is not a scummy guy who probably is guilty - All I am saying is he will never be indicted for treason, which you all but convicted him of earlier, unless there is a direct link, which no one, including you, has established :shrug:

Finally, yes, they talk to the press, but the press does not call them and tell them they have a hot story coming out which will helop them and that they really need to call their source, who they are loathe to give to anyone else mind you, because he has things that will help Kerry with his upcoming assault on W's son of priviledge assault.

Again, I hate it when anyone does not play fair. I think that separates me from both sides and certainly you based on your argument. Again, you do not like it when Fox, as you assert, does it. Yet, Rather and CBS get a free pass. That is RANK hypocrisy.

[strandinthewind]

Oh--and you're wrong on this point as well. CBS did contact the White House and ask for comment on this and the WH Communications Director, Dan Bartlett did not challenge the document's accuracy. So your argument here would be. . . . ??????

My argument is that one of the heads of CBS news did not personally call the Bush campaign and say, listen you guys, we know the Kerry campaign is starting an assualt of W's son of priviledge status next week, so we gave them this guy's name - maybe you want to call him as well. They did not do that. If they did or anything resembling that - let's see it it writing.

[DeeGeMe]

Published on Friday, March 5, 2004 by the Long Island, NY Newsday


Air Force One Phone Records Subpoenaed
Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was blown

by Tom Brune

WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.

Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.


Air Force One phone records are being subpoenaed as a grand jury probes the disclosure of a covert CIA officer’s name. (Getty Images File Photo)

And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.

The three subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22, three weeks after Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel in the probe and during the first wave of appearances by White House staffers before the grand jury.

The investigation seeks to determine if anyone violated federal law that prohibits officials with security clearances from intentionally or knowingly disclosing the identity of an undercover agent.

White House implicated

The subpoenas underscore indications that the initial stages of the investigation have focused largely on the White House staff members most involved in shaping the administration's message on Iraq, and appear to be based in part on specific information already gathered by investigators, attorneys said Thursday.

Fitzgerald's spokesman declined to comment.

The investigation arose in part out of concerns that Bush administration officials had called reporters to circulate the name of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in an attempt to discredit the criticism of the administration's Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

In 2002, Wilson went to Niger at the behest of the CIA to check out reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium "yellow cake" to develop nuclear weapons. He reported that Iraq sought commercial ties but that businessmen said the Iraqis didn't try to buy uranium.

All three subpoenas were sent to employees of the Executive Office of the President under a Jan. 26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the documents, which include phone messages, e-mails and handwritten notes, was "mandatory" and setting a Jan. 29 deadline.

"The president has always said we would fully comply with the investigation, and the White House counsel's office has directed the staff to fully comply," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday.

The Novak column

Two of the subpoenas focus mainly on White House records, events and contacts in July, both before and after the July 14 column by Robert Novak that said "two senior administration officials" told him Plame was a CIA officer.

The third subpoena repeats an informal Justice Department document request to the White House last fall seeking records about staff contacts with Novak and two Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported on July 22 that Plame was a covert agent and Novak had blown her cover.

The subpoena added journalists such as Mike Allen and Dana Priest of the Washington Post, Michael Duffy of Time magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC's "Meet the Press," Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball," and reporters from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. There have been no reports of journalists being subpoeaned.

The subpoenas required the White House to produce the documents in three stages -- the first on Jan. 30, a second on Feb. 4 and the third on Feb. 6 -- even as White House aides began appearing before the grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.

The subpoena with the first production deadline sought three sets of documents.

It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 to 12, while Bush was visting several nations in Africa. The White House declined Thursday to release a list of those on the trip.

That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria.

That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.

Finally, the subpoena requested a list of those in attendance at the White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday.

The White House at the time announced the reception would honor Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, but said the event was closed to the press.

The White House Thursday declined to release the list and the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, which paid for the event, did not return phone calls.

The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.

What about Karl Rove?

It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Wilson alleged in September that Rove was involved in the leak but a day later pulled back from that, asserting that Rove had "condoned" it.

Hughes left the White House in the summer of 2002. Matalin, who left at the end of 2002, did not return a call for comment. Matalin appeared before the grand jury Jan. 23, the day after the subpoenas were issued.

The subpoena with the last production date repeated the Justice Department's informal request to the White House last fall for documents from Feb. 1, 2002, through 2003 related to Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger, to Plame and to contacts with journalists.

Current White House press secretary Scott McClellan, press aide Claire Buchan and former press aide Adam Levine have told reporters they appeared before the grand jury Feb. 6. At least five others have reportedly been questioned.

Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

[strandinthewind]

That is all fine and dandy - and its point that is relevant to the current converstion is :shrug: Again, Novak was not in bed with these senior WH sources, he was merely reporting what they said. If it can be proved that he was in bed with them, great - his scummy ass will go to jail. ALL I am saying is there is no proof (and certainly this article contains none) that Novak did anything but report what he was told, which is not a crime last I checked.

