NationStates Jolt Archive

Or so says Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9764239/) on Meet the Press today:
And secondly, I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So they go to something that trips someone up because they said something in the first grand jury and then maybe they found new information or they forgot something and they tried to correct that in a second grand jury....

MR. RUSSERT: But the fact is perjury or obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and Republicans certainly thought so when charges were placed against Bill Clinton before the United States Senate. Senator Hutchison.

SEN. HUTCHISON: Well, there were charges against Bill Clinton besides perjury and obstruction of justice. And I'm not saying that those are not crimes. They are. But I also think that we are seeing in the judicial process--and look at Martha Stewart, for instance, where they couldn't find a crime and they indict on something that she said about something that wasn't a crime. I think that it is important, of course, that we have a perjury and an obstruction of justice crime, but I also think we are seeing grand juries and U.S. attorneys and district attorneys that go for technicalities, sort of a gotcha mentality in this country. Okay, now I've got two points to make here. When the Republicans in the House were voting to impeach Clinton, the storyline you heard time and again (and you'll hear on this forum and likely on this thread if it gets enough play) is that it was the lying that mattered, not what he was lying about. I've always said that was bullshit--that context matters and that lying about getting a hummer is far less serious than lying about your role in outing a NOC CIA agent, but regardless, it's bogus for someone like Hutchinson to try to play this card.

Secondly, Hutchinson needs to revisit her history of the Clinton impeachment. He was charged by the managers with four crimes--two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice and one of abuse of power. But he was only formally charged before the Senate with two counts (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html).
Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. So Hutchinson got that part wrong--perjury and obstruction were all that Clinton was charged with, and he was convicted of neither, beating the perjury charge 55-45 and tying the obstruction one 50-50.

So is this going to be the Republican party line? That lying to the grand jury is okay if you're a Republican as opposed to being a Democrat? Or will the party faithful hold to the values they espoused when going after Clinton, that it's the lying that's important? I'm betting that Hutchinson will be in the majority of her party.

Or so says Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9764239/) on Meet the Press today:
Okay, now I've got two points to make here. When the Republicans in the House were voting to impeach Clinton, the storyline you heard time and again (and you'll hear on this forum and likely on this thread if it gets enough play) is that it was the lying that mattered, not what he was lying about. I've always said that was bullshit--that context matters and that lying about getting a hummer is far less serious than lying about your role in outing a NOC CIA agent, but regardless, it's bogus for someone like Hutchinson to try to play this card.

Secondly, Hutchinson needs to revisit her history of the Clinton impeachment. He was charged by the managers with four crimes--two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice and one of abuse of power. But he was only formally charged before the Senate with two counts (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html).
So Hutchinson got that part wrong--perjury and obstruction were all that Clinton was charged with, and he was convicted of neither, beating the perjury charge 55-45 and tying the obstruction one 50-50.

So is this going to be the Republican party line? That lying to the grand jury is okay if you're a Republican as opposed to being a Democrat? Or will the party faithful hold to the values they espoused when going after Clinton, that it's the lying that's important? I'm betting that Hutchinson will be in the majority of her party.


You're forgetting something. Democrats also voted party line on Clinton. So it was OK for him to do perjury in their eyes. And I bet in their eyes, it's not OK for Republicans to do it.

Same same.

You're forgetting something. Democrats also voted party line on Clinton. So it was OK for him to do perjury in their eyes. And I bet in their eyes, it's not OK for Republicans to do it.

Same same.
I'm not forgetting anything--you are. The Democrats in the Senate never said that perjury was okay. They said that perjury in a personal matter that never should have come before a federal grand jury didn't rise to the level of impeachment. And it didn't.

Obstructing an investigation into the outing of a NOC CIA agent, however, that's deserving of serious jail time, far as I'm concerned, and I'd feel the same way if the roles had been reversed and the Dems had leaked the CIA agent's name for political gain.

I'm not forgetting anything--you are. The Democrats in the Senate never said that perjury was okay. They said that perjury in a personal matter that never should have come before a federal grand jury didn't rise to the level of impeachment. And it didn't.

