Novak Named Names! - Jim Lehrer Newshour {ALSO COVERING GANNON}

[Stephanie]

Are you watching? Commentator says Novak has testified and gave the name of the WH official who leaked Plame's name. Saying if the leaker didn't know he was committing a crime then it wasn't a crime, and if she wasn't operating undercover at that time, then it wasn't a crime. And that Fitzgerald is looking for corroboration from other reporters to get better charges.

*edit* Saying that Gannon was associated with gay escort service. Saying the regulations are very vague, and so McClellan was right in what he said.



WHOO this guy just SPINS, SPINS, SPINS



*edit* found his name:

Media Watch

Correspondent Terence Smith discusses recent media controversies, including the contempt citations for two journalists in the CIA leak investigation and the latest news on James Guckert/Jeff Gannon, the former White House reporter for Talon News and GOPUSA

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html

[Radical Activist]

1. Would he really do that?

What about all that protecting sources stuff? Will that destroy Novak's career? Maybe it doesn't matter as much since he is a columnist but not a journalist. I hope this is true and that the names are eventually revealed.

[whistle]

10. Novak is into protecting sources until it's his ass, then he...

...protects that it seems. His ass is going to the slammer for a long time!

[Dookus]

119. Novak's not going to jail

If he cooperated with the grand jury, there's nothing to jail him for. He didn't break any laws.

[TWiley]

126. Novak is a Republican. Of course he would name names.

In general, repubbies love to rape, pillage, and kill; that is unless they are the one getting it.

I am not surprised that a spokesman for the "morally superior crowd" would spin 180 degrees on his convictions in order to save his own ass.

[wtmusic]

2. Ignorance is No Excuse

Can we put a burning tire around his neck and be done with it?

[Salviati]

8. Yeah, what a moran...

ignorance of the law does not make it not a crime...

[SmokingJacket]

56. Such BS... he knew exactly what he was doing. nt

[Julian English]

113. No, we cannot put a burning tire around his neck

First, we would have trouble finding one that would fit.

[xray s]

3. ha! tell it to the judge!

"... if the leaker didn't know he was committing a crime then it wasn't a crime". What planet is Novak living on???

[MissWaverly]

55. that's what every criminal says

What they really don't get is there is an established legal code in this country that is not based on executive privilege.

[elehhhhna]

148. THANK YOU!

"Saying if the leaker didn't know he was committing a crime then it wasn't a crime, and if she wasn't operating undercover at that time, then it wasn't a crime."

Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense. The second part of the argument is even MORE ridiculous. So...if the story ran on a Sunday, when she was officially off the clock, it doesn't count? Hello?!!

Cripes, they have better security for their agents on "Alias".

It has been alleged that up to 70-plus of her "assets" were Liquidated" after her outing. In people-speak that means 70-some human beings were assasinated because of their ties to her. Where's the MSM on that story? It's freakin' un-spinnable, so they just fail to report it altogether.

[Sanity Claws]

4. Bullshit

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The question is whether he intended to leak the name, not whether he intended to break the law.

[cthrumatrix]

6. bingo.....

[Gabi Hayes]

23. actually, in this particular case, ignorance that the person is an agent

IS an excuse. it's been gone over myriad times here: the reporter is not criminally liable for releasing the name, and the source is NOT criminally liable, either, unless he/she knows that the person is a CIA agent. the burden of proof of knowledge lies on the state, and you can be sure that 'the state' has little interest in proving said foreknowledge

that's why this is going to go absolutely nowhere

[FiveGoodMen]

28. How can you out someone as a CIA agent...

...without knowing that they're a CIA agent?

[Generator]

54. That's what I want to know

No one has answered your question.

What's the point of it if she's not uncover and it would do her no harm? Ah ha-of course it would do her harm. They are splitting hairs now about if "someone" new she was undercover or as in the last post that she must have been overseas in the last five years. Whatever. If the point was to "out her" then either EVERYTHING Wilson says is false- or the other side is lying.

Guess who is easier to believe.

It ain't the liars.

Quick FAQ:

This administration lies about everything.