If you know differently, let's see the law.

Otherwise, you can jump to conclusions all you want and although those conclusions may very well be accurate, they are not enough to convict someone as you did when you said Novak committed treason, at least legally. I do not like it any better than you do, but that sword of leaping to conclusions can cut both ways - that is why we have the law.

[DeeGeMe]

What part of this are you not understanding? It is against the law to reveal the identity of an undercover agent. Novak did so and he did so after the identity of this spy was revealed to him by the White House--which, by the way, also revealed her identity to a number of other press sources. Would you like me to go and dig up that list for you? It's pretty long and apparently, getting longer by the day. Anything else you want me to explain to you or do you require a flow chart of some type?

[DeeGeMe]

Lord - you do get into a snit easily and I watch all the networks Ms. Smarty Pants :laugh: -.

I'm half-Irish and I'm a redhead. Let's hope you can figure out the implications of that better than you can follow the Novak/Plume case.

But for the hell of it:

Published on Saturday, March 6, 2004 by the Long Island, NY Newsday

Envoy Had Been a Target

Before his CIA wife’s cover was blown, White House directed efforts to discredit Joseph C. Wilson IV

by Tom Brune

WASHINGTON - A transcript subpoenaed in the CIA leak probe reveals the White House press operation began efforts to personally discredit former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV days before a columnist blew the cover of his CIA-officer wife.

As Newsday reported Friday, a federal grand jury served three subpoenas on the White House in January for Air Force One telephone records and a transcript of a press briefing during the presidential trip to Africa the week before Robert Novak's July 14 column identifying CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The grand jury also subpoenaed White House records of staff contacts with an expanded list of more than two dozen reporters who wrote or broadcast about administration concerns over Plame, Wilson and his CIA report that rejected rumors Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger.

The White House Friday confirmed it had received subpoenas. "We're still in the process of complying fully," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

The efforts to discredit Wilson came after he went public July 6 with criticism of President George W. Bush for mentioning the uranium rumor in January 2003 in his State of the Union address which helped make a case for the Iraq war.

In the subpoenaed July 12 transcript of a briefing in Nigeria, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer called Wilson a "lower-level official" and said Wilson had made flawed and incomplete statements. Fleischer did not return calls Friday.

Meanwhile, many of the journalists on the subpoena's list have reported various attempts by the Bush administration last year to discredit Wilson by suggesting his wife arranged for the CIA to send him to Niger.

For example, Time Magazine reported three days after Novak's column that unnamed administration officials had described Plame's relationship to Wilson and suggested she had gotten him the mission.

One journalist, NBC reporter and "Meet the Press" host Andrea Mitchell, appears to have several connections of interest.

On July 6, she interviewed Wilson about his trip to Niger, and two days later she reported officials tried to cast Wilson as a Democratic "partisan."

And on July 16, her husband, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, was honored at a White House reception held to celebrate former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. The grand jury subpoenaed the guest list, which has not been released.

"I shouldn't talk about it," Mitchell said Friday, declining to say if she attended the reception. Asked why the grand jury might be interested in it, she said, "I can't even imagine."

Probe's scope includes media figures

Subpoena list

A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official's identity to columnist Robert Novak last July. They include:

Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times

Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday

Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post

Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine

Evan Thomas, Newsweek

Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC

Chris Matthews, "Hardball,"

MSNBC

Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC

Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times

Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal

John Solomon, The Associated Press

Jeff Gannon, Talon News

© Copyright 2004, Newsday, Inc.

[strandinthewind]

I'm half-Irish and I'm a redhead. Let's hope you can figure out the implications of that better than you can follow the Novak/Plume case.

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself :laugh:

Please read carecfully - I AGREEE NOVAK PROBABLY IS IMPLICATED!!!!!!

Let me repeat it: I AGREEE NOVAK PROBABLY IS IMPLICATED!!!!!!

ALL and I mean ALL I am arguing is there has been no legal basis I have seen to implicate him nor have you provided any. Conclusions based on speculation are not and SHOULD NOT be enough to convict.

So, I am unsure why you are asserting I am somehow wrong or inaccurately fillowing the Novak/Plume case. What have I said that is wrong? Again, I am not counting your subjective conclusions (most of which I agree with) - are you saying this article and the other one facutally implicate Novak - I say they do not. Novak was called to give the GJ evidence, ostensibly to reveal the WH sources, which he will never and should never do (unless he is involved in a premeditated act, which again, there is no evidence of). All of this was gone into in great detail in that other thread. Did you read it ?

P.S. I also think Novak is a lousy one sided journalist - I also happen to think that about Rather, and the facts support me more on Rather, sadly so I might add.

[DeeGeMe]

Do you enjoy arguing with yourself :laugh:

Please read carecfully - I AGREEE NOVAK PROBABLY IS IMPLICATED!!!!!!