Obstructing an investigation into the outing of a NOC CIA agent, however, that's deserving of serious jail time, far as I'm concerned, and I'd feel the same way if the roles had been reversed and the Dems had leaked the CIA agent's name for political gain.

I have a hard time considering it "outing" when they supposedly leaked the name weeks before he even said anything. And I don't see how they could possibly "gain" from leaking someone's name.

I'm not forgetting anything--you are. The Democrats in the Senate never said that perjury was okay. They said that perjury in a personal matter that never should have come before a federal grand jury didn't rise to the level of impeachment. And it didn't.

Obstructing an investigation into the outing of a NOC CIA agent, however, that's deserving of serious jail time, far as I'm concerned, and I'd feel the same way if the roles had been reversed and the Dems had leaked the CIA agent's name for political gain.

I think the bigger question is this, why did the senate try to charge Clinton because he lied about a blow job so he wouldn't get caught; thats basically what it grinds down to.

The original issue is this; its a REAL function of government, Clinton was an issue of what he did in his personal life; considering that 30% are unfaithful to their wife/husband and that divorce sits at 50%, I think that the moves against Clinton were pathetic at best.

I have a hard time considering it "outing" when they supposedly leaked the name weeks before he even said anything. And I don't see how they could possibly "gain" from leaking someone's name.
Assuming you're talking about leaking Plame's name before her husband wrote his Opinion piece for the NY Times, you should know that Wilson had been talking about the story for months before he wrote the piece. Washington insiders knew the piece was coming. As for the gain, outing Plame would make anyone else with inside knowledge think twice about speaking up--after all, if the administration would blow not only a NOC agent, but her employment cover which would screw many other agents, then there's no limit to what they might do to others. That's the gain.

it should also be noted that the hypocrisy isn't merely a general one. sen kay hutchinson personally voted that clinton's perjury charge merited removal from office.

I think the bigger question is this, why did the senate try to charge Clinton because he lied about a blow job so he wouldn't get caught; thats basically what it grinds down to.

The original issue is this; its a REAL function of government, Clinton was an issue of what he did in his personal life; considering that 30% are unfaithful to their wife/husband and that divorce sits at 50%, I think that the moves against Clinton were pathetic at best.
Nevermind the fact that the issue was over sexual harrasment, and that the Luinski (yeah, I misspelled the name, I'm don't care either) business was part of establishing a trend. Nevermind that the question was then part of continuing a criminal investigation. Nevermind the facts.

I think the bigger question is this, why did the senate try to charge Clinton because he lied about a blow job so he wouldn't get caught; thats basically what it grinds down to.

Ordinarily, what a President does in his private time is indeed his own business.

When you're the target of a lawsuit, you have to make sure you don't say something that can bring a charge of perjury (which is what happened).

Personally, I find it ludicrous - maybe we need a law that you can't sue a sitting President.

I also find Clinton's definition of "sexual affair" ludicrous. A blowjob where you end up decorating the woman's dress is definitely a sexual affair.

Just like how it was wrong of the state to go after Al Capone for tax evasion. Damn government and it's gotcha mentality.

Lying under oath is never a crime as long as the perjurer is in your party.
In fact, nothing is a crime it seems as long as the person in question is a member of your party. Both parties do this, and will continue to do so.

Ordinarily, what a President does in his private time is indeed his own business.

When you're the target of a lawsuit, you have to make sure you don't say something that can bring a charge of perjury (which is what happened).

Personally, I find it ludicrous - maybe we need a law that you can't sue a sitting President.

I also find Clinton's definition of "sexual affair" ludicrous. A blowjob where you end up decorating the woman's dress is definitely a sexual affair.

Your ability to miss the point is amazing.

Lying under oath is never a crime as long as the perjurer is in your party.
In fact, nothing is a crime it seems as long as the person in question is a member of your party. Both parties do this, and will continue to do so.
Be serious. There are crimes that transcend party affiliation. Nixon is a perfect example of that. This situation ought to be one. LBJ's lies about the Gulf of Tonkin eventually transcended party as well. Yeah, there are times where partisanship makes a difference, perhaps even the majority of the time, but in a situation like this, there ought to be bi-partisan outrage. I only wish it was out there.

Your ability to miss the point is amazing.

