Kerry on Letterman and Regis and Kelly

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 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 ) - 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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 ( 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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Yup.

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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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 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]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

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

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

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

[Nixxxed]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

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!

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 ( 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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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 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]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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

- 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

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]

Originally Posted by DeeGeMe

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.