[Igel]

157. You can out someone as a CIA agent, if you

don't know that they're "covert" or if you don't know that the government is taking steps to keep their identity secret.

In this case, the reason Plame was outed is that it was alleged that as a CIA analyst, she was in a position to recommend her husband. Her employment at the CIA is the issue, not her covert status. So it's plausible that an administration employee could be innocent of outing Plame under the law if s/he knew she was an analyst, but either didn't know that she had covert status or that her covert status was still being actively maintained.

Plausible, however, doesn't mean necessarily true.

[izzybeans]

164. Anyone who knows a covert agent knows they're a covert agent n/t

[Igel]

166. In this case it's fuzzy (unless I'm just overlooking sarcasm).

She had been a covert field agent. But then she apparently worked for a few years as an analyst in Langley, not as a covert agent, just as an analyst. It was her place in Langley that would have given her access to the policymakers, the theory goes. Not her covert status.

It's apparently not uncommon for agents to go from covert field work to ambiguous desk job.

In any event, it still seems plausible for someone to know Plame had been a covert agent, was an analyst, and not realize that she was still a covert agent. Esp. if her desk assignment occurred before the leaker came on board.

Plausible, still not necessarily true.

[izzybeans]

167. I didn't mean to sound sarcastic.

I just think, referencing Novak's original column, that if she was at the time an operative working on wmd's then they knew exactly what her role was at the time.

I don't hold any hopes that anything productive will come out of this though. I suppose your use of the word plausible will come into play quite abit even though everyone in that courtroom (if it goes that far) will no its a big load. Shred the smoking gun, so to speak, shred the undeniably obvious.

[papau]

32. I agree - ignorance IS an excuse for this one law - but while legal case

may be easily screwed up if Bush wants to protect someone, I suspect the political case may have legs-

unless the media is owned by the RW GOP - or the media acts like they are owned by the RW GOP.

[tsuki]

34. BUT, the leaker is criminally liable.

[Sanity Claws]

36. I thought we were presuming that the leaker did know that

Plame was a CIA agent. That was what Novak published, right? I agree that if the person did not know the agent was an agent, then he would not be criminally responsible.

[EFerrari]

51. Then, why did s/he call Novak?

"I want to tell you something that everyone knows, Valerie is CIA."

[MissWaverly]

58. agree with you

what would be the point of this, which was seen as revenge for Wilson
statement's if they did not know, I really think that they realize that they are legally in trouble, why else, would they spend almost 2 years trying to bury this and plant Gannon, if there was no legal culpability on their part.

[Kber]

141. If the leaker didn't know she was an agent

then how in hell did s/he tell Novak that she was an agent? That makes not sense!

[Rebellious Republican]

42. Here's the relevant portion of Novak's column:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

So claiming ignorance is not possible, it is clearly stated that "Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative".

Hence someone knew! DA!

[Straight Shooter]

53. To my understanding, the word "operative" has specific meaning

Novak knew what he was doing when he published his article. The leaker knew what he/she was doing when the leak was given to Novak.

Say, has anyone seen Karen Hughes lately?

[Rebellious Republican]

82. Absolutely, here ya go..............

here are the dictionary definitions of key words.............

Central Intelligence Agency
http://www.answers.com/cia&r=67



A secret agent; a spy.
http://www.answers.com/operative&r=67

[Straight Shooter]

109. Thanks, Rebellious Republican, you're pulling the rug out from under Novak

:thumbsup:

[slutticus]

5. Who's the commentator?

[Stephanie]

18. Don't know his name - regular Newshour reporter -

Older guy.

[TomClash]

137. Terrence Smith

he used to write for NYT

[Goldeneye]

7. Holy Crap!

So presumably we will find out who the leaker was, or at least who is taking the fall for the leak??

[cthrumatrix]

9. unless WWW III breaks out.................

[AZCat]

15. Breaking: US Invades Iran! (More after this commercial for Raytheon)

J/K!

[kohodog]

60. Today NPR had 1 hr on Gannon and 1hr on Miller/Cooper (Plame)

I was listening on Sirius so I think they we're today's shows.