Someone was wondering why Clinton was charged with lying, as though somehow he was charged with lying to the American public - he was charged with perjury - which is something different.

I didn't miss anything.

Be serious. There are crimes that transcend party affiliation. Nixon is a perfect example of that. This situation ought to be one. LBJ's lies about the Gulf of Tonkin eventually transcended party as well. Yeah, there are times where partisanship makes a difference, perhaps even the majority of the time, but in a situation like this, there ought to be bi-partisan outrage. I only wish it was out there.

This crime most definitely does, but the only problem is that no one considers it to be because party ties are stronger than law, especially now. They reduce every crime to nothing more than a joke or a noncrime, unless it affects the other party.

It isn't out there because bipartisanship isn't feasible anymore. You don't carry your base if you even try to work with the other side, and compared to a few years ago it's only gotten stronger. If anything, more of these crimes are going to happen unless the Democrats and Republicans get the nerve to go after the corrupt and criminals in their own parties. Of course, politics is getting in the way.

Someone was wondering why Clinton was charged with lying, as though somehow he was charged with lying to the American public - he was charged with perjury - which is something different.

I didn't miss anything.

But the quote you responded to was specifically about this asshat Senator, who actually VOTED that lying was bad and cause for removal from office even without an original crime to lie about, who is now squawking about the very same thing possibly happening to someone on the Republican side.

If you're not going to address the specific post you quote, don't quote it.

Nevermind the fact that the issue was over sexual harrasment, and that the Luinski (yeah, I misspelled the name, I'm don't care either) business was part of establishing a trend. Nevermind that the question was then part of continuing a criminal investigation. Nevermind the facts.

Oh pulease, a womaniser Clinton may be, a little horney and touchy feely, sure, but someone who sexual harrasses a female? please, even the most horney politician would realise the fine line and what could put his balls on the political chopping block.

All it sounds like to me are a group of women who saw a guy rise to power, had a slight flawed character and saw it as their opportunity to take revenge - nothing more; had Clinton been any other Joe Blow, the whole issue would never have been raised in the first place.

Clinton should have been dragged into the Mall and shot for treason, nevermind charged with perjury.

I was upset when his heart bypass didn't kill the SOB.

Clinton should have been dragged into the Mall and shot for treason, nevermind charged with perjury.

I was upset when his heart bypass didn't kill the SOB.Are you going out of your way to be inflammatory tonight? What's your deal?

Clinton should have been dragged into the Mall and shot for treason, nevermind charged with perjury.

I was upset when his heart bypass didn't kill the SOB.

Note to self never get caught by Lacadaemon when I comit adultry.....unless I get into S&M for some reason.

Clinton should have been dragged into the Mall and shot for treason, nevermind charged with perjury.

I was upset when his heart bypass didn't kill the SOB.

Wow, imagine he actually did something...

Note to self never get caught by Lacadaemon when I comit adultry.....unless I get into S&M for some reason.
It has nothing to do with the perjury charge and much more to do with other matters, specifically relating to the chinese and OBL.

It has nothing to do with the perjury charge and much more to do with other matters, specifically relating to the chinese and OBL.

Ah, so Clinton was guilty of treason because of a RUMOR he traded secrets with the Chinese (I never saw any proof of that, aside from ravings from freepers,) but Cheney, Rove, etc. are perfectly innocent...even though they're being heavily investigated for a treasonous act.

Ah, so Clinton was guilty of treason because of a RUMOR he traded secrets with the Chinese (I never saw any proof of that, aside from ravings from freepers,) but Cheney, Rove, etc. are perfectly innocent...even though they're being heavily investigated for a treasonous act.
Why can’t I kill all of them?

Hutchinson is the grossest kind of idiot, but she can whine all she likes. Prosecutor Fitzgerald will do as he likes. And none of this means anything -- beyond a laugh at that stupid cow's expense -- unless and until idictments are brought. Then we'll see who bitches about what.

Hutchinson is the grossest kind of idiot, but she can whine all she likes. Prosecutor Fitzgerald will do as he likes. And none of this means anything -- beyond a laugh at that stupid cow's expense -- unless and until idictments are brought. Then we'll see who bitches about what.