Let me repeat it: I AGREEE NOVAK PROBABLY IS IMPLICATED!!!!!!

ALL and I mean ALL I am arguing is there has been no legal basis I have seen to implicate him nor have you provided any. Conclusions based on speculation are not and SHOULD NOT be enough to convict.

So, I am unsure why you are asserting I am somehow wrong or inaccurately fillowing the Novak/Plume case. What have I said that is wrong? Again, I am not counting your subjective conclusions (most of which I agree with) - are you saying this article and the other one facutally implicate Novak - I say they do not. Novak was called to give the GJ evidence, ostensibly to reveal the WH sources, which he will never and should never do (unless he is involved in a premeditated act, which again, there is no evidence of). All of this was gone into in great detail in that other thread. Did you read it ?

P.S. I also think Novak is a lousy one sided journalist - I also happen to think that about Rather, and the facts support me more on Rather, sadly so I might add.

Strand--you seem. . . I don't know. . . stressed. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Strand--you seem. . . I don't know. . . stressed. :laugh:

I am not - I am just used to people getting what I am saying and not throwing all of this subterfuge in the way. Although a young Irish redhead can usually drive any male to stress :nod: ;)

So, answer my question without subterfuge please, which was:

So, I am unsure why you are asserting I am somehow wrong or inaccurately fillowing the Novak/Plume case. What have I said that is wrong? Again, I am not counting your subjective conclusions (most of which I agree with) - are you saying this article and the other one facutally implicate Novak - I say they do not. Novak was called to give the GJ evidence, ostensibly to reveal the WH sources, which he will never and should never do (unless he is involved in a premeditated act, which again, there is no evidence of). All of this was gone into in great detail in that other thread. Did you read it ?

:wavey:

[dissention]

I have that feeling as well, but Rather will never do that - so . . . I see him resigning over this or CBS will fire him. I mean they have no credibility left (no pun intended) :laugh:

CBS to fire Dan Rather? Put the bong down, dude. :wavey:

[amber]

CBS to fire Dan Rather? Put the bong down, dude. :wavey:
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
NEVAH!!!! :laugh: (Sorry, couldn't resist...)
AMber

[DeeGeMe]

Are you sure there was a question in there for me somewhere, because I just couldn't seem to find it. :laugh:

My point (and I do have one) is that your claims that Rather has committed an unpardonable sin and is guilty of biased reporting is a weak one considering the actions of Mr. Novak in regards to Plame. I mostly posted those two articles to illustrate the facts of the case and to show the pattern that this White House in attempting to destroy their critics, both personally and professionally through their friends in the media.

The idea of a liberal media is so laughable to me. Check out my new thread on the hyprocisy that is Fox News. There are two standards for media behavior in this country now-one for those that kiss White House/Republican butt, in which anything, including felony acts are allowed, and not only condoned, but encouraged. But God have mercy on anyone who won't drink the Republican Kool-Aid.

Serious questions remain about W's National Guard service (or more correctly, the lack of documented proof of his service). Why isn't the media focusing on getting to the answers of those questions? Why aren't they asking those questions? And more importantly, why won't Bush answer them? Forged or not, those memos get to the heart of this whole question--did W receive preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and most importantly, did he fulfill his duty to this country?

No, instead, we're getting Rather's head on a stick and demands for his immediate firing. And now, not satisifed with Rather's public apology, the "media" is now attempting to somehow link John Kerry and the Democrats to Dan Rather and memogate.

When is it going to sink in to you, and your fellow Republicans that this administration will do anything, say anything, right down to breaking the law to get their way? They'll destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way as they've proved over and over again.

[dissention]

Let's hope you can figure out the implications of that better than you can follow the Novak/Plume case.


She quotes from The Book of Dissention. I've taught you well, my child. Spew that vitrol!

[amber]

She quotes from The Book of Dissention. I've taught you well, my child. Spew that vitrol!
VITRIOL
1 a : a sulfate of any of various metals (as copper, iron, or zinc); especially : a glassy hydrate of such a sulfate b : OIL OF VITRIOL
2 : something felt to resemble vitriol especially in caustic quality; especially : virulence of feeling or of speech
mmmmm virulence in feeling or speech...*drool*
AMber

[strandinthewind]

Are you sure there was a question in there for me somewhere, because I just couldn't seem to find it. :laugh:

It usually is the sentence preceding the question mark - A question mark looks like this "?" :wavey: :wavey:

But - here they are (there were actually two - thus, perhaps the confusion :laugh: ) highlighted for you a la Cliff's Notes :cool:

So, I am unsure why you are asserting I am somehow wrong or inaccurately fillowing the Novak/Plume case. What have I said that is wrong? Again, I am not counting your subjective conclusions (most of which I agree with) - are you saying this article and the other one facutally implicate Novak - I say they do not. Novak was called to give the GJ evidence, ostensibly to reveal the WH sources, which he will never and should never do (unless he is involved in a premeditated act, which again, there is no evidence of). All of this was gone into in great detail in that other thread. Did you read it ?