Gannon part was decent, but they aren't really quite sure how this story really fits in to the greater scheme. Pretty much they avoided the gay prostitute issue and mostly focused on the access issue. To me this whole thing has more to do with the propaganda/media control issue and lack of a "forth estate" that can help keep things in check, and they never really went there. Mostly it seemed like a recap of the story and lack of coverage in MSM, but stayed away from why his presence and this type of propaganda is dangerous to our republic.

The journalists' being sent to jail for not giving up sources was more interesting. Judith Miller seemed a bit shrill. Their lawyer, named the top 1st amendment lawyer in the country, had some valid points, but it seems like the precedents will mean that they will have to talk or go to jail. Personally, in this case I think they should testify because they weren't protecting a whistle blower, but someone who may have committed treason at a high level. That being said, I don't want this to be the start of a slide down a slippery slide where Gonzalez can decide they if they don't think they should give up sources he'll just send them to Libya for a while and see what they have to say. If Novak did talk (and the coward probably doesn't need much arm twisting), Fitzgerald probably is looking for corroboration and I hope he gets it. It's time for some of the slime bags in this Administration to take a hit.

[KoKo]

114. Thanks for that report on NPR's Day Coverage. I didn't think they would

cover either of those stories...so that's interesting. And both on the same day? Hmmmm wonder what's up with that.

[Gabi Hayes]

121. I heard most of the one hour show on Gannon, via Sirius

Eric Boehlert, a guy from Media Matters, and an apologist from CJR, of all places

it was quite good, except they didn't mention Gannon's South Dakota perfidy

the show was out of Philadelphia; WKYY, I think

they mentioned several times how ABC/CBS/LaTimes, other media outlets have had ZERO mention of it

[mzmolly]

73. Colin Powel? Ashcroft? They're already gone, so I wonder .....

.......

[H2O Man]

78. Assuming that Wilson was right

when he recently said that he expects indictments to be issued, then I think we need to look to the Watergate model: the White House will try to create a "fire wall" to protect the v.p. and president. It will take one or two trials to really open the scandal up. Weasels get nervous when they are asked to "fall on the sword" when jail time is mentioned. The only deal a crook can make is to point fingers at those "higher up" in the chain of command.

[AZCat]

11. The little Dutch boy is finally being overwhelmed

Leak you frickin' dike, leak!

[paineinthearse]

12. Ignorance of the law is not a defense

Besides, aren't 99% of all WH staffers lawyers?

:wtf:

[aquart]

49. Wasn't this law signed under Reagan?

You're telling me Republicans don't know their own laws?

For shame.

[Kansas Wyatt]

95. George H. W. Bush called those who leaked CIA ops...

"Insidious traitors"

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. That's not spinning..that's trying to cover your ass with both hands

[EFerrari]

14. WHAT PROGRAM? I'VE 4 PBS CHANNELS

[Stephanie]

19. Jim Lehrer Newshour

[EFerrari]

20. Thanks, Stepanie! It's on later out here in CA. Can't wait.

[Goldeneye]

16. Now throw in Gannon

Is the timing of this weird? Is this meant to get us to stop digging? Novaks been holding onto this forever...

[EFerrari]

30. Interesting idea

It may also be simply the lowest-cost moment to Novak BECAUSE so much is directed away from him/Plame case.

[EVDebs]

68. Novak himself via Operation Mockingbird may be technically a

CIA 'asset' if he did media favors for the 'company' thru Operation Mockingbird, which has made a mockery of the free press as long as the CIA controls it !

[tsuki]

138. If this is true, then he has no cover. He is criminally liable. My

father was trained in "special weapons" in the fifties. He was told he and his family was covered by the secrets act for any information until his death.

[EVDebs]

143. Which is why pulling the Operation Mockingbird thread is so

important for the Dems ! BTW, things get even diceier if Gannon/Guckert has existing military ... 'active duty'. Domestic military psy-ops stuff would ba a major no-no, as that didn't go over big during the MLK portion of the Church investigations in the '70's when it was discovered MilitaryIntelligenceGroups across the country were in on tailing and recording MLK.