We only have to wait until Friday.

Muravyets, if there are indictments of Republicans, you buy the drinks.

If there are no indictments of Republicans, I buy the drinks.

We only have to wait until Friday.

Muravyets, if there are indictments of Republicans, you buy the drinks.

If there are no indictments of Republicans, I buy the drinks.

And if a low orbiting satalite crashes on the courtroom I'll buy the drinks. Have to be prepared for anything you know.

If that Fitzgerald idiot doesn't bring an idictment against someone -- after all this time, effort, expense and publicity ("leak-proof", my ass) -- I'll be looking to drown my sorrows in some other, more civilized country that actually holds its government accountable to their laws -- and I won't be doing it in the company of any gloating right-wingers, thank you very much. I've had it with the entire miserable, uppity tribe of them. pfeh.

If that Fitzgerald idiot doesn't bring an idictment against someone -- after all this time, effort, expense and publicity ("leak-proof", my ass) -- I'll be looking to drown my sorrows in some other, more civilized country that actually holds its government accountable to their laws -- and I won't be doing it in the company of any gloating right-wingers, thank you very much. I've had it with the entire miserable, uppity tribe of them. pfeh.

Don't worry - I never gloat when I drink.

And if a low orbiting satalite crashes on the courtroom I'll buy the drinks. Have to be prepared for anything you know.
Okay, I'll take that date. :D

Dude, Clinton lied about THE SEX. That was the real crime. Things like treason, corruption, and conspiracy to commit murder...those are water off a GOoPer's back.

Dude, Clinton lied about THE SEX. That was the real crime. Things like treason, corruption, and conspiracy to commit murder...those are water off a GOoPer's back.

Treason? Are you familiar with the definition of treason?

Nothing anyone has done up there could even remotely be construed as treason.

Dude, Clinton lied about THE SEX. That was the real crime. Things like treason, corruption, and conspiracy to commit murder...those are water off a GOoPer's back.

Hmm. I'm one of those who is convinced that Vince Foster was killed - at the orders of Hillary Clinton.

Is there any reason why she ORDERED the FBI agents out of Foster's office, and then cleaned the office out of anything related to her - and THEN they were allowed back in to investigate? And the FBI was NEVER given any record of what she took?

It's called interfering with a crime scene - potentially obstruction of justice - in a murder (they call it suicide) that will never be solved.

Vince was an anti-gun man from an anti-gun family. Suddenly he turns out to own a "sterile" gun - that is, a pistol without a serial number - which are hard to come by, since they have to be manufactured before 1934. Very, very hard to come by. In fact, finding one like that is a sign of a professional hit - an untraceable gun.

Who have the Republicans murdered in similar fashion? Any recent Republican "suicides"?

I'm sure if Bush's lawyer killer herself, and you heard that he sent Laura over there to clean out Mier's office, you would smell conspiracy.

Treason? Are you familiar with the definition of treason?

Nothing anyone has done up there could even remotely be construed as treason.
If you say so :).

Hmm. I'm one of those who is convinced that Vince Foster was killed - at the orders of Hillary Clinton.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember President Clinton being put on trial for that offense. The rest of your material is fascinating, in a tinfoil-hat kind of way, but not relavent to the current discussion.

If that Fitzgerald idiot doesn't bring an idictment against someone -- after all this time, effort, expense and publicity ("leak-proof", my ass) -- I'll be looking to drown my sorrows in some other, more civilized country that actually holds its government accountable to their laws -- and I won't be doing it in the company of any gloating right-wingers, thank you very much. I've had it with the entire miserable, uppity tribe of them. pfeh.
if fitzgerald doesnt bring indictments against anyone i will feel sure that there is nothing to indict anyone on. he is investigating a specific crime with specific parameters, if the evidence doesnt show that this crime was committed then why should anyone be indicted?

im very much hoping that rove and libby get indicted if only just to see if bush will follow through with his statement that he would fire anyone indicted in this mess.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember President Clinton being put on trial for that offense. The rest of your material is fascinating, in a tinfoil-hat kind of way, but not relavent to the current discussion.

It's not a tinfoil hat notion that Hillary cleaned out the office and refused to let FBI agents in the room until she was done.

