[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the leak of a > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an interview > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not the > target of the investigation." Not really news; Luskin has been saying this for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* target of the investigation," meaning there isn't just one target. And what I've been reading is that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the investigation. "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" of an investigation, it means the investigators are pretty sure you committed a crime and are gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can become a target, depending on what the investigators discover about his/her conduct. The way this story was written, it makes it sound as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not so. If that were the case, he would be merely a "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of interest to investigators, only what he knows about the conduct of others. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the leak of a > > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an interview > > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not the > > target of the investigation." > > Not really news; Luskin has been saying this > for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly > off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* > target of the investigation," meaning there isn't > just one target. And what I've been reading is > that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, > Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. > > Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that > Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the > investigation. > > "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in > this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" > of an investigation, it means the investigators > are pretty sure you committed a crime and are > gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. > > A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within > the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. > At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can > become a target, depending on what the investigators > discover about his/her conduct. > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > the conduct of others. Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on Al Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance to have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in fact is an exception. Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who told Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on > Al Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance to > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > fact is an exception. > > Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who told > Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE > official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are > met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. The four conditions of an indictable crime are : First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... Second, Rove had to know she was a covert agent. Cooper's article refers to Plame as "a CIA official." Most CIA officials are not covert agents. Third, Rove had to know that the CIA was taking "affirmative measures" to hide her identity. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing a political operative would or should know. Fourth, Rove had to be "authorized" to have classified information about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn't seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would or should have. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/the-one-very-good-reason-_3769.html To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > > the conduct of others. > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on > Al Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. Well, again, "witness" is a technical term, meaning they aren't interested in what you did but in what you know about what *other* people did. Rove is definitely a "subject," which means he isn't a "witness" except in the sense that he has testified. > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance to > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > fact is an exception. > > Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who told > Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE > official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are > met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > > > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > > > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > > > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > > > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > > > the conduct of others. > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on > > Al Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. > > Well, again, "witness" is a technical term, meaning > they aren't interested in what you did but in what > you know about what *other* people did. > Rove is definitely a "subject," which means he isn't > a "witness" except in the sense that he has testified. You know factually Rove is officially a "subject?" Or is that your personal suposition? For example, if the prosecutor knows that Rove did not have clearance for the knowledge of Plame being covert, then Rove cannot be prosecuted (fired, yes.) If so, he would not be a subject. So your statement implies that you know that Rove had such official clearnace. When did this become public? Per my reading of things that is still a big question. > > > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance > to > > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > > fact is an exception. > > > > Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who > told Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested the Justice Department open the investigation. If she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice Department to investigate. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent > > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... > > Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert > or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested > the Justice Department open the investigation. If > she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the > CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice > Department to investigate. If you read the cited O'donnell post ... he speculates the same thing. But its not certan is it? Or did the CIA or Prosecutor disclose this as certian? As some lawyers have pointed out, the first step in a trial will be to establish covertness. If its "certain" and public already, I guess these lawyers are whistling in the wind. - O'donnell The law has a specific definition of covert agent that she might not fit -- an overseas posting in the last five years, for example. But it's hard to believe the prosecutor didn't begin the grand jury session with a CIA witness certifying that Plame was a covert agent. If the prosecutor couldn't establish that, why bother moving on to the next witness? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rove is definitely a "subject," which means he isn't > > a "witness" except in the sense that he has testified. > > You know factually Rove is officially a "subject?" According to Luskin, he is. Luskin has an interest in portraying his client as being innocent, so if Rove were just a witness, Luskin would be making a huge deal of it. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent > > > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... > > > > Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert > > or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested > > the Justice Department open the investigation. If > > she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the > > CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice > > Department to investigate. > > If you read the cited O'donnell post ... he speculates the same > thing. But its not certan is it? Or did the CIA or Prosecutor > disclose this as certian? Yes. The CIA did by asking the Justice Department to investigate it; the prosecutor did by launching the investigation. Use your head. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Rove is definitely a "subject," which means he isn't > > > a "witness" except in the sense that he has testified. > > > > You know factually Rove is officially a "subject?" > > According to Luskin, he is. Luskin has an > interest in portraying his client as being > innocent, so if Rove were just a witness, > Luskin would be making a huge deal of it. Just to be clear, Luskin said directly "Rove is a subject" -- or are you simply speculating this based on the logic that if Rove were just a witness, Luskin would be making a huge deal of it To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert > agent > > > > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she > was. ... > > > > > > Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert > > > or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested > > > the Justice Department open the investigation. If > > > she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the > > > CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice > > > Department to investigate. > > > > If you read the cited O'donnell post ... he speculates the same > > thing. But its not certan is it? Or did the CIA or Prosecutor > > disclose this as certian? > > Yes. The CIA did by asking the Justice Department > to investigate it; the prosecutor did by launching > the investigation. > > Use your head. I do. I am trying to understand your use of language. You appear -- perhaps -- to state things as fact when they are logical and probably -- but not firmly established as fact. I am not saying Plame is not covert, it seems she would be per O'donnells logic and yours. But AGAIN, I ask "Or did the CIA or Prosecutor disclose this as certian?" I didnt ask, "Judy, does this seem logical or probable to you?" The logic and probability were apparrent in my last post. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Rove is definitely a "subject," which means he isn't > > > > a "witness" except in the sense that he has testified. > > > > > > You know factually Rove is officially a "subject?" > > > > According to Luskin, he is. Luskin has an > > interest in portraying his client as being > > innocent, so if Rove were just a witness, > > Luskin would be making a huge deal of it. > > Just to be clear, Luskin said directly "Rove is a subject" -- or are > you simply speculating this based on the logic that if Rove were just > a witness, Luskin would be making a huge deal of it Read the interview at the URL I provided. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert > > agent > > > > > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she > > was. ... > > > > > > > > Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert > > > > or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested > > > > the Justice Department open the investigation. If > > > > she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the > > > > CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice > > > > Department to investigate. > > > > > > If you read the cited O'donnell post ... he speculates the same > > > thing. But its not certan is it? Or did the CIA or Prosecutor > > > disclose this as certian? > > > > Yes. The CIA did by asking the Justice Department > > to investigate it; the prosecutor did by launching > > the investigation. > > > > Use your head. > > I do. I am trying to understand your use of language. You appear -- > perhaps -- to state things as fact when they are logical and > probably -- but not firmly established as fact. My father used to say, "Don't be so open-minded your brains fall out." > I am not saying Plame is not covert, it seems she would be per > O'donnells logic and yours. > > But AGAIN, I ask "Or did the CIA or Prosecutor disclose this as > certian?" I didnt ask, "Judy, does this seem logical or probable > to you?" Well, you knew the answer to to the first question. Having made these points, I have to backtrack to something I said earlier: they only apply if the CIA asked Justice to investigate a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Plame wouldn't have had to have been covert for a crime to have been committed under a different statute, the Espionage Act. Mark Kleiman makes an excellent case that this is the one the CIA told Justice may have been violated, and that Rove is much more vulnerable under it than under the IIPA. See his blog post here: http://tinyurl.com/a8sug To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > > > > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > > > > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > > > > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the leak of a > > > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an interview > > > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not the > > > target of the investigation." > > > > Not really news; Luskin has been saying this > > for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly > > off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* > > target of the investigation," meaning there isn't > > just one target. And what I've been reading is > > that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, > > Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. > > > > Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that > > Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the > > investigation. > > > > "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in > > this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" > > of an investigation, it means the investigators > > are pretty sure you committed a crime and are > > gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. > > > > A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within > > the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. > > At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can > > become a target, depending on what the investigators > > discover about his/her conduct. > > > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > > the conduct of others. > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on Al > Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance to > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > fact is an