My point (and I do have one) is that your claims that Rather has committed an unpardonable sin and is guilty of biased reporting is a weak one considering the actions of Mr. Novak in regards to Plame. I mostly posted those two articles to illustrate the facts of the case and to show the pattern that this White House in attempting to destroy their critics, both personally and professionally through their friends in the media.

The idea of a liberal media is so laughable to me. Check out my new thread on the hyprocisy that is Fox News. There are two standards for media behavior in this country now-one for those that kiss White House/Republican butt, in which anything, including felony acts are allowed, and not only condoned, but encouraged. But God have mercy on anyone who won't drink the Republican Kool-Aid.

Serious questions remain about W's National Guard service (or more correctly, the lack of documented proof of his service). Why isn't the media focusing on getting to the answers of those questions? Why aren't they asking those questions? And more importantly, why won't Bush answer them? Forged or not, those memos get to the heart of this whole question--did W receive preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and most importantly, did he fulfill his duty to this country?

No, instead, we're getting Rather's head on a stick and demands for his immediate firing. And now, not satisifed with Rather's public apology, the "media" is now attempting to somehow link John Kerry and the Democrats to Dan Rather and memogate.

When is it going to sink in to you, and your fellow Republicans that this administration will do anything, say anything, right down to breaking the law to get their way? They'll destroy anyone and anything that gets in their way as they've proved over and over again.

Again, I agree with you. But, you said Novak committed treason - that is all I am talking about. I am not taking about anything else because and again, I agree with you. I asked you to prove it legally and you could not. What does that have to do with any of the foregoing you ramble on about, which and again, I agree with?

Finally, you are wrong about one more thing. I am not a Republican and have not been for YEARS if not decades (1988) - I am an independant fiscal conservative social liberal - where the hell that fits I have no clue :laugh: Yet, this is the fallacy of you and your D ilk - anyone that DARES to question the D candidate is set up for the firing squad and a barrage of irrelevant facts and suppositions are spewed with vitrol. Sounds like Bush's tactics doesn't it :shrug: Again, if you are fine with what Rather and CBS did - If you are fine with a network deliberately sidfing with a candidate, then please never insult Fox again, even though Fox is at least smart about it and doesn't get caught :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

She quotes from The Book of Dissention. I've taught you well, my child. Spew that vitrol!

I just used vitrol - oh well, duplication never hurt.

Again, spew it all you want, but do honestly justify CBS' actions here. I would think you of all people would be as outraged as I am. Surely, you are not that blind in your support :shrug:

[DeeGeMe]

She quotes from The Book of Dissention. I've taught you well, my child. Spew that vitrol!

I learned everything I know from Goldie and Diss.

[strandinthewind]

I learned everything I know from Goldie and Diss.

Come in out of the darkness :laugh:

[dissention]

I just used vitrol - oh well, duplication never hurt.

Again, spew it all you want, but do honestly justify CBS' actions here. I would think you of all people would be as outraged as I am. Surely, you are not that blind in your support :shrug:

I never stated my opinion one way or the other.

And I am. ;) I totally agree with you and will go even further and say that CBS f*cked us over big time with this ****. We've reached the end of the road, my dear, and it's thanks to CBS.

[DeeGeMe]

It usually is the sentence preceding the question mark - A question mark looks like this "?" :wavey: :wavey:

But - here they are (there were actually two - thus, perhaps the confusion :laugh: ) highlighted for you a la Cliff's Notes :cool:

So, I am unsure why you are asserting I am somehow wrong or inaccurately fillowing the Novak/Plume case. What have I said that is wrong? I asked you to prove it legally and you could not. What does that have to do with any of the foregoing you ramble on about, which and again, I agree with?Finally, you are wrong about one more thing. I am not a Republican and have not been for YEARS if not decades (1988) - I am an independant fiscal conservative social liberal - where the hell that fits I have no clue :laugh:

Yes, you are wrong on the Plume/Novak case and I've laid it out for you in simple black and white. I really don't know what part of this you don't understand.

Secondly, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV.) I'll leave Mr. Novak's guilt or innocence and the White House's Involvement in the Plame/Novak affair up to the Grand Jury. But the undeniable (to everyone except you, it seems) is that revealing the identity of a covert agent is ILLEGAL, a federal law--thereby making it a FELONY.

And didn't you once have a tagline which proclaimed that you were the only Republican on the Ledge? Or do I have you confused with someone else? If so, then I know K/E are kicking butt when even die-hards now are professing to be "independents". If not, then I apologize for mislabeling you. I'm off now to go watch the Season Finale of Big Brother!

[dissention]

I learned everything I know from Goldie and Diss.