If you're the one who brings up the concept of murder in the White House, I suggest that you bring up the most recent one. It's relevant if you brought up murder.

If you say so :).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Read it yourself - they would have to levy war against the US.

Or give aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.

Do you have any evidence that this has taken place, live, in front of multiple witnesses?

If not, then there's no treason. You'll find that it is beyond the power of you, or anyone else in the US, to stretch the meaning of treason to suit them.

Ah, so Clinton was guilty of treason because of a RUMOR he traded secrets with the Chinese (I never saw any proof of that, aside from ravings from freepers,) but Cheney, Rove, etc. are perfectly innocent...even though they're being heavily investigated for a treasonous act.
First of all, cheney isn't involved. For that matter I doubt Rove was the source of the leak either. It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially if all Fitzgerald manages to turn up with this entire investigation is a perjury charge. Biiig difference between this and the clinton case, since the clinton one was meant to get Clinton to admit he was cheating on his wife in public, with the perjury charge just being a juicy bonus. The point of this case however, was to charge someone with the crime of outing a member of the CIA, and if all they have to fall back on is a perjury charge it's going to make Fitzgerald look rather sad.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/24.html

Read it yourself - they would have to levy war against the US.

Or give aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.

Do you have any evidence that this has taken place, live, in front of multiple witnesses?

If not, then there's no treason. You'll find that it is beyond the power of you, or anyone else in the US, to stretch the meaning of treason to suit them.


Hey, there's people here who say that those who simply state their oposition to the war are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

That is the joy of such a loose legal description - it is pretty well undefined.

When I compare that to blowing the cover of an agent working in the field of middle eastern WMD during a war ostensibly started to combat middle eastern WMD, and also blow the cover of the CIA front operation under which she and other agents operated - then I think you have to say that you have given aid to your enemies by damaging your ability to gather intel about them.


I have also heard report that at least one new anonymous star went up on the wall at Langley. Now I am certainly NOT claiming that the issues are related.

But just to go to the logical next step of what MIGHT happen when a cover is blown, if it were to ever come out that an american agent had died as a result of this smear campaign for simple political gain - how would Joe Average American feel about that do you think?



All I know is that in WWII if someone had blown the cover of an OSS agent and entire operation - that person would probably have been taken out and shot.

You're forgetting something. Democrats also voted party line on Clinton. So it was OK for him to do perjury in their eyes. And I bet in their eyes, it's not OK for Republicans to do it.

Same same.

Not the same. Impeachment is different than prosecution. Clinton wasn't prosecuted for perjury or any other crime.

You assume that Democrats that voted not to impeach though Clinton was guilty of perjury but that was OK.

In actuality, most thought (a) he wasn't guilty of perjury at all and/or (b) he wasn't guilty of an impeachable offense (i.e., lying about a blowjob isn't impeachable behavior).

Senator Hutchinson is saying perjury isn't even really a crime worth prosecuting at all.

Pretty big difference.

It's not a tinfoil hat notion that Hillary cleaned out the office and refused to let FBI agents in the room until she was done.

If you're the one who brings up the concept of murder in the White House, I suggest that you bring up the most recent one. It's relevant if you brought up murder.

*sigh*

Not only is the hat tinfoil, it is way too tight.

Hey, there's people here who say that those who simply state their oposition to the war are giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

That is the joy of such a loose legal description - it is pretty well undefined.


The people who say that are not lawyers - it's not as loose as you say, and neither is it undefined. You should read the article more closely.

It seems to have been designed to make it as difficult as possible to put someone into that box - and to make it as difficult as possible for people to stretch the meaning.

Case in point - many people think Jane Fonda or John Walker (the Kid Taliban) committed treason.

But they didn't. Doesn't fit the definition.

Outing an agent doesn't count, either. You would have to prove that they did it with the specific intent of helping a specific enemy. And, you would have to have multiple concurrent live witnesses to each specific act - probably impossible in this case.

We can add that since the NYT has now attacked the credibility of Judith Miller, and we know her record on truthful reporting so far, one might wonder what kind of a truthful witness she might make.