exception. Why would he not have clearance? And its not if they had clearance so much as if they were told via official channels. There's a difference between having clearance and "having a need to know." > > Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who told > Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE > official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are > met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on > > Al Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. > > > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance to > > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > > fact is an exception. > > > > Assuming he does not have clearance, THEN the big question is who told > > Rove. Or who told his source. The person in the chain who DOES HAVE > > official clearance DID break the law -- if the other conditions are > > met. That could be Chenney, Tennet or Bush. So the plot thickens. > > > The four conditions of an indictable crime are : > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent when > Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... > > Second, Rove had to know she was a covert agent. Cooper's article > refers to Plame as "a CIA official." Most CIA officials are not covert > agents. > > Third, Rove had to know that the CIA was taking "affirmative measures" > to hide her identity. Doesn't seem like the kind of thing a political > operative would or should know. > > Fourth, Rove had to be "authorized" to have classified information > about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn't seem > like the kind of security clearance a political operative would or > should have. Karl Rove is an advisor tothe President who has an office in the White House. He has Top Secret clearance. Hell, I had Secret Clearance just to be a computer operator. It's a matter of: did Rove get formally notified of Plame's status or not, NOT "did he have clearance to know this?" ANYONE working in the White House above the level of janitor would have that level of clearance. > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/the- one-very-good-reason-_3769.html To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OF COURSE Rove had clearance for such information. ANyone working to advise the president of the USA in aformal capacity has TC clearance. It's not that hard to get. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent > > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... > > Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert > or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested > the Justice Department open the investigation. If > she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the > CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice > Department to investigate. More to thepoint, if any of her contacts were still in the field, she would have still been undercover in order to protect them, even if she was no longer their official contact. That lasts for the rest of the lives of her contacts. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > First, and most obviously, Valerie Plame had to be a covert agent > > > when Rove exposed her to Cooper. It's not obvious that she was. ... > > > > Yes, it is. The CIA knows whether she was covert > > or not, and the CIA was the entity that requested > > the Justice Department open the investigation. If > > she wasn't covert, no crime was committed, and the > > CIA wouldn't have had anything to ask the Justice > > Department to investigate. > > More to thepoint, if any of her contacts were still in the field, > she would have still been undercover in order to protect them, even > if she was no longer their official contact. That lasts for the > rest of the lives of her contacts. Good point. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > > > > > > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > > > > > > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > > > > > > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the leak > of a > > > > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an > interview > > > > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not > the > > > > target of the investigation." > > > > > > Not really news; Luskin has been saying this > > > for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly > > > off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* > > > target of the investigation," meaning there isn't > > > just one target. And what I've been reading is > > > that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, > > > Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. > > > > > > Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that > > > Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the > > > investigation. > > > > > > "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in > > > this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" > > > of an investigation, it means the investigators > > > are pretty sure you committed a crime and are > > > gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. > > > > > > A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within > > > the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. > > > At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can > > > become a target, depending on what the investigators > > > discover about his/her conduct. > > > > > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > > > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > > > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > > > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > > > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > > > the conduct of others. > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on > Al > > Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. > > > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance > to > > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > > fact is an exception. > > Why would he not have clearance? And its not if they had clearance so > much as if they were told via official channels. There's a difference > between having clearance and "having a need to know." > My understanding from O'Donnell (of West Wing writing fame, amongst other things) is that it is part of the statute that it is only those who have CIA clearance for such information who can be prosecuted for revealing such. If you have rebuttals. call Larry. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > OF COURSE Rove had clearance for such information. ANyone working to > advise the president of the USA in aformal capacity has TC clearance. > It's not that hard to get. Again, are you are stating that Rove had official CIA clearance to know who were covert CIA operatives worlrd wide? Hard to believe a campaign manager (Rove's postion in 2003) would be given such clearance. Can you provide cites that Rove had such clearance? No armchair platitude please. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > > > > > > > > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > > > > > > > > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the leak > > of a > > > > > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an > > interview > > > > > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not > > the > > > > > target of the investigation." > > > > > > > > Not really news; Luskin has been saying this > > > > for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly > > > > off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* > > > > target of the investigation," meaning there isn't > > > > just one target. And what I've been reading is > > > > that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, > > > > Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. > > > > > > > > Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that > > > > Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the > > > > investigation. > > > > > > > > "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in > > > > this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" > > > > of an investigation, it means the investigators > > > > are pretty sure you committed a crime and are > > > > gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. > > > > > > > > A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within > > > > the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. > > > > At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can > > > > become a target, depending on what the investigators > > > > discover about his/her conduct. > > > > > > > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > > > > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > > > > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > > > > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > > > > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > > > > the conduct of others. > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell on > > Al > > > Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > > > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a subject?". > > > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand Jury. > > > > > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY way > > > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official clearance > > to > > > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > > > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he in > > > fact is an exception. > > > > Why would he not have clearance? And its not if they had clearance so > > much as if they were told via official channels. There's a difference > > between having clearance and "having a need to know." > > > > My understanding from O'Donnell (of West Wing writing fame, amongst > other things) is that it is part of the statute that it is only those > who have CIA clearance for such information who can be prosecuted for > revealing such. > > If you have rebuttals. call Larry. He's simplfying. Need to know is always required. Simply having clearance doesn't give you access. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote, quoting Larry O'Donnell: > > Fourth, Rove had to be "authorized" to have classified information > > about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn't seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would or should have. > Karl Rove is an advisor to the President who has an office in the > White House. He is now. Not in 2003 when he was a campaign strategist. > He has Top Secret clearance. Hell, I had Secret > Clearance just to be a computer operator. You had clearance to know who were CIA covert operatives? Sorry, thats very hard to believe. If you are simply you are saying you had some other clearance, thats nice and makes you important, but is irrelevant to this discussion. > It's a matter of: did Rove get formally notified of Plame's status or not, NOT "did he have clearance to know this?" yes. it is, per o'donnel. he states that one needs to have such clearance to be liable for prosecution. If he is wrong, provide some credible evidence of such. > ANYONE working in the White House above the level of janitor would > have that level of clearance. Um, thats hard to believe a janitor would have access and clearance to know who is a covert CIA operative. I mean it sounds crazy! If thats true, no wonder the CIA is so F*CKED up. Please provide cites that janitors routinely had such high level official access to the identities of world-wide CIA covert operatatives. If "not available, I would conclude someone else is f^cked up per their info, that some other party is crazy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation" > > > > > > > > > > > > July 13, 2005 9:41 a.m. EST > > > > > > > > > > > > Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter > > > > > > > > > > > > Washington (AHN) - The special prosecutor involved in the > leak > > > of a > > > > > > covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an > > > interview > > > > > > with the National Review, that the White House Advisor > is "not > > > the > > > > > > target of the investigation." > > > > > > > > > > Not really news; Luskin has been saying this > > > > > for a long time. Also, the quote may be slightly > > > > > off--other outlets have reported it as "not *a* > > > > > target of the investigation," meaning there isn't > > > > > just one target. And what I've been reading is > > > > > that Fitzgerald didn't tell Luskin this; rather, > > > > > Rove told Luskin that Fitzgerald told *him* this. > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, Luskin has also made it clear that > > > > > Fitzgerald considers Rove a *subject* of the > > > > > investigation. > > > > > > > > > > "Target" and "subject" are technical terms in > > > > > this context. Essentially, if you're a "target" > > > > > of an investigation, it means the investigators > > > > > are pretty sure you committed a crime and are > > > > > gathering evidence with a view to indicting you. > > > > > > > > > > A "subject" is anyone whose conduct falls within > > > > > the scope of the investigation; it's a broad term. > > > > > At this point, Rove is a subject--but a subject can > > > > > become a target, depending on what the investigators > > > > > discover about his/her conduct. > > > > > > > > > > The way this story was written, it makes it sound > > > > > as though the investigators have cleared Rove. Not > > > > > so. If that were the case, he would be merely a > > > > > "witness," which would mean his conduct is not of > > > > > interest to investigators, only what he knows about > > > > > the conduct of others. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the clarifications. I listened to Lawrence O'Donnell > on > > > Al > > > > Franken discuss the same, saying that not being a target means > > > > nothing, the relevant question for his lawyer is "is he a > subject?". > > > > He is a witness, having testified three times before the Grand > Jury. > > > > > > > > The really interesting thing LD brought out is that the ONLY > way > > > > Rove or anyone can be convicted is if they have official > clearance > > > to > > > > have known V Plame was an operative. Someone in Rove's postion > > > > typically does not have this clearance, but its not known if he > in > > > > fact is an exception. > > > > > > Why would he not have clearance? And its not if they had > clearance so > > > much as if they were told via official channels. There's a > difference > > > between having clearance and "having a need to know." > > > > > > > My understanding from O'Donnell (of West Wing writing fame, amongst > > other things) is that it is part of the statute that it is only > those > > who have CIA clearance for such information who can be prosecuted > for > > revealing such. > > > > If you have rebuttals. call Larry. > > He's simplfying. Need to know is always required. Simply having > clearance doesn't give you access. Ok then. you are making my point but only stronger. It seems unlikely that Rove, as campaign stragegist in 2003, would have clearance to know who covert CIA ops were. And even if he DID, he would have had to have a "need to know" -- which is even more unlikely. So it appears to me that Rove is not "eligible" for prosecution. As I have stated, the real focus is on the person who had clearance, and the need to know, AND who leaked the info to Rove. Or who leaked it to an intermediary who leaked it to Rove. Beyond its high probability that Rove is not the focus of the investigation, it is far more interesting to think of those at a level above Rove who are now in the prosecutor's sights. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