Makes you wonder what else they were doing back then...

[Skip Intro]

17. Ignorance of the law is no excuse

as if anyone connected to this wh gives a flying f*** about laws.

[whistle]

21. So, who is the 'she' Novak is referring to....Plame? It doesn't....

...matter, he put her in danger, it is conspiracy to murder, that is a feloney!

[illflem]

22. If Novak really felt it was no crime

why the hell did he wait so long to reveal the name?
Several million dollars of taxpayer funded investigation later.

[Somawas]

24. Novak was actually drawn by Gahan Wilson.

I have no other explanation of how the creepy little toad has lasted so long.

[no_vote_no_count]

25. ..."I'm sorry, Judge"

I didn't know it was against the law----I was just borrowing that money, honest....I was going to return it. I asked her nicely for the money, but she wouldn't give it to me until I showed her my gun. It's ok, isn't it? I didn't know it was a crime to point your gun at a bank teller, for chrissakes.

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. Tell it to the judge

Nofacts.

Next time I get a speeding ticket, I'd like to try the Nofacts defense. But gee officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 35 miles per hour.

[Gabi Hayes]

27. Ignorance of the fact that Plame was CIA, unfortunately, IS a

defense.

that's well-established law

and it's not a crime for Novak to name her, either.

the crime exists ONLY if the leaker KNOWS that the person is an agent.

this has been discussed over and over and over right here

[Salviati]

33. If the leaker didn't know she was an agent...

they why would they leak her name?

[Gabi Hayes]

40. easy.....spread rumors....say you heard it from somebody else, but

can't remember who it was

[Me.]

92. Yes But When Vakula

contacted the CIA to verify the story, he was asked, pointedly, not to print it. He did so anyway, so clearly he knew what he was doing, which is probably why he "made a deal" (as has been said elsewhere here) and sang like a canary.

[CindyDale]

35. How can you leak something you don't know?

I remember hearing about this before, but I don't remember now.

[Gabi Hayes]

39. you can throw out names, but the government has to prove, somehow,

that the leaker actually knew for sure that the agent was an agent. It could just be a matter of gossip: ''say, Novak, I heard, on pretty good authority, that this Plame woman is CIA.''

the leaker gets away with it for spreading malicious gossip!

[MUSTANG_2004]

44. And not just that he knew she was CIA,

but that she was an undercover agent.

[Gabi Hayes]

46. is it the undercover part, too? I'm not sure about that

do embassy, ''state department,'' employees count as undercover.

it's common knowledge that a great number of them are spies

anybody have old links on this, as it was covered in some detail.

[autorank]

59. Hi there Gabi, Novak named the front company she worked for.

If you think that this prosecutor is going to look like a clown, look at his history. She was named, he'll find someone who said that the leaker knew, and Novak obviously knew since he names her front company, which CLEARLY indicates a deep cover operation.

This is going to get ugly for the WH and Novak.

If Fitzgerald wants to go to the Bad-Ass Lawyer Hall of Fame, he'll indite somebody for treason and ask for capital punishment.

We are a nation of multiple competing power structures. One instance where justice can ensue in this country occurs as follows: one faction commits a crime and an opposing faction sees the opportunity to attack under the imprimatur of the law.

This will rock the WH's world!

[AZCat]

63. Treason's the only crime...

where the death penalty is mentioned as punishment in the Constitution, right?

:displays_shocking_ignorance_of_Constitution:

[autorank]

72. US Constitution

" Sect. 3.

1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in
levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason
unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or
on confession in open court.

2. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of
treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of
blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person
attained."

[AZCat]

76. I might need some help with that...

I looked up "attainder" - it means (from www.dictionary.com) "In the ancient common law, the state of an offender who had been sentenced for a capital offense."

But I can't make sense of the rest of the section - what do they mean by "work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attained."


Apologies for thick-headedness.