:woohoo: I'm honored. ;)

[dissention]

Yes, you are wrong on the Plume/Novak case and I've laid it out for you in simple black and white. I really don't know what part of this you don't understand.

Secondly, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV.) I'll leave Mr. Novak's guilt or innocence and the White House's Involvement in the Plame/Novak affair up to the Grand Jury. But the undeniable (to everyone except you, it seems) is that revealing the identity of a covert agent is ILLEGAL, a federal law--thereby making it a FELONY.

And didn't you once have a tagline which proclaimed that you were the only Republican on the Ledge? Or do I have you confused with someone else? If so, then I know K/E are kicking butt when even die-hards now are professing to be "independents". If not, then I apologize for mislabeling you. I'm off now to go watch the Season Finale of Big Brother!

I've told Jason before that he's deluded if he doesn't think that Novak is also being investigated. Just because everything isn't being made public, it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. If he's not being investigated for illegal conduct, my name is George Clooney and I'm eloping with Goldie next week. :woohoo:

[dissention]

And didn't you once have a tagline which proclaimed that you were the only Republican on the Ledge? Or do I have you confused with someone else? If so, then I know K/E are kicking butt when even die-hards now are professing to be "independents". If not, then I apologize for mislabeling you. I'm off now to go watch the Season Finale of Big Brother!

No, that's Alex. Jason can deny all he wants, but he's liberal to the core. The only thing with him is that he has to weigh every sentence and overanalyze it all so that he can't possibly be considered in the same company of such nuts as us. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

I never stated my opinion one way or the other.

And I am. ;) I totally agree with you and will go even further and say that CBS f*cked us over big time with this ****. We've reached the end of the road, my dear, and it's thanks to CBS.

OMG - we agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:blob2: :blob1: :eek: :blob1: :blob2:

[amber]

I just used vitrol -:
Not to be rude, but can we all just quickly note that it's actually VITRIOL, see the "I" after the "R" whew, thanks...
Amber "one time spelling nazi" G.

[strandinthewind]

Yes, you are wrong on the Plume/Novak case and I've laid it out for you in simple black and white. I really don't know what part of this you don't understand.

Secondly, I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV.) I'll leave Mr. Novak's guilt or innocence and the White House's Involvement in the Plame/Novak affair up to the Grand Jury. But the undeniable (to everyone except you, it seems) is that revealing the identity of a covert agent is ILLEGAL, a federal law--thereby making it a FELONY.

And didn't you once have a tagline which proclaimed that you were the only Republican on the Ledge? Or do I have you confused with someone else? If so, then I know K/E are kicking butt when even die-hards now are professing to be "independents". If not, then I apologize for mislabeling you. I'm off now to go watch the Season Finale of Big Brother!

It is not illegal if he was reporting the news. Show me the law that says it is. If we follow your logic to its conclusion then almost every news reporter who has repeated it since Novak would be guilty of the same thing because certainly there could be someone new they are revealing to and the statute does not say the first, etc. So, it is not illegal to report it. Read Carne's comments in that other thread - mind you he works in the news industry!!Again, go back and read that other thread. The law is set out there. You can chose to ignore it if you want, but that is your choice and it certainly does not validate your erroneous statement.

The only case you have laid out in black and white is there is a criminal investigation of the WH source(s) that leaked the name. Novak is in no way implicated by these articles - in fact, he was called to give evidence. Yet, you continue to say he is and that is just wrong. Again, I agree with you that he probably was in the plot (assuming there was one, etc.) - but that will be extremely hard to prove. If you have proof of it let's see it. By proof I do not mean that the published the articles. I mean some kind of testimony implicating him like an e-mail, a taped phone call, a phone call trail, a witness, etc. That is the only way they can get him )and the WH source mind you) and I suggest none has been unearthed.

[gldstwmn]

you are not addressing the point I made earlier which was I am not saying Novak is not a scummy guy who probably is guilty - All I am saying is he will never be indicted for treason, which you all but convicted him of earlier, unless there is a direct link, which no one, including you, has established :shrug:



The only reason for Novak not to be indicted would be for him to turn state's witness, which I think will happen.

[strandinthewind]

Not to be rude, but can we all just quickly note that it's actually VITRIOL, see the "I" after the "R" whew, thanks...
Amber "one time spelling nazi" G.

I cannot spell worth a damn and I type even worse.

But, if I catch them, I'll be sure and point out any of your typos from now until the end of time :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

The only reason for Novak not to be indicted would be for him to turn state's witness, which I think will happen.

No it is not. Again, there has to be a clear link that he was in on the deal. Do you really think the WH is going to give him up, esp. considering what he knows and is not saying not just about this but about a million other things :shrug: He will refuse to give up his source and maybe a judge will have the sand to put him in jail for contempt. That is it unless a smoking gun is found, then all bets are off.