First of all, cheney isn't involved. For that matter I doubt Rove was the source of the leak either. It'll be interesting to see what happens, especially if all Fitzgerald manages to turn up with this entire investigation is a perjury charge. Biiig difference between this and the clinton case, since the clinton one was meant to get Clinton to admit he was cheating on his wife in public, with the perjury charge just being a juicy bonus. The point of this case however, was to charge someone with the crime of outing a member of the CIA, and if all they have to fall back on is a perjury charge it's going to make Fitzgerald look rather sad.

Nice try, but you trip on the facts.

Special prosecutor Ken Starr was supposed to look into WHITEWATER. He went well outside his authority in later looking at after-the-fact "crimes" in an unrelated case (i.e., alleged perjury in the Paula Jones civil suit).

Here, Fitzgerald is investigating the leak and any perjury would be directly to the grand jury investigating that matter.

You are counting your chickens before they hatch AND ignoring the rotten eggs why you do so.

*sigh*

Not only is the hat tinfoil, it is way too tight.

You're saying that Hillary never ordered the FBI out of Vince Foster's office?

You're the one who has been unconscious throughout the 1990s.

The point of this case however, was to charge someone with the crime of outing a member of the CIA, and if all they have to fall back on is a perjury charge it's going to make Fitzgerald look rather sad.


No offence, but this job was assigned to Fitzgerald. He didn't start it himself nor has he attempted to milk it for personal fame like Ken Starr did. So far I have been quite impressed by the seemingly unbiased and professional manner in which this investigation has been carried out.


And if it turns out that there is nothing to charge on this matter after a full and complete investigation, then it should not reflect baddly on him at all - asuming that he did his job honestly, vigourously, and to the best of his ability.




Oh yes, and if that is the case then you will also get to hear the wail of millions of Demcrats crying in their beers (or lattes).... which I'm sure will absolutely tickle the hell out of a lot of people 'round here

The people who say that are not lawyers - it's not as loose as you say, and neither is it undefined. You should read the article more closely.

It seems to have been designed to make it as difficult as possible to put someone into that box - and to make it as difficult as possible for people to stretch the meaning.

Case in point - many people think Jane Fonda or John Walker (the Kid Taliban) committed treason.

But they didn't. Doesn't fit the definition.

Outing an agent doesn't count, either. You would have to prove that they did it with the specific intent of helping a specific enemy. And, you would have to have multiple concurrent live witnesses to each specific act - probably impossible in this case.

We can add that since the NYT has now attacked the credibility of Judith Miller, and we know her record on truthful reporting so far, one might wonder what kind of a truthful witness she might make.

Sierra and I have tried to explain this about treason before. It is a label thrown around too easily.

On the other hand, whether or not someone here committed treason does not mean they did not committ serious wrongs against our Republic and endanger our national secuirty in so doing.

Sierra and I have tried to explain this about treason before. It is a label thrown around too easily.

On the other hand, whether or not someone here committed treason does not mean they did not committ serious wrongs against our Republic and endanger our national secuirty in so doing.

Violation of the Espionage Act and conspiring to obstruct justice sounds more valid to me.

Of course, I'd nail Judith Miller as well. She had a security clearance. And even if they told her something, they could cover their asses with the security clearance. The fact that she then relayed that information into the public would be the Espionage Act violation.

And if the aides did anything that could be construed as obstruction, and there are at least two of them, you have them for obstruction, but not for the Espionage Act violation (since they only transferred the information to someone else with a clearance).

Of all of them, she's the one with the most potential jail time. The rest of her life, if she's not careful.

Just curious, but whatever happened to Douchebag Novak in all this?


I mean - he WAS the one that broke the story. Others like Ms Liar-liar-pants-on-fire only chimed in after it was out there.



I have this theory that the Whitehouse was pushing that story on their partisan hacks in the expectation that they would all be smart enough NOT to print it, but that it discredited Wilson enough that these people would be inspired to write their best slander against him in order to play down any damage from his statements.

I mean, the Washington Press has lived on insider knowledge forever since the days long before when they all knew Kennedy was boffing Marilyn but no-one said anything. Trading secrets is their favourite pastime.