[autorank]

91. No appologies needed (haha)

I just tossed it out there since I suspected you'd know what it means. The "blood" part is interesting, to say the least. The operative part is that "The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of
treason..." Well, I'm pretty sure the current punishment is termination with extreme prejudice. I saw some legal hacks talking about this case and they said, 'oh, they'd never charge treason since its a capital crime.' I'd favor fitzgerald for the Supreme Court if he has enough guts to make this one stick (if it is a fair charge, my hedge here).

[AZCat]

98. Ah - many thanks!

While watching this is agonizing - the pace is killing me - it seems to raise some interesting questions that I will enjoy seeing answered (hopefully), especially if Fitzgerald does go for treason.

Seeing Bush&Co. sweating for their crimes won't hurt a bit either.

[TacticalPeek]

102. Blood here means no punishment of the kids for the parent's sin.

"CORRUPTION OF BLOOD - English Crim. Law. The incapacity to inherit, or pass an inheritance, in consequence of an attainder to which the party has been subject

When this consequence flows from an attainder, the party is stripped of all honors and dignities he possessed, and becomes ignoble."

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c315.htm



Unless like GHWB and GWB, there are separate offenses.

[me b zola]

94. I absolutely love your thinking on this!

Alas, a sweet dream that I can sleep on tonight.

[Rebellious Republican]

45. See post # 42 N/T

[Gabi Hayes]

48. see post 47....btw I really HATE the way the law always seems

to favor the pugs, both in the writing, and, especially practice, and nothing would make me happier than to see our government to do both Novak AND JMiller what they did to that poor kid in Alexandria, VA:

send them both to Saudi Arabia, whip em and tear their fingernails out

I mean that in a nice way

[Rebellious Republican]

79. see post # 70, BTW, I served in the Navy, worked in the intell

community, I carried a secret clearance for ten years.

Prior to my departure, I was debriefed on the laws regarding what I could talk about and what I could not talk about, and for how long.

I am sure there are others here that carried either a classified, secret or top secret clearance that have been through the same debriefing as me and can confirm that we all are required to go through it when we leave active duty.

[girl gone mad]

62. Here is the actual law, as written:

rotection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


Sec. 426 (*)

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;

If the leaker has security clearance, then I doubt very much that they can use a "gossip" defense.

The only question is whether Plame was covert, and those closest to her seem to think the answer is "yes".

[rman]

111. You mean high placed officials can get away with anything,

just by claiming ignorance?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work like that for civilians.

[rman]

110. Wasn't Plame's CIA status part of the leak?

If not, then what was the leak? Was is just "Wilson's wife is Valery Plame"? That'd hardly be a leak, would it.

[fooj]

115. "...but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative..."

Pretty hard to claim "ignorance" when it's written in your own column.

[Gabi Hayes]

122. not ignorance, really, and it's on the part of the leaker, NOT leakee

see the posts here on the law; has to do with status of assets, whether they're operating undercover/outside US/within five years, etc.

[yodermon]

117. Isn't that for a trial jury to decide?

Why does a Grand Jury have to demonstrate the state of mind of the leaker? Isn't it up to the Prosecution in a trial to demonstrate that s/he knowingly leaked Plame's name, and up to the Defense to demonstrate that it was done unwittingly?

Indictments are what we are after here. Leave that cart behind the horse where it belongs.

[Gabi Hayes]

123. good point, but I wonder why they're taking so long, if the ham sandwich

is laying there, ready to be indicted

I have little faith in anything connected to the junta, including any appointments made (ie Fitzgerald, despite the faith others put in him)

[Warren Stupidity]

129. well despite the repeated discussion

I'm missing the part where you can leak that so-and-so is a covert cia agent without knowing that so-and-so is a covert cia agent.

[tsuki]

139. It is a crime if he was ever an operative of the CIA.

[politicaholic]

29. "Sorry officer, I forgot marijuana was illegal." -Steve Martin-

[MUSTANG_2004]

43. Not that, but if

you were found with marijuana but could show that you thought it was a bag of dried parsley, you wouldn't be guilty of a crime. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but to be convicted it has to be shown that you knew you were doing the act in question.

To be guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent, you have to know that the person is an undercover CIA agent.