I'm staying out of this whole trying-to-second-guess- the-legal-system-based-on-nothing-more-than-the-crap- you-read-in-the-papers thing. It's already starting to sound like the pissing and moaning about the fraudulent election results in the last election. And all the big talk about how "we're not going to stand for it," and "we're going to do something about it." Yeah, right. We all know how that turned out. A buncha people expressing righteous anger at Karl Rove, revealing more about themselves and their desperate need to believe that justice will finally be done in America than about Karl Rove and the (IMO) obvious outcome of this case. Rove's gonna walk. Nothing bad will happen to him except possibly being forced to resign and phone in his puppeteering of George W. Bush instead of being able to do it from within the White House. Done deal. From where I sit, and the history of the Bush administration and America's ball-less reaction to it for the last few years, there is no other possible scenario. They can't *allow* any other scenario. I'd like to see the guy take a fall, too. I'd like to be surprised by America actually doing the right thing for a change. In the biz, we call it hope in a time of hopelessness. But whether "justice is done" doesn't really affect "me" any more than whether it isn't. I'm not really attached to America, or to any idealized image of it. It is what it is, a crying shame, and a real and present danger to the continued existence of the planet. I don't see this changing overnight, just because a lot of people *do* identify with the fictional version of America, and would like to believe it's not fiction. They might even give Rove a medal. And America would stand for it. Or, more accurately, sit for it, in front of their televisions. And watch the fictional versions of the American Dreams instead of coming to grips with the reality of the American Nightmare. I'd like to be proved wrong. But I honestly don't think it's gonna happen. IMO it'll take actual star- vation in the streets to get Americans off their asses at this point. Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote, quoting Larry O'Donnell: > > > > Fourth, Rove had to be "authorized" to have classified information > > > about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn't > seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would > or should have. > > > > Karl Rove is an advisor to the President who has an office in the > > White House. > > > He is now. Not in 2003 when he was a campaign strategist. Rove was never just a campaign strategist, he has been GW's main political advisor for years and had whatever clearance his boss, the commander in chief, wanted him to have. The President's closest, most trusted advisor who's office was in the west wing surely had access to whatever gov't info he wanted. > > > > He has Top Secret clearance. Hell, I had Secret > > Clearance just to be a computer operator. > > You had clearance to know who were CIA covert operatives? > Sorry, thats very hard to believe. If you are simply you are saying > you had some other clearance, thats nice and makes you important, but > is irrelevant to this discussion. > > > > > It's a matter of: did Rove get formally notified of Plame's status > or not, NOT "did he have clearance to know this?" > > yes. it is, per o'donnel. he states that one needs to have such > clearance to be liable for prosecution. > If he is wrong, provide some credible evidence of such. > > > ANYONE working in the White House above the level of janitor would > > have that level of clearance. > > Um, thats hard to believe a janitor would have access and clearance to > know who is a covert CIA operative. I mean it sounds crazy! > If thats true, no wonder the CIA is so F*CKED up. > > Please provide cites that janitors routinely had such high level > official access to the identities of world-wide CIA covert operatatives. > If "not available, I would conclude someone else is f^cked up per > their info, that some other party is crazy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote, quoting Larry O'Donnell: > > > > Fourth, Rove had to be "authorized" to have classified information > > > about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn't > seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would > or should have. > > > > Karl Rove is an advisor to the President who has an office in the > > White House. > > > He is now. Not in 2003 when he was a campaign strategist. ??? Rove has been in the White House since Bush arrived. How do you know what his position was in 2003? > > > > He has Top Secret clearance. Hell, I had Secret > > Clearance just to be a computer operator. > > You had clearance to know who were CIA covert operatives? > Sorry, thats very hard to believe. If you are simply you are saying > you had some other clearance, thats nice and makes you important, but > is irrelevant to this discussion. > > > > > It's a matter of: did Rove get formally notified of Plame's status > or not, NOT "did he have clearance to know this?" > > yes. it is, per o'donnel. he states that one needs to have such > clearance to be liable for prosecution. > If he is wrong, provide some credible evidence of such. > > > ANYONE working in the White House above the level of janitor would > > have that level of clearance. > > Um, thats hard to believe a janitor would have access and clearance to > know who is a covert CIA operative. I mean it sounds crazy! > If thats true, no wonder the CIA is so F*CKED up. > > Please provide cites that janitors routinely had such high level > official access to the identities of world-wide CIA covert operatatives. > If "not available, I would conclude someone else is f^cked up per > their info, that some other party is crazy. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm staying out of this whole trying-to-second-guess- > the-legal-system-based-on-nothing-more-than-the-crap- > you-read-in-the-papers thing. And yet you are still mucking around in it five paragrahps later. > It's already starting to sound like the pissing and > moaning about the fraudulent election results in the > last election. And all the big talk about how "we're > not going to stand for it," and "we're going to do > something about it." Since this has not been a part of the discussion per the actual text, either you have an intensively active imagination (do flowers talk top you?) Or you have an extraordinary ability to accurately read between the lines. I am sure its the latter. > A buncha people expressing righteous > anger at Karl Rove, revealing more about themselves > and their desperate need My, who is revealing what about whom? > From where I sit, the wc? > They can't *allow* any other > scenario. Ah, who is expressing righteous anger? > I'd like to see the guy take a fall, too. I'd like > to be surprised by America actually doing the right > thing for a change. What is the right thing? Letting the investigation unfold? And then figure out what crimes were committed and what the punishment should be? > I don't see this > changing overnight, just because a lot of people *do* > identify with the fictional version of America, and > would like to believe it's not fiction. And you are the clear seer with brilliant truth pervading searing vision to awaken us neanderthals from our slumbering dreams? From France, even. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > It seems unlikely that Rove, as campaign stragegist in 2003, would > have clearance to know who covert CIA ops were. And even if he DID, he > would have had to have a "need to know" -- which is even more > unlikely. So it appears to me that Rove is not "eligible" for > prosecution. > If Rove sat in on a briefing with President Bush where Valerie Plame was identified in some way, he de facto had clearance for that information. > As I have stated, the real focus is on the person who had clearance, > and the need to know, AND who leaked the info to Rove. Or who leaked > it to an intermediary who leaked it to Rove. Right. However, as I said, if Rove was in an official meeting where classified info was discussed, he had official access to that info and was liable. > > Beyond its high probability that Rove is not the focus of the > investigation, it is far more interesting to think of those at a level > above Rove who are now in the prosecutor's sights. Actually, given Rove's status in the White House, there's only one person above him --the one he advises directly. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Unc wrote: It's already starting to sound like the pissing and moaning about the fraudulent election results in the last election. And all the big talk about how "we're not going to stand for it," and "we're going to do something about it." Yeah, right. We all know how that turned out. A buncha people expressing righteous anger at Karl Rove, revealing more about themselves and their desperate need to believe that justice will finally be done in America than about Karl Rove and the (IMO) obvious outcome of this case. > I see the same thing here. Not with just this > one post but so many others. I see people getting their hopes up that they > are "finally" going to nail either Bush or another republican to the > wall only to have their hopes dashed again. It must be very > frustrating, creating even > more anger, hate and hostility. You guys seem obsessed or at least pre-occupied with looking for (and finding) partisian motives here. Maybe some have it. All I can say is I find high level 'disclosures' fascinating. Dem or Rep. Kennedy's filandeering, Johnson's business deals, Nixon's Watergate, Reagan's Iran Contra, Clinton Monicagate, Bush's Downing Street Memos and the current Rove situation (not to equate it in magnitude with some of the other scandals). So I may have another type of deviance, but its not a partisian one. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 11:54:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Beyond its high probability that Rove is not the focus of the > > investigation, it is far more interesting to think of those at a level > > above Rove who are now in the prosecutor's sights. > > Actually, given Rove's status in the White House, there's only one > person above him --the one he advises directly. > > Why would Rove had to have known any thing about Wilson's wife being a > covert operative? What I'm more curious about is the Times writer in jail and who > her source was. Could it have been her own husband or anybody on the Senate > intelligence committee?Why is she so quiet? Would a Times reporter go to jail > to protect a republican source?Something is fishy. I was curious about this too, given the odd juxtaposition between the NY Times and WH. I've chalked it up to the self-importance of the press. 'Standing on principle' for once... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The shrillness I constantly see , hear and read coming from the > left in their anger to resist the out come of two elections is > many times hysterically funny and yet sometimes pathetic and it is > this, that drives the undecided voter to the other side, in many > cases , IMO of course. Oh, yeah, the left should take a lesson from the right about never indulging in shrillness; it does nothing but lose elections. Just think, if the Swift Boat Vets had been shrill, Kerry might have won the election! Heck, if the right had been shrill about Clinton and Gore, Gore could have won the electoral in addition to the popular vote. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 12:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I was curious about this too, given the odd juxtaposition between > the NY Times and WH. I've chalked it up to the self-importance of > the press. 'Standing on principle' for once... > > > > > NY Times standing on principle when they could nail a Republican > administration official? Naaa! Actually I find the NY Times (and the Wahington Post) far more obedient to the WH than they would have their readers believe. Often they will make a big splash to bolster their image, but it amounts to very little sustained investigation at the end of the day (similar to the way the democratic party conducts itself). Contributing more to the myth of a liberal news media than the reality. As with much in the current administration, the so-called liberal news media is a fiction invented to bolster the idea that there is actual organized and sustained opposition to them, so that the republican controlled White House, Congress and Supremes can blame any failures on 'the opposition' vs their breathtaking and sustained incompetence. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > > It seems unlikely that Rove, as campaign stragegist in 2003, would > > have clearance to know who covert CIA ops were. And even if he DID, he would have had to have a "need to know" -- which is even more unlikely. So it appears to me that Rove is not "eligible" for prosecution. > > If Rove sat in on a briefing with President Bush where Valerie Plame > was identified in some way, he de facto had clearance for that > information. Perhaps. But that still seems to miss the point. Rove could have gotten the info in any number of ways. The technical point that seems lost in all of this is that if Rove did not have a formal clearance (a forma CIA piece of paper) from the CIA for the security level required to access information on the IDs of covert ops (a very high level of clearance I assume and not give out lightly), then under the statute, Rove can not be prosecuted. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You guys seem obsessed or at least pre-occupied with looking for > (and finding) partisian motives here. One would think they'd been reading the Republican talking points on Rove. The funny thing is, I haven't seen that much "not going to stand for it" talk here. The vast majority of it has been about the legal intricacies, which are fascinating in and of themselves. > Maybe some have it. All I can > say is I find high level 'disclosures' fascinating. Dem or Rep. > Kennedy's filandeering, Johnson's business deals, Nixon's > Watergate, Reagan's Iran Contra, Clinton Monicagate, Bush's Downing > Street Memos and the current Rove situation (not to equate it in > magnitude with some of the other scandals). Gee, right, imagine thinking that a serious breach of classified information that could endanger national security was anywhere near the same magnitude as Clinton's and Kennedy's zipper problems! I mean, get some perspective, people. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > You guys seem obsessed or at least pre-occupied with looking for > > (and finding) partisian motives here. > > One would think they'd been reading the Republican > talking points on Rove. > > The funny thing is, I haven't seen that much > "not going to stand for it" talk here. The > vast majority of it has been about the legal > intricacies, which are fascinating in and of > themselves. > > > Maybe some have it. All I can > > say is I find high level 'disclosures' fascinating. Dem or Rep. > > Kennedy's filandeering, Johnson's business deals, Nixon's > > Watergate, Reagan's Iran Contra, Clinton Monicagate, Bush's Downing > > Street Memos and the current Rove situation (not to equate it in > > magnitude with some of the other scandals). > > Gee, right, imagine thinking that a serious > breach of classified information that could > endanger national security was anywhere near > the same magnitude as Clinton's and Kennedy's > zipper problems! I mean, get some perspective, > people. "not to equate it in magnitude with some of the other scandals" could be interpreted in two ways, Rovegate is larger or smaller than the others. I left my take ambiguous. Mainly becasue we don't know how big a story this is. It could be next to nothing, it could unravel into something huge. I don't know and I don't think anyone does at this point (other that Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury). Though I did hear a justice dept insider say that Fitzgerald has a huge stack of material that has not yet become public. Regardless, I doubt this will have the magnitude of watergate. But lets wait and see and not speculate too far ahead. But as far as zippers, that falls way down my list of issues being of importance, wheher it was Lincoln (gay?), Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson (his famous line among the traveling seretarial pool is said to have been, "how would you like to serve your President of the United States?"), Bush I, Clinton, or Jenna and Barbara. Direct lies and coverups are more problematic. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But as far as zippers, that falls way down my list of issues being of > importance, wheher it was Lincoln (gay?), Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson > (his famous line among the traveling seretarial pool is said to have > been, "how would you like to serve your President of the United > States?"), Bush I, Clinton, or Jenna and Barbara. > > Direct lies and coverups are more problematic. Your priorities are way out of whack. What kind of American are you? :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But as far as zippers, that falls way down my list of issues being of > > importance, wheher it was Lincoln (gay?), Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson > > (his famous line among the traveling seretarial pool is said to have > > been, "how would you like to serve your President of the United > > States?"), Bush I, Clinton, or Jenna and Barbara. > > > > Direct lies and coverups are more problematic. > > Your priorities are way out of whack. > What kind of American are you? :-) Je le sais. Je suis presque francaise. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 12:31:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Oh, yeah, the left should take a lesson from > the right about never indulging in shrillness; > it does nothing but lose elections. > > > > Bingo! It helped Clinton get re-elected. Who's Clinton? Wasn't he president wy back in the 20th century?? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 12:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I was curious about this too, given the odd juxtaposition between > the NY Times and WH. I've chalked it up to the self-importance of > the press. 'Standing on principle' for once... > > > > > NY Times standing on principle when they could nail a Republican > administration official? Naaa! I know I must be hopelssly naive, but it seems to me that Judith Miller, being a reporter of merit and integrity, might actually being upholding long honored journalistic ethics. I wonder if your view relects your own level of integrity and portends what you would do if you were able to BF a liberal official by revealing confidential sources. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 1:41:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Oh, yeah, the left should take a lesson from > > the right about never indulging in shrillness; > > it does nothing but lose elections. > > > > > > > > Bingo! It helped Clinton get re-elected. > > Who's Clinton? Wasn't he president wy back in the 20th century?? > > > > > > Your foot bridge to the 21st century or some such idea. I have seen several recent interviews with Clinton. IMO, the contrast to Bush in terms of wit, speaking ability, grasp of concepts, intellectual abilities, poltical sense, are day and night. ( I wont tell you which is day and which is night :) ) If you had the choice to vote for Bush as Bush, or a Clinton who was a Bush clone ideologically, who would you vote for? Just curious. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 1:44:52 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > NY Times standing on principle when they could nail a Republican > > administration official? Naaa! > > > I know I must be hopelssly naive, but it seems to me that Judith > Miller, being a reporter of merit and integrity, might actually being > upholding long honored journalistic ethics. > > I wonder if your view relects your own level of integrity and portends > what you would do if you were able to BF a liberal official by > revealing confidential sources. > > > > > Well, I suppose if I knew about some criminal activity that endangered > the lives of government employees or anybody else, I would have to go public > with it. What is more important, my journalistic word to a criminal or > somebody protecting one, or the lives of innocent people? And if you were a lawyer who knew something under attorney client priveledge? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 1:54:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I have seen several recent interviews with Clinton. IMO, the contrast > to Bush in terms of wit, speaking ability, grasp of concepts, > intellectual abilities, poltical sense, are day and night. ( I wont > tell you which is day and which is night :) ) > > If you had the choice to vote for Bush as Bush, or a Clinton who was a > Bush clone ideologically, who would you vote for? Just curious. > > > > > > Hm. cloning presidents, now that would be interesting. I suppose I would > have to stick with the original, not the clone. But it is a nice idea to toy > with. Reagans wit, Kennedy's way with words, Clinton's intellect, Bush I's resume, Carters integrity, T Roosevelt's bravado, vs Nixon's integrity, Bush's intellect, Johnson's honesty, Carter's bravado, Ford's coordination, Bush I's vision, Reagan's memory, Eisonhowers work hours, To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 2:49:12 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Well, I suppose if I knew about some criminal activity that > endangered > > the lives of government employees or anybody else, I would have to > go public > > with it. What is more important, my journalistic word to a > criminal or > > somebody protecting one, or the lives of innocent people? > > And if you were a lawyer who knew something under attorney client > priveledge? > > > > > If I were a lawyer I guess I wouldn't be concerned about what was morally > right, just what was legal. My point being why does everyone accept without question the need for lawyer/client privelgde but scoffs at reporter/source priveledge. The latter is the foundation of the fourth estate. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > In a message dated 7/14/05 1:54:17 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > I have seen several recent interviews with Clinton. IMO, the contrast > > to Bush in terms of wit, speaking ability, grasp of concepts, > > intellectual abilities, poltical sense, are day and night. ( I wont > > tell you which is day and which is night :) ) > > > > If you had the choice to vote for Bush as Bush, or a Clinton who was a > > Bush clone ideologically, who would you vote for? Just curious. > > > > > > > > > > > > Hm. cloning presidents, now that would be interesting. I > suppose I would > > have to stick with the original, not the clone. But it is a nice > idea to toy > > with. > > > Reagans wit, Kennedy's way with words, Clinton's intellect, Bush I's > resume, Carters integrity, T Roosevelt's bravado, > > vs > > Nixon's integrity, Bush's intellect, Johnson's honesty, Carter's > bravado, Ford's coordination, Bush I's vision, Reagan's memory, > Eisonhowers work hours, yikes, Bush II as Bush II still comes out worst! For the top category clone, I would add Johnson's negotiating horse-trading skills To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Reagans wit, Kennedy's way with words, Clinton's intellect, Bush I's > resume, Carters integrity, T Roosevelt's bravado, > > vs > > Nixon's integrity, Bush's intellect, Johnson's honesty, Carter's > bravado, Ford's coordination, Bush I's vision, Reagan's memory, > Eisonhowers work hours, > > > ---so Bush #2 has nothing positive to add? The top group is the clone of best qualities from former presidents, the bottom a clone of worst qualities. If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of the best, what are they? My mind draws a blank. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 7/14/05 3:15:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > My point being why does everyone accept without question the need for > lawyer/client privelgde but scoffs at reporter/source priveledge. The > latter is the foundation of the fourth estate. > > > Because when you hire a lawyer you have to give him the truth and the whole > truth so he can do the work he needs to do to help you. If the lawyer could > then be forced to testify for the prosecution nobody would be able to trust > their attorney there for not be able to give him every thing he needs to know > to defend them. As for reporter /source privilege, >if a reporter is going to make an accusation based upon what somebody else said,I think anybody has a right to meet their accusers face to face and question them. Huh ?? !! Ok, well then since Judith miller didn't even write a story, much less accuse anyone. Mat Cooper's story certinaly didn't accuse Rove of anything. I don't think he accused Wilson of anythng. He just wrote a story in which a source gave him information on the condition anonymity. He would be in jail if Rove had not given up his claim of anonymity (which at face value, actually seems sort of nice of Mr. Rove) So then in DixonWorld, why should reporter/source confidentiality not be protected? Given that it allows reporters a lot of additional information (discussions containing many many facts -- granted only under anonymity) thus allowing reporters to dig deep into a situation and weave together facts of a complex story. Such stories are sometimes of national importance and serve to keep unveil abusive governmental and other powers. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of the > best, what are they? My mind draws a blank. > > ---Prestidigitation. I doubt George would know what that is. And I don't view Bush as being that good at it, he just tries to do it a lot. And such a quality would be in the negative traits unless you believe its the purpose of govt to deceive. (A quite straussian view) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > >In a message dated 7/14/05 1:57:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > >Do you think that Americans would wake up if the economy collapsed? > > > > > > > >You are assuming they are a sleep? Maybe they just don't agree with your > >perspective on things so they must be stupid or asleep? > > > > > > > They behave as if they are. They vote against their own > self-interests. The Neocons *want* to see the economy collapse because they can control an impoverished citizenry. However that will be their fatal mistake if it happens. You appear to know nothing of neo-con views. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So does his usually, unfortunately. > > Sal > > > On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:44 PM, anonymousff wrote: > > > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of the > > best, what are they? My mind draws a blank. I thought that was only when he has to cite his mistakes. :) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anonymousff wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>In a message dated 7/14/05 1:57:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>> > >>>Do you think that Americans would wake up if the economy collapsed? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>You are assuming they are a sleep? Maybe they just don't agree > >>> > >>> > >with your > > > > > >>>perspective on things so they must be stupid or asleep? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>They behave as if they are. They vote against their own > >>self-interests. The Neocons *want* to see the economy collapse > >> > >> > >because they can control an impoverished citizenry. However that > >will be their fatal mistake if it happens. > > > >You appear to know nothing of neo-con views. > > > > > > > Oh really? Why do you say that? Well educate me. Detail your case as to the Neocons desire and intentions to collapse the economy. Actual, a means to ruinging the US economy would be to piss of the Chinese -- something the NeoCons could do -- and have them dump their $600 billion holdings onto the Treasury's market which would severly pop the real estate bubble. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
Yes, but God speaks to him through his gut. ("burp").