[gldstwmn]

I am not - I am just used to people getting what I am saying and not throwing all of this subterfuge in the way. Although a young Irish redhead can usually drive any male to stress :nod: ;)

So, answer my question without subterfuge please, which was:




Darlin', you haven't met an argument you couldn't obfuscate. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Darlin', you haven't met an argument you couldn't obfuscate. :laugh:

Don't you talking about my ability to obfuscate :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I've told Jason before that he's deluded if he doesn't think that Novak is also being investigated. Just because everything isn't being made public, it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. If he's not being investigated for illegal conduct, my name is George Clooney and I'm eloping with Goldie next week. :woohoo:

I knew it! :blob2: :] :blob1: :woohoo: :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

No it is not. Again, there has to be a clear link that he was in on the deal. Do you really think the WH is going to give him up, esp. considering what he knows and is not saying not just about this but about a million other things :shrug: He will refuse to give up his source and maybe a judge will have the sand to put him in jail for contempt. That is it unless a smoking gun is found, then all bets are off.

Bush and Cheney already have hired attorneys. Someone has already capitulated, IMO and Fitz is not to be deterred.

[dissention]

I knew it! :blob2: :] :blob1: :woohoo: :xoxo:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Pack your bags, we're honeymoonin' in Figi!

[strandinthewind]

Here is an article from:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,581456,00.html (with my comments supplied)

Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004

Grand Jury Hears Plame Case

Testimony begins in front of a grand jury in the investigation into whether the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was improperly leaked to the press

By JOHN DICKERSON AND VIVECA NOVAK

Sources with knowledge of the case tell TIME that behind closed doors at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, nearby the Capitol, a grand jury began hearing testimony Wednesday in the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists. ( I guess they all will be indicted by the logic you all espouse)

Prosecutors are believed to be starting with third-party witnesses, people who were not directly involved in the leak of Plame's identity. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, claims that the leak was an act of retaliation against him for undercutting Bush's weapons-of-mass-destruction rationale for going to war in Iraq. Soon enough, witnesses with more direct knowledge will be called to testify, and a decision to subpoena journalists for their testimony will also be made. In December, the FBI asked some administration staffers to sign a waiver releasing reporters from confidentiality agreements in connection with any conversations they had about the Wilson affair. Novak's attorney, Jim Hamilton, had no comment about the latest developments.

Grand juries aren't always used in criminal probes, but they are the preferred way to go in cases with potential political fallout, if only to lend credibility to the result. One conclusion to be drawn from this latest step, said one lawyer familiar with the case, is that investigators clearly have a sense of how the case is shaping up. "They clearly have a sense of what's going on and can ask intelligent questions" to bring the grand jury up to speed. A grand jury is not a trial jury, but is used as an investigative tool and to decide whether to bring indictments in a case.

Anyone who's subpoenaed in the inquiry, noted the lawyer, can be almost certain that prosecutors aren't contemplating indicting him or her. Subpoenas are rarely sent to the targets of an investigation, and if they are, the recipients must be told in advance that they are considered targets—at which point they would almost certainly cite the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

A huge unanswered question in this case is whether the leaker or leakers knew that Plame was undercover when they gave her identity away. That is a necessary element for any indictment for leaking the name of a covert agent. However, charges could also be brought for making false statements to the FBI, if a guilty party has falsely claimed innocence in interviews with government agents.

It's also possible that prosecutors will learn who perpetrated the leak but won't have enough to bring charges. But true to form, the Bush administration continues to be extremely tight-lipped about the investigation -- even internally. "No one knows what the hell is going on," says someone who could be a witness, "because the administration people are all terrified and the lawyers aren't sharing anything with each other either."
____________________________________________________________

I am awaiting the Jason you were right statements!!!!!! :wavey: :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention
I've told Jason before that he's deluded if he doesn't think that Novak is also being investigated. Just because everything isn't being made public, it doesn't mean that it isn't happening. If he's not being investigated for illegal conduct, my name is George Clooney and I'm eloping with Goldie next week.
_____________________________________________

Oh - I am sure he has been investigated and never said anything to the contrary. I am talking about an actual indictment, which and again, would require that direct link - Again, I hope they convict him if they have the evidence, but from what I have seen - they do not.

[dissention]

Then they must have that direct link - Again, I hope they convict him if they have the evidence, but from what I have seen - they do not.

And isn't that the whole point of an investigation? To see if those links exist? You're arguing against something just for the sake of argument.