[seventythree]

100. self deleted

shoddy thinking

[randr]

31. Want to bet that Novak gave out a name the WH wanted out?

[girl gone mad]

37. So does that mean Judith Miller won't go to jail?

If so, a pity.

edit: typo. My hands are too cold to type properly. :)

[eleny]

38. Sociopathic ignorance of the law is no excuse

Only those so afflicted really and truly believe their ownw bs. Someone else here put it so well - take it to the judge.

[Me.]

41. Of Course They Knew

They just didn't care or think they'd get caught. They had an agenda to push forward and nothing was going to stop them from "doing a work-up" on Joe Wilson.

[seventythree]

101. I thought this was interesting

WASHINGTON -- A transcript subpoenaed in the CIA leak investigation reveals the White House media operation began efforts to personally discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson days before a columnist blew the cover of his CIA-officer wife.
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/7/3795 from March 2004

WH media operation??????? Jimmy/Jeff?

[Me.]

105. Exactly!

Cheney's office and Rove using leaks to journalists to forward an agenda. Post # 61 gives the history of Vakula's role as the go to boy for WH pugs who wanted press infiltration.

[Jose Diablo]

154. Yep, there it is

Let's put it together.

We have Cheney, by nature of his visits to Langley to drum-up support for WMD for the run-up to the Iraq war, finding out a 'sting' about to go down on illegal sales of nuke material by Halliburton to Pakistan. OK, he was the CEO of Halliburton at time of the violations of law. He is culpable for that crime. The 'sting' must be stopped. Who else but Cheney would be in a position to know what Plame was up to?

Next we have Rove, seeing that Bu$h's lies about Iraq trying to get yellowcake is being blown open by Wilson. The forgeries of documents supporting the claim of Iraq's trying to obtain yellowcake came from Office of Special Planning (OSP) which was set-up (in a McNamarra tradition) by who else, but Rumsfield and Chalabi, the then current favorite son to inherit a post war Iraq.

And then we see the WH press using Gannon, Novak, Miller (the propaganda shills) to stop Wilson and derail the Plame 'sting'.

And in the center of all this, we are supposed to think Bu$h himself didn't know what his underlings were doing? I think not, Bu$h knew and had to give the OK.

If ever there was cold murder for profit, this is it. These people deserve to swing from a rope at Leavenworth.

Sounds like treason to me. We are at war, right? Makes me wonder who are the real enemies of our country?

[Stephanie]

155. Wow - that's a great summary and I was unaware of the Halliburton sting

Plame was working on this Halliburton case? Cheney would be criminally liable? NOW we're getting somewhere. How did I miss this angle?

[Jose Diablo]

156. Cheney, Halliburton, sales of Nukes to Pakistan

leads are from those very long Plame Threads running 6 months or so back.

There are linkages supporting a 'sting' about to go down.

I also wonder about Tennet. I kinda think he was the one setting Cheney and the rest for a big fall. Of all the bums in this administration, I am thinking Tennet may be the only patriot among them.

Edit: I think Pallas or H20 have the details on that.

[Me.]

159. And One Wonder What The Status Of The French Case

against Cheney/Halibuton for selling components of WMDs is? Not a peep about that in months.

[Gabi Hayes]

47. ICK....I do it because I love....holding nose....Newsmax!

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/2/22/120736.shtml

the hideous Victoria Toensing, no less...now going for a steambath

Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.


Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."
For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

[Me.]

52. How Does Toensing Know

If it was classified and secret, what V. Plame was doing in the last five years? The repug shill Toensing is just doing her usual dis-info schtick here. Even Fein doesn't agree with her.

[TomClash]

128. And why would the CIA call for an investigation

if Plame did not fit the definition of covert? They had to run this by the CIA GC's office and the Operations Directorate before they made the claim.

[Me.]

160. Exactly!

and as been said before the CIA asked Vakula not to print the info. Why, if it was "common" knowledge, would they do that? Also, the dummy company set up for the sting against those selling WMD components, which cost millions of dollars and was a BIG operation, has also been exposed. And let's not forget the lives lost because of this leak.