Then along came Big Bobby Butthead who couldn't keep it to himself, and the poop hit the rotating blades from there....


Because it seems like this was a pretty open secret that Libby 'n Rove had been passing around to a lot of people for a pretty long time (in news terms) before it hit the front page.

Just curious, but whatever happened to Douchebag Novak in all this?

I mean - he WAS the one that broke the story. Others like Ms Liar-liar-pants-on-fire only chimed in after it was out there.


Novak didn't even appear before the grand jury, did he?

There's a golden horseshoe up his ass that prevents harm.

No offence, but this job was assigned to Fitzgerald. He didn't start it himself nor has he attempted to milk it for personal fame like Ken Starr did. So far I have been quite impressed by the seemingly unbiased and professional manner in which this investigation has been carried out.

I never said he did start it himself or tried to milk it, but if the only charge he makes is one of perjury, than that's rather sad. If he either makes other charges or no charges it's a different matter entirely.

Novak apparently DID testify before the grand jury, only nobody knew about it when it happened, and to this day, no one is sure just when he did testify. How come he gets off with a quiet slip in and out of court, while Miller and Cooper got all that coverage? Hmmm...

Novak apparently DID testify before the grand jury, only nobody knew about it when it happened, and to this day, no one is sure just when he did testify. How come he gets off with a quiet slip in and out of court, while Miller and Cooper got all that coverage? Hmmm...

Because he bent over without a murmur and spilled his guts.

Violation of the Espionage Act and conspiring to obstruct justice sounds more valid to me.

Of course, I'd nail Judith Miller as well. She had a security clearance. And even if they told her something, they could cover their asses with the security clearance. The fact that she then relayed that information into the public would be the Espionage Act violation.

And if the aides did anything that could be construed as obstruction, and there are at least two of them, you have them for obstruction, but not for the Espionage Act violation (since they only transferred the information to someone else with a clearance).

Of all of them, she's the one with the most potential jail time. The rest of her life, if she's not careful.
Now I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Miller was the only one of the three reporters who didn't write a story on the mater. With Novak(sp) being the one that broke the story and the other guy write a peice on it after the cat was out of the bag. So how exactly did Miller violate the Espionage Act?

Now I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Miller was the only one of the three reporters who didn't write a story on the mater. With Novak(sp) being the one that broke the story and the other guy write a peice on it after the cat was out of the bag. So how exactly did Miller violate the Espionage Act?

Because the Republican blame apparatus is trying to make Miller into the fall-guy. The Espionage act doesn't require that the information be published, just spread around. So, if Miller was the original source and she then told Libby and Rove and Cooper and Novak, she's the one in violation.

And then the right can point to the evil liberal press as the root of all evil. Miller goes away for 10 years and eventually get's a made for TV movie on Lifetime about her time in prison, starring Jo from The Facts of Life.

Because he bent over without a murmur and spilled his guts.
I can't wait to find out precisely what he spilled and about whom.

Now I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Miller was the only one of the three reporters who didn't write a story on the mater. With Novak(sp) being the one that broke the story and the other guy write a peice on it after the cat was out of the bag. So how exactly did Miller violate the Espionage Act?
Miller did not violate the Espionage Act. Whoever leaked the classified information did, and a prosecutor would argue that whoever published/broadcast the classified information (Novak) also did. Miller did not. Miller was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to testify about her source -- Scooter Libby. Interesting that later we found out that Libby had written to Miller while she was in jail, telling her to go ahead and testify, with the seeming proviso that her testimony would agree with earlier statements by other, un-named people who Libby claimed exonerated him. This happened some time before she actually testified. Nothing about this story makes any sense, unless there is a connection that Fitzgerald sees, that none of us can see. I think that's pretty likely, don't you all?

Considering how mum Fitzgerald's office has been throughout, I think the only thing we can conclude is that he has a whole lot up his sleeve that most of us have no idea about.

I predict at least one WTF? indictment or revelation to come out soon.

Considering how mum Fitzgerald's office has been throughout, I think the only thing we can conclude is that he has a whole lot up his sleeve that most of us have no idea about.

I predict at least one WTF? indictment or revelation to come out soon.
That would be pretty cool if only to see the reactions.