[dissention]

Here is an article from:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,581456,00.html (with my comments supplied)

Thursday, Jan. 22, 2004

Grand Jury Hears Plame Case

Testimony begins in front of a grand jury in the investigation into whether the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame was improperly leaked to the press

By JOHN DICKERSON AND VIVECA NOVAK

Sources with knowledge of the case tell TIME that behind closed doors at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse, nearby the Capitol, a grand jury began hearing testimony Wednesday in the investigation of who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak and other journalists. ( I guess they all will be indicted by the logic you all espouse)

Prosecutors are believed to be starting with third-party witnesses, people who were not directly involved in the leak of Plame's identity. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, claims that the leak was an act of retaliation against him for undercutting Bush's weapons-of-mass-destruction rationale for going to war in Iraq. Soon enough, witnesses with more direct knowledge will be called to testify, and a decision to subpoena journalists for their testimony will also be made. In December, the FBI asked some administration staffers to sign a waiver releasing reporters from confidentiality agreements in connection with any conversations they had about the Wilson affair. Novak's attorney, Jim Hamilton, had no comment about the latest developments.

Grand juries aren't always used in criminal probes, but they are the preferred way to go in cases with potential political fallout, if only to lend credibility to the result. One conclusion to be drawn from this latest step, said one lawyer familiar with the case, is that investigators clearly have a sense of how the case is shaping up. "They clearly have a sense of what's going on and can ask intelligent questions" to bring the grand jury up to speed. A grand jury is not a trial jury, but is used as an investigative tool and to decide whether to bring indictments in a case.

Anyone who's subpoenaed in the inquiry, noted the lawyer, can be almost certain that prosecutors aren't contemplating indicting him or her. Subpoenas are rarely sent to the targets of an investigation, and if they are, the recipients must be told in advance that they are considered targets—at which point they would almost certainly cite the 5th Amendment and refuse to answer questions.

A huge unanswered question in this case is whether the leaker or leakers knew that Plame was undercover when they gave her identity away. That is a necessary element for any indictment for leaking the name of a covert agent. However, charges could also be brought for making false statements to the FBI, if a guilty party has falsely claimed innocence in interviews with government agents.

It's also possible that prosecutors will learn who perpetrated the leak but won't have enough to bring charges. But true to form, the Bush administration continues to be extremely tight-lipped about the investigation -- even internally. "No one knows what the hell is going on," says someone who could be a witness, "because the administration people are all terrified and the lawyers aren't sharing anything with each other either."
____________________________________________________________

I am awaiting the Jason you were right statements!!!!!! :wavey: :wavey:

By all accounts, Novak has not been subpoenaed. :shrug: Therefore, I fail to see your point.

[strandinthewind]

I am pretty sure he has although he declines to comment. I read it somewhere and will look for it.

[dissention]

I am pretty sure he has although he declines to comment. I read it somewhere and will look for it.

Ever think that the reason he declines to comment is because he hasn't been supoenaed and if he hasn't been supoenaed, it makes him look like he's being investigated himself for his involvement in this whole mess?

[strandinthewind]

Ever think that the reason he declines to comment is because he hasn't been supoenaed and if he hasn't been supoenaed, it makes him look like he's being investigated himself for his involvement in this whole mess?

I have no clue where I read or heard that - so I withdraw it and concede error (read I was wrong)

But, even if he was not subpoened, I am back to my original point that they still have to find that link that clearly establishes he knew, was involved, etc. Without it, there is no case against Novak even though he is a scumball. Such is the law.

[dissention]

But, even if he was not subpoened, I am back to my original point that they still have to find that link that clearly establishes he knew, was involved, etc. Without it, there is no case against Novak even though he is a scumball. Such is the law.

Which might give us a clue as to why he was not supoenaed: because they are investigating him and/or building a case against him. ;)

[amber]

I cannot spell worth a damn and I type even worse.

But, if I catch them, I'll be sure and point out any of your typos from now until the end of time :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :rolleyes:
please, be my guest, i like to learn. Unfortunately, this wasn't a typo - you both did it. It was more of a mispronunciation....like, when i was 7 or 8 I used to think the word voila was pronounced...viola (like the instrument) cause i'd only read it, never heard it spoken. so i just pictured both you and diss going around saying "vitrol this, and vitrol that" and i just shuddered, and wanted to spare both of you from utter, utter, humiliation in learned company.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Amber "viola!" g.

[strandinthewind]

please, be my guest, i like to learn. Unfortunately, this wasn't a typo - you both did it. It was more of a mispronunciation....like, when i was 7 or 8 I used to think the word voila was pronounced...viola (like the instrument) cause i'd only read it, never heard it spoken. so i just pictured both you and diss going around saying "vitrol this, and vitrol that" and i just shuddered, and wanted to spare both of you from utter, utter, humiliation in learned company.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Amber "viola!" g.

Well, no mine was a typo. I frequently have them and I and Dissention certainly have used that word and correctly typed it. But, thanks for the help!!!!