[girl gone mad]

57. It hinges on whether...

someone who is stationed in the US but does intelligence work overseas is to be considered as "serving abroad".

It seems at least against the spirit of the law to exclude someone not staioned overseas but doing important intelligence work overseas from protection.

[H2O Man]

67. If I remember correctly ....

this article was the one that took the position that the Miller-Cooper defense team did not make the argument that "no law was broken" in the federal courts because "it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's 'crime of the century' wasn't a crime at all." (I hope I have the right article in mind; Sanford & Toensing's outline has been peddled to a number of outlets, and thus we see variations being printed across the country.)

Thus, they are trying to discredit one of the best constitutional attorneys, with a great background in "freedom of the press" issues, by claiming he would be "embarrassed" to win an important, high-profile case .... easily?

[TomClash]

127. To claim that Floyd Abrams

is not going to argue a defense that would get his client, and her employer, The New York Times, his best client and an institution that made his career, for political reasons, is hilarious and immensely stupid. Victoria Toensing is now Ann Coulter with a law degree.

[grasswire]

69. remember, Toensing (lizard lady)

...and her husband Joseph diGenova and Bruce Fein are ALL members of the Federalist Society.

[Gabi Hayes]

81. yep.....and I loathe the first two beyond imagining

Fein has shown himself recently to have at least some small measure of credibility....can't remember where, but I saw him defending a lib position

somewhere, on videotape, I have the confrontation between Joe and David Brock...the one in which he turns purple in rage, and looks to be having an infarc

[Me.]

93. I Bet You Saw Him On Hardball

He surprised me with his statement that Miller and Cooper didn't have a plausible legal reason not to testify.

[Rebellious Republican]

70. Get your reading glasses on......................

SEC. 304. PROHIBITION ON UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Section 304 is identical to section 303 of the Senate amendment. The House bill had no similar provision. The House recedes.

Unauthorized disclosures of sensitive intelligence information are of great concern. Such disclosures, regardless of whether they involve an intelligence `success' or `failure,' can compromise irreplaceable sources and methods, and in some cases, can directly endanger lives.

The managers note that the current Executive Order governing classified national security information (E.O. 12958) requires that, in order to classify information, the original classifying authority must determine that unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security and the original classification authority must be able to identify or describe the damage. The managers further note that the current Executive Order specifically prohibits the classification of information in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error or to prevent embarrassment to the government.

It is the intent of the managers that the government may meet its burden of proof under this statute by proving that the information was classified under the applicable statute or Executive Order. The government should not be required to prove that damage to the national security actually has or will result from the unauthorized disclosure. Subsection (c)(2) is not intended by the managers to create a defense based on a technical error in the classification markings, or the lack thereof, or to create a right of the defendant to dispute the propriety of the President's classification decision. The managers believe that requiring the government to prove that the classified information is or has been properly classified under an applicable statute or Executive Order strikes the appropriate balance between protecting only that information that would damage the national security if disclosed and not creating a burden of proof that is so great that the government could never meet its burden without having to disclose unnecessarily additional classified information.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&db_id=cp106&r_n=hr969.106&sel=TOC_137731&

(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, unless the original classification authority otherwise determines that the sensitivity of the information requires that it shall be marked for declassification for up to 25 years from the date of the original decision. All information classified under this section shall be subject to section 3.3 of this order if it is contained in records of permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/eoamend.html



Senator Harkin on Leak:
The consequences are much greater than Valerie Plame's job
as a clandestine CIA employee. They include damage to the
lives and livelihoods of many foreign nationals with whom she
was connected, and it has destroyed a clandestine cover
mechanism that may have been used to protect other CIA non-
official covered officers.

Or the words of James Marcinkowski, a former CIA operations officer,
he said:

The deliberate exposure and identification of Ambassador
Wilson's wife by our own Government was unprecedented,
unnecessary, harmful, and dangerous.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, said:

For this administration to run on a security platform and
to allow people in this administration to compromise the
security of intelligence assets I think is unconscionable.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s072004.html

[fooj]

116. Pure and Simple! Beyond bad...

[seventythree]

103. valid points

[EFerrari]

50. What a load

Why would a "leaker" call Novak to tell him something that was already "known", i.e., Plame is CIA & out?