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> So does his usually, unfortunately.
>
> Sal
>
>
> On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:44 PM, anonymousff wrote:
>
> > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of
the
> > best, what are they? My mind draws a blank.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Yes, but God speaks to him through his gut. ("burp").
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > So does his usually, unfortunately.
> >
> > Sal
> >
> >
> > On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:44 PM, anonymousff wrote:
> >
> > > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of
> the
> > > best, what are they? My mind draws a blank.
hahahaha. good one.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- > > My point being why does everyone accept without question the need for > lawyer/client privelgde but scoffs at reporter/source priveledge. The > latter is the foundation of the fourth estate. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal- article about possible slander of acoach by SI reporter. Only way to find out the truth was to interview the source who recounted an incident. Sometimes even first amendment supporters can see a gray area. lurk To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anonymousff wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>In a message dated 7/14/05 1:57:55 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>> > >>>Do you think that Americans would wake up if the economy collapsed? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>You are assuming they are a sleep? Maybe they just don't agree > >>> > >>> > >with your > > > > > >>>perspective on things so they must be stupid or asleep? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>They behave as if they are. They vote against their own > >>self-interests. The Neocons *want* to see the economy collapse > >> > >> > >because they can control an impoverished citizenry. However that > >will be their fatal mistake if it happens. > > > >You appear to know nothing of neo-con views. > > > > > > > Oh really? Why do you say that?>> Because your name is Bhairutu Noozguru. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote, quoting Larry O'Donnell: > > > > > > Fourth, Rove had to be "authorized" to have classified information > > > > about covert agents or at least this one covert agent. Doesn't > > seem like the kind of security clearance a political operative would > > or should have. > > > > > > > Karl Rove is an advisor to the President who has an office in the > > > White House. > > > > > > He is now. Not in 2003 when he was a campaign strategist. > > Rove was never just a campaign strategist, he has been GW's main > political advisor for years and had whatever clearance his boss, the > commander in chief, wanted him to have. > > The President's closest, most trusted advisor who's office was in the west wing surely had access to whatever gov't info he wanted. Are you saying you know for a fact that Rove had formal CIA clearance to have access to information about the ID of CIA coverts agents? If not, your comments don't seem to add much. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > In a message dated 7/14/05 1:41:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Oh, yeah, the left should take a lesson from > > > the right about never indulging in shrillness; > > > it does nothing but lose elections. > > > > > > > > > > > > Bingo! It helped Clinton get re-elected. > > > > Who's Clinton? Wasn't he president wy back in the 20th century?? > > > > > > > > > > > > Your foot bridge to the 21st century or some such idea. > > > I have seen several recent interviews with Clinton. IMO, the contrast > to Bush in terms of wit, speaking ability, grasp of concepts, > intellectual abilities, poltical sense, are day and night. ( I wont > tell you which is day and which is night :) ) > > If you had the choice to vote for Bush as Bush, or a Clinton who was a > Bush clone ideologically, who would you vote for? Just curious. Are you seeking to find out it if Dixon is simply a conservative ideologue, or if he is truly brain-dead? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In the meantime, I'll open another Gordon Biersh Maarzen in this 100 > degree weather. :) Do most of the other teachers in your tantra tradition drink Gordon Biersh Maarzen ale? Must contribute to some great satsangs. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
>> In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > anonymousff wrote: > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The Neocons *want* to see the economy collapse because they can control an impoverished citizenry. >Detail your case as to the Neocons desire and intentions to collapse the economy. > > No, you educate me. I see. So you really don't haveany thing of substance to support your theory. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > OF COURSE Rove had clearance for such information. ANyone working to > > advise the president of the USA in aformal capacity has TC clearance. > > It's not that hard to get. > > Again, are you are stating that Rove had official CIA clearance to > know who were covert CIA operatives worlrd wide? Hard to believe a > campaign manager (Rove's postion in 2003) would be given such > clearance. Can you provide cites that Rove had such clearance? No > armchair platitude please. You don't have to "know who were covert CIA operatives world wide" to be cleared to know who a specific operative is. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > OF COURSE Rove had clearance for such information. ANyone working > to > > > advise the president of the USA in aformal capacity has TC > clearance. > > > It's not that hard to get. > > > > Again, are you are stating that Rove had official CIA clearance to > > know who were covert CIA operatives worlrd wide? Hard to believe a > > campaign manager (Rove's postion in 2003) would be given such > > clearance. Can you provide cites that Rove had such clearance? No > > armchair platitude please. > > You don't have to "know who were covert CIA operatives world wide" to > be cleared to know who a specific operative is. Yes. And if you read really carefully you will see it says, had ... clearance TO KNOW ... Quite different than what you appeared to read in your apparent rush. Again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs of covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets one criteria for prosecution. Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, but lets deal with these first. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As with much in the current administration, the so-called liberal > news media is a fiction invented to bolster the idea that there is > actual organized and sustained opposition to them, so that the > republican controlled White House, Congress and Supremes can blame > any failures on 'the opposition' vs their breathtaking and sustained > incompetence. Incompetence? Incompetent at achieving *your* goals maybe -- apparently quite competent indeed at achieving *theirs* :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of the > best, what are they? My mind draws a blank. Maybe he is excellent at perpetuating the illusion that *anyone* can grow up to become president? Or, failing that, at fostering the myth that mediocrity *does* get rewarded, so long as one is "born again" ...? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 1:41:21 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Who's Clinton? Wasn't he president wy back in the 20th century?? > > Your foot bridge to the 21st century or some such idea. Naive as it may seem, I'm a big believer in both accountability and everyone playing by the same rules. I don't know about you, but in my world when I have been employed for 6 mos. to a year or more and it comes time for my annual review from my boss, my review is strictly based on my performance, regardless of the state of my position before I assumed responsibility for it (and some have been a real train- wreck...). So it holds no water with me this notion of a President, or any other elected official, and his supporters consistently pointing fingers at their predecessor and explaining their failures in terms of what may have happened in the past. After all, there is precious little of that attribution when they succeed, is there? So when Clinton was President I held him solely responsible for his actions, and their consequences. Now that Bush is President, same thing. Fair enough? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of the > > best, what are they? My mind draws a blank. > > Maybe he is excellent at perpetuating the illusion that *anyone* can > grow up to become president? Or, failing that, at fostering the myth > that mediocrity *does* get rewarded, so long as one is "born > again" ...? But of all the presidents I can think of, I sincerely think Bush II has probably accomplished the most with the least "potential" -- I mean that "most" in its "absolute value" sense, regardless of whether it has been positive or negative. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So it holds no water with me this notion of a President, or any other > elected official, and his supporters consistently pointing fingers at > their predecessor and explaining their failures in terms of what may > have happened in the past. Thanks. I forgot to mention that the Bush regime has absolutely been the best at displaying addictive thinking, with its toxic need to blame others for one's own failures :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks. I forgot to mention that the Bush regime has absolutely been > the best at displaying addictive thinking, with its toxic need to > blame others for one's own failures :-) This I suppose would be a subset of the addict's compulsive need to lie. I find it interesting that a) Aurobindo said Hitler channelled the Asura of Untruth, and b) there evidently have been numerous ties between the Nazis and the Bushes, and c) this particular administration lies more continually and yet more transparently than any other I have known. Perhaps the Thousand Year Reich in its Asuric essence (the spirit of Untruth) is NOT dead, and yet would appear to be perhaps on the verge of demise, its addictive machinations having become much more evident to many more people than ever before. I see potential for great hope here :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 11:54:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Beyond its high probability that Rove is not the focus of the > > investigation, it is far more interesting to think of those at a level > > above Rove who are now in the prosecutor's sights. > > Actually, given Rove's status in the White House, there's only one > person above him --the one he advises directly. > > > > > > Why would Rove had to have known any thing about Wilson's wife being a > covert operative? What I'm more curious about is the Times writer in jail and who > her source was. Could it have been her own husband or anybody on the Senate > intelligence committee?Why is she so quiet? Would a Times reporter go to jail > to protect a republican source?Something is fishy. So only a Republican reporter could show integrity? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > In a message dated 7/14/05 11:54:10 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > Beyond its high probability that Rove is not the focus of the > > > investigation, it is far more interesting to think of those at > a level > > > above Rove who are now in the prosecutor's sights. > > > > Actually, given Rove's status in the White House, there's only > one > > person above him --the one he advises directly. > > > > Why would Rove had to have known any thing about Wilson's wife > being a > > covert operative? What I'm more curious about is the Times writer > in jail and who > > her source was. Could it have been her own husband or anybody on > the Senate > > intelligence committee?Why is she so quiet? Would a Times > reporter go to jail > > to protect a republican source?Something is fishy. > > I was curious about this too, given the odd juxtaposition between > the NY Times and WH. I've chalked it up to the self-importance of > the press. 