[amber]

Well, no mine was a typo. I frequently have them and I and Dissention certainly have used that word and correctly typed it. But, thanks for the help!!!!
Whew!! I was worried, since you BOTH did it...you've allayed my fears, thank you....I was thinking "what if they have to meet the queen next week, and they say vitrol?" *gasp* :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey:
Amber

[strandinthewind]

Which might give us a clue as to why he was not supoenaed: because they are investigating him and/or building a case against him. ;)

Okay - I am back from walking the dogs and think I have it. I am pretty sure I read it in The Economist on the way to Europe. The article, which I cannot find, said something like although Mr. Novak refuses to comply with the investigation, [somebody I cannot remember] said he had been asked to cooperate, but has refused. The article went on to say how could one refuse to cooperate when they were never asked, etc.

But, in any event, even if he is a suspect, again as as Carne noted in the other thread, that case is almost impossible to build because they would have to prove Novak was in on it and the story was not just leaked to him :shrug:

Again, I agree Novak is probably guilty, but they have to prove it for him to be convicted OTHERWISE - his conviction will be overturned and it will be as if it never existed and he will never have been a convict :wavey:

[gldstwmn]

By all accounts, Novak has not been subpoenaed. :shrug: Therefore, I fail to see your point.

That is correct.

[gldstwmn]

Okay - I am back from walking the dogs and think I have it. I am pretty sure I read it in The Economist on the way to Europe. The article, which I cannot find, said something like although Mr. Novak refuses to comply with the investigation, [somebody I cannot remember] said he had been asked to cooperate, but has refused. The article went on to say how could one refuse to cooperate when they were never asked, etc.

But, in any event, even if he is a suspect, again as as Carne noted in the other thread, that case is almost impossible to build because they would have to prove Novak was in on it and the story was not just leaked to him :shrug:

Again, I agree Novak is probably guilty, but they have to prove it for him to be convicted OTHERWISE - his conviction will be overturned and it will be as if it never existed and he will never have been a convict :wavey:

When you post in size 7 font, you really just need to go ahead an cede the point that Novak was not subpoened, instead of dancing around it with this "cooperate" bull****. :wavey: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

When you post in size 7 font, you really just need to go ahead an cede the point that Novak was not subpoened, instead of dancing around it with this "cooperate" bull****. :wavey: :laugh:

Well, it is not BS. That article certainly implies it. AND - I can promise you Novak would have said nothing about anything (on the advice of his lawyer) if he had not been asked to cooperate. Again, it is inconceivable that he has not been questioned in some way, esp. considering the WH sources are the target according to every article I have ever read and he was an eyewitness - he is a relatively small fish comnpared to say, Rove. And - when he says he refuses to give up his sources, to whom is he refusing? I suggest it can only be the grand jury as they are the investigative body - thus, they must have asked and they ask through subpoena. If not, please explain to me who he is not cooperating with? Is there another investigation?

Again, and in the end, it does not matter because getting the proof against him is next to impossible. I hope they do, but I know what it takes and I have seen nothing even close to it.

[gldstwmn]

Well, it is not BS. That article certainly implies it. AND - I suggest it can only be the grand jury as they are the investigative body - thus, they must have asked and they ask through subpoena. If not, please explain to me who he is not cooperating with?



The prosecutor.

[strandinthewind]

The prosecutor.

that is my point, once the grand jury was convened as the investigative body, the prosecutor uses it to get information. The prosecutor is not acting alone now.

[gldstwmn]

that is my point, once the grand jury was convened as the investigative body, the prosecutor uses it to get information. The prosecutor is not acting alone now.

Give it up. :rolleyes: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Give it up. :rolleyes: :laugh:

Whatever - I must have a dark cloud over me today :laugh:

Again, it is inconceivable that Novak has never been asked anything by the grand jury. If not, they are not doing there jobs and the prosecutor should be removed from the case. He is an EYEWITNESS to WH mischief for goodness sake - but I suppose you think that he should not be asked anything and I cannot see who you think he is refusing to cooperate with.

But, whatever.

[strandinthewind]

Actually, let's not speculate anymore, the press has been reporting that the grand jury investigation is almost over. So, let's reconvene when it issues its results, if ever. I hope they mail Novak, but am worried they will never get the evidence to do it.

[gldstwmn]

Whatever - I must have a dark cloud over me today :laugh:

Again, it is inconceivable that Novak has never been asked anything by the grand jury. If not, they are not doing there jobs and the prosecutor should be removed from the case. He is an EYEWITNESS to WH mischief for goodness sake - but I suppose you think that he should not be asked anything and I cannot see who you think he is refusing to cooperate with.

But, whatever.

Yes, round and round and do si do. :rolleyes: Novak has not been subpoened. That's all I said. :)

[DeeGeMe]

And according to what we've read, the targets of the investigation are rarely subpoened. I totally don't follow the argument that they'd have to indict all of the reporters that they leaked this information to. Only Novak printed it! There's quite a difference between knowing something and acting upon that knowledge. To further the argument, and muddy the waters a little bit more, prosecutors are able to prove all sorts of things. Hell, they can convict you of murder now without ever having a body--so why the hell couldn't they convict someone of revealing the identity of a CIA agent when they have the proof--Novak's own column?