'Standing on principle' for once... For once? Quite a few reporters have endured jail time over the years in order to protect sources. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 12:14:54 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I was curious about this too, given the odd juxtaposition between > the NY Times and WH. I've chalked it up to the self-importance of > the press. 'Standing on principle' for once... > > > > > NY Times standing on principle when they could nail a Republican > administration official? Naaa! As a son of someone who was in the newspaper industry for 40+ years, I can only say: jerk. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This I suppose would be a subset of the addict's compulsive need to > lie. By the way Llundrub, you perhaps have seen yourself as an addict, but I know you to be virtually exempt from this need to lie. Au contraire, you are one of the most compulsively truthful people I know -- and your Truth burns bright in the Heart! :-) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [...] > > > It seems unlikely that Rove, as campaign stragegist in 2003, would > > > have clearance to know who covert CIA ops were. And even if he > DID, he would have had to have a "need to know" -- which is even more > unlikely. So it appears to me that Rove is not "eligible" for > prosecution. > > > > > If Rove sat in on a briefing with President Bush where Valerie Plame > > was identified in some way, he de facto had clearance for that > > information. > > Perhaps. But that still seems to miss the point. Rove could have > gotten the info in any number of ways. The technical point that seems > lost in all of this is that if Rove did not have a formal clearance (a > forma CIA piece of paper) from the CIA for the security level required > to access information on the IDs of covert ops (a very high level of > clearance I assume and not give out lightly), then under the statute, > Rove can not be prosecuted. I doubtif the statute says one must have "CIA clearance" in order to be prosecuted for outing a CIA operative. The White House can grant security clearance to anyone, AFAIK. Or are you trying to claim that the head of the US military and the head of all law enforcement and security forces in the USA can't inform the CIA, US military, etc., to proceed with a briefing? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] However,she could be perceived as a > traitor and violator of journalistic ethics by her own peers and political > persuasion if her source were any thing other than a republican. Have you EVER voted for a member of another political party other than your own? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > OF COURSE Rove had clearance for such information. ANyone working > > to > > > > advise the president of the USA in aformal capacity has TC > > clearance. > > > > It's not that hard to get. > > > > > > Again, are you are stating that Rove had official CIA clearance to > > > know who were covert CIA operatives worlrd wide? Hard to believe a > > > campaign manager (Rove's postion in 2003) would be given such > > > clearance. Can you provide cites that Rove had such clearance? No > > > armchair platitude please. > > > > You don't have to "know who were covert CIA operatives world wide" to > > be cleared to know who a specific operative is. > > > Yes. And if you read really carefully you will see it says, had ... > clearance TO KNOW ... Quite different than what you appeared to read > in your apparent rush. > > Again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the > CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs of > covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets one criteria for prosecution. > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, but > lets deal with these first. Sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants them to know. And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to THEIR definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the lawmakers. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You cant be a truth seeker and be a liar at the same time. Thanks R So you always tell the truth? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
> > If you are suggesting Bush #2 has qualities that are the best of > > the best, what are they? My mind draws a blank. I think this is all a little unfair to Mr. Bush, so if no one else is going to stick up for him, I will. Here's a shot of him on the political campaign trail, reaching out to black voters: http://www.members.aol.com/tantricone/share/Bushpimp.htm And here's the ultimate proof that his relation- ship with Dick Cheney is not quite what has been portrayed in the media: http://www.members.aol.com/tantricone/share/testimony.htm Unc To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > OF COURSE Rove had clearance for such information. ANyone > working > > > to > > > > > advise the president of the USA in aformal capacity has TC > > > clearance. > > > > > It's not that hard to get. > > > > > > > > Again, are you are stating that Rove had official CIA clearance > to > > > > know who were covert CIA operatives worlrd wide? Hard to > believe a > > > > campaign manager (Rove's postion in 2003) would be given such > > > > clearance. Can you provide cites that Rove had such clearance? > No > > > > armchair platitude please. > > > > > > You don't have to "know who were covert CIA operatives world > wide" to > > > be cleared to know who a specific operative is. > > > > > > Yes. And if you read really carefully you will see it says, had ... > > clearance TO KNOW ... Quite different than what you appeared to > read > > in your apparent rush. > > > > Again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the > > CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs > of > > covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets one criteria for prosecution. > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > but > > lets deal with these first. > > Sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants > them to know. > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to THEIR > definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > lawmakers. Whats your point? So did the CIA say she is covert per the statute? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the > > CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs > of > > covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets one criteria for prosecution. > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > but > > lets deal with these first. > > Sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants > them to know. And the sky is blue. Now, let both of us get back to relevant points. Rove could have found out about Plame by overhearing a bathroom discussion. Scooter Libby could have told him on the "hush hush". Rove might have accidently seen a memo referencing this. If Rove found out in these ways, he cannot be prosecutted. If Chenny told him (having clearnace) and Rove did not have it, Cheny can be prosecutted but not Rove. There are lots of possibilities here. Bush may have told him, and then told Tennnat to give Rove clearnace for such info. In this case, Rove could be prosecutted. Lots of possibilities here. One piece of the puzzle is did Rove in fact have formal clearance. It does not "solve" the case, but is an important piece of the puzzle. So, again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs of covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets at least one criteria for prosecution. > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > but lets deal with these first. > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to THEIR > definitions. It may be a fantasy of yours that the CIA passes legislation, but it is not yet the case. The statue, as I understand listening to Sanford yesterday -- one of the drafters, is that the statute defined "covert agent" in a limited, tight and precise way. And Plame does not fit that definition. If the statute does not cover Plame, then "outing" Plame does not violate the statute. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > lawmakers. No, if there is a dispute, it is handled by the judiciary, not the CIA. At least not yet. IMO Rove acted in a sleazy scuzzball way by messing with classified information and leaking it to reporters. I think he may, well deservedly be, in deep political shit, depending on how the case unfolds. It just seems that according the the quite focussed and limited statute, per the available facts to date, Rove has a limited vulnerability to prosecution. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
Coincidently, here are two points in a news report today germaine to the following discussion. Per Rove, his information about Plame came from two reporters, not the president or anyone in the WH -- making the "sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants them to know" argument particularly irrelevant. The second point is that Wilson acknowledges his wife was not in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. Thus it would appear the statue does not apply and Rove, for this and other reasons, cannot be prosecuted under the statute. ** 1) Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said. snip 2) But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said. Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity. http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-cia-leak-rove,0,4798469,print.story?coll=nyc-nationhome-headlines ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the > > > CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs > > of > > > covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets one criteria for prosecution. > > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > > but > > > lets deal with these first. > > > > Sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants > > them to know. > > > And the sky is blue. Now, let both of us get back to relevant points. > > Rove could have found out about Plame by overhearing a bathroom > discussion. Scooter Libby could have told him on the "hush hush". Rove > might have accidently seen a memo referencing this. If Rove found out > in these ways, he cannot be prosecutted. > > If Chenny told him (having clearnace) and Rove did not have it, Cheny > can be prosecutted but not Rove. There are lots of possibilities here. > > Bush may have told him, and then told Tennnat to give Rove clearnace > for such info. In this case, Rove could be prosecutted. > > Lots of possibilities here. One piece of the puzzle is did Rove in > fact have formal clearance. It does not "solve" the case, but is an > important piece of the puzzle. So, again, if you can state with > authority and provide evidence that the CIA formally cleared Rove to > have access to information of the IDs of covert CIA opperative, then > Rove meets at least one criteria for prosecution. > > > > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > > but lets deal with these first. > > > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to THEIR > > definitions. > > It may be a fantasy of yours that the CIA passes legislation, but it > is not yet the case. The statue, as I understand listening to Sanford > yesterday -- one of the drafters, is that the statute defined "covert > agent" in a limited, tight and precise way. And Plame does not fit > that definition. If the statute does not cover Plame, then "outing" > Plame does not violate the statute. > > Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > lawmakers. > > No, if there is a dispute, it is handled by the judiciary, not the > CIA. At least not yet. > > IMO Rove acted in a sleazy scuzzball way by messing with classified > information and leaking it to reporters. I think he may, well > deservedly be, in deep political shit, depending on how the case > unfolds. It just seems that according the the quite focussed and > limited statute, per the available facts to date, Rove has a limited > vulnerability to prosecution. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > As with much in the current administration, the so-called liberal > > news media is a fiction invented to bolster the idea that there is > > actual organized and sustained opposition to them, so that the > > republican controlled White House, Congress and Supremes can blame > > any failures on 'the opposition' vs their breathtaking and sustained > > incompetence. > > Incompetence? Incompetent at achieving *your* goals maybe -- > apparently quite competent indeed at achieving *theirs* :-) Yeah, good point. I am too heavily influenced by events of late, especially Pres Bush's failures w/regard to Social Security elimination, and the war in Iraq. Perhaps the breathtaking nature of the administration comes in when I think back just a few years ago, and realize that every area of government has been completely transformed. And not for the better. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rory Goff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Perhaps the Thousand Year Reich in its Asuric > essence (the spirit of Untruth) is NOT dead, and yet would appear to > be perhaps on the verge of demise, its addictive machinations having > become much more evident to many more people than ever before. I see > potential for great hope here :-) An interesting anecdote that ties in here: My in-laws are dyed-in-the-wool, life long Republicans (absolutely lovely people too btw), and just this week said to my wife that they are absolutely sick of all the politics, and sick of Bush, and wish he was out of office. Tip of the iceberg?? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to THEIR > > definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > lawmakers. > > Whats your point? So did the CIA say she is covert per the statute? They asked for a criminal investigation... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [...] > > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to > THEIR > > > definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual > way, > > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > > lawmakers. > > > > Whats your point? So did the CIA say she is covert per the statute? > > They asked for a criminal investigation... A lot of people called for it didn't they? Congress. The press, the outraged public. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > lawmakers. > > No, if there is a dispute, it is handled by the judiciary, not the > CIA. At least not yet. But the CIA is the one that asked for the investigation. In their eyes, at least, a crime or crimes were broken... > > IMO Rove acted in a sleazy scuzzball way by messing with classified > information and leaking it to reporters. I think he may, well > deservedly be, in deep political shit, depending on how the case > unfolds. It just seems that according the the quite focussed and > limited statute, per the available facts to date, Rove has a limited > vulnerability to prosecution. There's at least two statutes involved: the 1917 Espionage Act, which makes leaking classified info a crime, period, and the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act, which is what we've been talking about. THe full text of the latter can be found at the URL below. I don't see any definition of "United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources" in the Act itself, so unless it is defined outside the text of the Act, the definition would be common useage, i.e., whatever an intelligence agency of the USA defines as "United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources." http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Coincidently, here are two points in a news report today germaine to > the following discussion. Per Rove, his information about Plame came > from two reporters, not the president or anyone in the WH -- making > the "sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he > wants them to know" argument particularly irrelevant. > > The second point is that Wilson acknowledges his wife was not in an > undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. Thus > it would appear the statue does not apply and Rove, for this and other > reasons, cannot be prosecuted under the statute. > > ** > > 1) Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he > believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another > member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had > told him about it first, the person said. But had he heard about it BEFORE being called by the media? Confirming, however casually, that rumored classified info is correct, is leaking classified info if you KNOW that the classified info is correct through official channels. That's why the "neither confirm nor deny line" is used. > > snip > > 2) But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in > an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My > wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her > identity," he said. "the day that Bob Novak blew her identity" implies without saying that she was, that she was indeed covert the day before he blew her cover. In fact, I believe a followup question to that statement got a "neither confirm nor deny" response about whether or not she was covert the day before. In other words, we still don't know anything. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [...] > > > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > > > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to > > THEIR > > > > definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual > > way, > > > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > > > lawmakers. > > > > > > Whats your point? So did the CIA say she is covert per the statute? > > > > They asked for a criminal investigation... > > A lot of people called for it didn't they? Congress. The press, the > outraged public. The Republicans control congress... The press ignored the matter for the first few months UNTIL a criminal investigation was launched. The outraged public hadn't even heard of the issue until the investigation (my brother, who is extremely widely read politically, hadn't hear of it) --only readers of http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com and other liberal blogs or who were total news junkies, had heard anything about it. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In other words, we still don't know anything. Exactly my point also To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In other words, we still don't know anything. > > Exactly my point also I understand the two key points as mentioned here are 1)Rove's clearance and 2)whether or not Plame was covert CIA. I was researching the point about Rove's clearance, and came across a news item that said Sen. Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, had debated legislation on the floor of the Senate that called for revoking Rove's security clearance. I looked everywhere for a transcript of this debate, including the Congressional Record, but couldn't find it. I'll look again today. In any case, if legislation was introduced to revoke Rove's clearance, doesn't that suggest Rove has the appopriate clearance to look up info on covert agents? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In other words, we still don't know anything. > > > > Exactly my point also > > I understand the two key points as mentioned here are 1)Rove's > clearance and 2)whether or not Plame was covert CIA. > > I was researching the point about Rove's clearance, and came across a > news item that said Sen. Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, had debated > legislation on the floor of the Senate that called for revoking Rove's > security clearance. I looked everywhere for a transcript of this > debate, including the Congressional Record, but couldn't find it. I'll > look again today. > > In any case, if legislation was introduced to revoke Rove's clearance, > doesn't that suggest Rove has the appopriate clearance to look up info > on covert agents? No not at all. There are many levels of clearances. His may or may not cover knowing the IDs of CIA ops (a very very secret thing -- not granted easily). To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > [...] > > > > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a > regulation > > > > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according > to > > > THEIR > > > > > definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an > unusual > > > way, > > > > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not > the > > > > > lawmakers. > > > > > > > > Whats your point? So did the CIA say she is covert per the > statute? > > > > > > They asked for a criminal investigation... > > > > A lot of people called for it didn't they? Congress. The press, the > > outraged public. > > The Republicans control congress... > > The press ignored the matter for the first few months UNTIL a > criminal investigation was launched. > > The outraged public hadn't even heard of the issue until the > investigation Oh, my. I was outraged the day the column appeared. I cant be the only one. >(my brother, who is extremely widely read politically, > hadn't hear of it) Well my dog has acutely accurate polital inst incts and she barked at rove and novak right away. --only readers of http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com > and other liberal blogs or who were total news junkies, had heard > anything about it. I agree it was on the back buner a bit. But so was the 9/11 investigation. There is inertia, and there is Admin stonewalling. Both tend to slow stuff down so that even SH*t doesnt roll down steep hills. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > In other words, we still don't know anything. > > > > Exactly my point also > > I understand the two key points as mentioned here are 1)Rove's > clearance and 2)whether or not Plame was covert CIA. > > I was researching the point about Rove's clearance, and came across a > news item that said Sen. Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, had debated > legislation on the floor of the Senate that called for revoking Rove's > security clearance. I looked everywhere for a transcript of this > debate, including the Congressional Record, but couldn't find it. I'll > look again today. > > In any case, if legislation was introduced to revoke Rove's clearance, > doesn't that suggest Rove has the appopriate clearance to look up info > on covert agents? It probably wouldn't be a case of "looking up info" since that would be completely blatant, but more like, he had access to information that was "common knowledge" amongst people working at his level in the White House. If he got this information through official channels, than he might be liable under the 1982 Identities secrets act, but if he just overheard it at the watercooler or in casual conversation in his office (rather than during a properly identified classified briefing), he's probably off the hook on the 1982 offence (but maybe not under the 1917 Espionage act, which is a much broader law). To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In other words, we still don't know anything. > > > > > > Exactly my point also > > > > I understand the two key points as mentioned here are 1)Rove's > > clearance and 2)whether or not Plame was covert CIA. > > > > I was researching the point about Rove's clearance, and came across a > > news item that said Sen. Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, had debated > > legislation on the floor of the Senate that called for revoking Rove's > > security clearance. I looked everywhere for a transcript of this > > debate, including the Congressional Record, but couldn't find it. I'll > > look again today. > > > > In any case, if legislation was introduced to revoke Rove's clearance, > > doesn't that suggest Rove has the appopriate clearance to look up info > > on covert agents? > > No not at all. There are many levels of clearances. His may or may not > cover knowing the IDs of CIA ops (a very very secret thing -- not > granted easily). Sigh. Have you ever had a security clearance? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > In other words, we still don't know anything. > > > > > > > > Exactly my point also > > > > > > I understand the two key points as mentioned here are 1)Rove's > > > clearance and 2)whether or not Plame was covert CIA. > > > > > > I was researching the point about Rove's clearance, and came > across a > > > news item that said Sen. Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, had > debated > > > legislation on the floor of the Senate that called for revoking > Rove's > > > security clearance. I looked everywhere for a transcript of this > > > debate, including the Congressional Record, but couldn't find it. > I'll > > > look again today. > > > > > > In any case, if legislation was introduced to revoke Rove's > clearance, > > > doesn't that suggest Rove has the appopriate clearance to look up > info > > > on covert agents? > > > > No not at all. There are many levels of clearances. His may or may > not > > cover knowing the IDs of CIA ops (a very very secret thing -- not > > granted easily). > > Sigh. Have you ever had a security clearance? No. But I bet you did. My father did (he caught the first german spy entering NY upon the start of WWw II.) My gret uncle was one of the founding memebers of the OSS along with Donovan. An uncle was a multi-star general in the Air Force with multiple clearances. We all talked deep spy stuff around the dinner table at family gatherings. But ALL of that appears irrelevent. I did just finish reading "The secret war of Chrlie wilson" which was in good part about the inner workings of the CIA. And various levels of CIA clearnaces were apparent then, in the 80s. Has that changed? By your sigh are you implying that there is one level of clearance for all intell. Tell us from your wh clearnce to do some programming how the deep and vast level of clearances REALLY works. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When destruction of nearly everything that has gone before it is your > goal, it doesn't take a whole lot to accomplish that. Ask any kid > that's ever deliberately knocked down a sand castle that someone else > had worked hard to create. > > Sal Exactly. And let's not forget some of those kids are getting a *whole* lot of money for knocking down those sandcastles. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...] > By your sigh are you implying that there is one level of clearance for > all intell. Tell us from your wh clearnce to do some programming how > the deep and vast level of clearances REALLY works. When you take on a job that requires a security clearance, your background is checked to the level that is required for the maximum security clearance your normal job would require. If the job description changes, you might need a new security background check, but they go as deep as they need to the first time around so you don't have to wait around for a new background check before you're exposed to information at a level you should already be cleared to receive. Rove is a direct advisor to the President of the USA. He's held that position for years. If there was EVER a chance he would be exposed to the identity of an undercover CIA operative in the course of his normal duties at the White House, he would have been given that level of security background check and clearance from the start. Since undercover operatives have been known to brief the President and his staff before, you can be sure that Rove already had the security clearance to know the covert status of someone who might be briefing him on something. There is no need for a NEW security background check for Rove concerning CIA operatives since that would be part of his normal duties at the White House. ANYONE working at the White House at that level would have that level of security clearance since it might happen that they would accidentally learn the identiy of an undercover operative just by walking by an open door. You're confusing the "need to know" issue with the security issue, BTW. And in Rove's job, he would have pretty much a blanket "need to know" access as long as it was authorized by the President. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "jim_flanegin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > In other words, we still don't know anything. > > > > > > Exactly my point also > > > > I understand the two key points as mentioned here are 1)Rove's > > clearance and 2)whether or not Plame was covert CIA. > > > > I was researching the point about Rove's clearance, and came across a > > news item that said Sen. Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, had debated > > legislation on the floor of the Senate that called for revoking Rove's > > security clearance. I looked everywhere for a transcript of this > > debate, including the Congressional Record, but couldn't find it. I'll > > look again today. > > > > In any case, if legislation was introduced to revoke Rove's clearance, > > doesn't that suggest Rove has the appopriate clearance to look up info > > on covert agents? > > No not at all. There are many levels of clearances. His may or may not > cover knowing the IDs of CIA ops (a very very secret thing -- not > granted easily). I was considering that if Reid was asking for revocation of Rove's clearance, it was associated with Rove's abuse of same, hence Rove's clearance covered knowledge of coverts. (Yes, I know about the various levels of clearance- my interest in this is DNA related too.) To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
Here's the relevant definition of "covert agent" and so on: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapt ers/iv/sections/section_426.html Section 426. Definitions For the purposes of this subchapter: (1) The term ''classified information'' means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security. (2) The term ''authorized'', when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities. (3) The term ''disclose'' means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available. (4) The term ''covert agent'' means - (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency - (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and - (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or (C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency. (5) The term ''intelligence agency'' means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (6) The term ''informant'' means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure. (7) The terms ''officer'' and ''employee'' have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5. (8) The term ''Armed Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. (9) The term ''United States'', when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. (10) The term ''pattern of activities'' requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > According to the latest grand jury leaks yesterday Rove found out > about Plame being a CIA operative, note, not a covert operative, by > the media. They called him. The first reporter to say Plame was a > former CIA covert operative was David Korn who wrote about that > after an interview with Joe Wilson. This whole thing sounds like > a set up and looks like its over. I've been saying Wilson outed his > own wife all along for political reasons. The notion that Novak didn't identify Plame as covert was pretty well debunked by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo way back in October 2003: -- As we've noted before, one of the best pieces of evidence that Novak (and thus his sources) knew Valerie Plame was a clandestine employee of the CIA was that he said as much in his original column. There he called her an "Agency operative." People who follow the intel world say that phrase is almost always meant to refer to a clandestine agent or someone in the field, rather than an analyst. Now, since the story blew up a week and a half ago, Novak has been telling people that this reference was just some sort of slip-up, that in this case he meant `operative' only in the generic sense of a `hack' or a `fixer.' On Meet the Press Novak said he uses "the word too much [and] if somebody did a Nexus search of my columns, they'd find an overuse of `operative.'" Well, Novak does seem to use the word operative a lot. But as one of my readers pointed out to me this evening, `operative' can mean all sorts of things in different contexts. The question is how Novak uses it in this particular context. Following up on my reader's suggestion I did a Nexis search to see all the times Novak used the phrases "CIA operative" or "agency operative." This was a quick search. But I came up with six examples. And in each case Novak used the phrase to refer to someone working in a clandestine capacity. Here they are... I also did a quick search for Novak's references to "CIA analyst" or "agency analyst" I found three --- each clearly referring to people who were in fact analysts. In an 1993 column, Novak used a precise phrasing to refer to "CIA briefer Brian Latell, a 30-year career officer." Again, no vague use of 'operative.' I don't think this requires too much commentary, does it? Clearly, Novak knows the meaning of the phrase 'CIA operative' and he uses it advisedly. In the last decade he's never used the phrase to mean anything but clandestine agents. Let's cut the mumbo-jumbo: past evidence suggests that Novak only uses this phrase to refer to clandestine agents. In this case, when he has every reason to run away from that meaning of the phrase, he suddenly runs away from that meaning. Especially with all the other evidence at hand, that just defies credibility. Everything points to the conclusion that Novak did know. That would mean, necessarily, that his sources knew too. The `we didn't know' cover story just doesn't wash. Novak's fellow reporters have never pressed him on this point. Maybe now would be a good time ... http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_10_05.php#002066 (or) http://tinyurl.com/9hgpp To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 10:05:47 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Again, are you are stating that Rove had official CIA clearance to > > know who were covert CIA operatives worlrd wide? Hard to believe a > > campaign manager (Rove's postion in 2003) would be given such > > clearance. Can you provide cites that Rove had such clearance? No > > armchair platitude please. > > You don't have to "know who were covert CIA operatives world wide" to > be cleared to know who a specific operative is. > > > > > According to the latest grand jury leaks yesterday Rove found out about > Plame being a CIA operative, note, not a covert operative, by the media. They > called him. The first reporter to say Plame was a former CIA covert operative > was David Korn who wrote about that after an interview with Joe Wilson. This > whole thing sounds like a set up and looks like its over. I've been saying > Wilson outed his own wife all along for political reasons. So you're saying that we know who first told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame? So who told Novak? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/14/05 11:32:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > NY Times standing on principle when they could nail a Republican > > administration official? Naaa! > > As a son of someone who was in the newspaper industry for 40+ years, I > can only say: > > jerk. > > > > > ROFLMAO! So all reporters are dispicable people, or only those who work for the NYT, or what? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[FairfieldLife] Re: Special Prosecutor; "Rove Not Target of Investigation"
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 7/16/05 3:54:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > NY Times standing on principle when they could nail a > Republican > > > administration official?Naaa! > > > > As a son of someone who was in the newspaper industry for 40+ > years, I > > can only say: > > > > jerk. > > > > > > > > > > ROFLMAO! > > So all reporters are dispicable people, or only those who work for > the NYT, or what? > > > > > I'm saying a liberal, any liberal, regardless of profession, if they had the > opportunity to "out" a republican in the current administration, would jump > at the chance and do it with a clean conscience because they would be doing > it for the best interest of the nation in their mind and besides they would > become a real hero to their own ilk. So liberals never maintain professional standards? To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