[H2O Man]

61. Another Day in Paradise .....

In December, 2004, journalist Amy Sullivan wrote a good history of Bob Novak called "Bob In Paradise." The article details a couple of things of interest to this discussion: first, that "(f)ormer Nixon campaign aide Herbert Porter testified he leaked to Novak 'on plain bond' Democratic presidential campaign memos obtained in the Watergate break-in," which gives us a historical foundation on what role Bob plays with criminal republican administration activities; and second, that in 1997, our hero Bob relied on information from Robert Hanssen to use to smear A.G. Reno on campaign finances ..... and then "revealed" his confidential source because he felt he had been "used" to undermine Reno. See:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.sullivan.html

[H2O Man]

65. Distorting the truth .....

Expect the MSM to continue to try to discredit Fitzgerald. The following article contains the incorrect assertion that Valerie Plame advocated sending her husband to Niger. It's a lie, and has been documented as 100% false. Yet certain "journalists" with the same moral fiber as Bob Novak and the mysterious Mr. Gannon continue to repeat it.

What is far more interesting is that the article does tell the truth about a major reason for the forcing of Judith Miller's testimony: Fitzgerald appears to have a strong case for perjury involving one of our least favorite White house officials.See:

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/10949239.html

Perjury? What? Is this getting more and more like Watergate, or what?

Expect the administration to come out very strongly to discredit Fitzgerald and all he is doing. Will President Cheney ask Robert Bork to "fire" Fitzgerald?

[NewJeffCT]

84. I have not seen much positive on Fitzgerald...

Except when he was first put on the case, when he got very high praise, of course. Did maybe Ashcroft not know who he hired? I know Ashcroft didn't recommend him, but didn't he have final say? Or, maybe he was vetted by the same folks that vetted Bernie Kerik & Jeff Gannon?

[SmokingJacket]

64. Well, I for one can't wait to see how this turns out!!! nt

[EVDebs]

66. Intelligence Identities Protection Act ... here's the law,,,see if it was

broken http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

The law went into effect in 1982 because of Bush wanting to get Philip Agee...Agee later sued Barbara Bush regarding this I believe and SHE had to reedit her book I think...

[kohodog]

71. Fitzgerald is experienced and wouldn't be pursuing this if it had no merit

Ag's, especially experienced ones don't bring cases to this point if they think it's close to a losing proposition. But he also must want to make the case iron clad or we wouldn't be debating Miller and Cooper. Personally I think he knows who is guilty and wants to dot the Is and cross the T's.

[H2O Man]

74. Very true.

I would add that administrations to not go to great extents to cover-up activities that they are confident did not violate the law.

[Obviousman]

75. kick

[MissWaverly]

77. Thanks for the link just listened to the report

It's a really strange interview, worth a listen, first leads off with how they tried to fish through Judy Miller's private phone logs and were told to bug off by the courts that this was a violation of the first amendment, then the correspondent said that Judy Miller and Matt Cooper thought this victory would help with the other court case, how both Judy Miller and Matt Cooper could face 18 mos. of jail time for not revealing sources. Then Terence Smith said that many people have been asking what is going on with Novak who actually leaked the information. Now apparently neither Fitzgerald who is investigating the Plame leak or
Novak will say if he's testified but that "it has been reported that he named the source." It was also said that Novak said that he believed that the source did not know that Valerie Plame had been involved in any covert activities in the last 5 years. But I remember that when Terence Smith first covered this that Novak had stated that there were 2 sources in the WH who leaked the info.

[H2O Man]

80. The chances that the leak

told Bob Novak as a footnote of sorts that Plame was not involved in specific activities for over five years seem slim indeed. Add to that the fact that Novak called CI for verification that Plame was an employee, and was asked not to publish anything about her, including her name of employment.

[Rebellious Republican]

83. Regarding how long info is classified for, see post # 70 N/T

[Gabi Hayes]

85. you have the key to the potential prosecution in this bit:

''It was also said that Novak said that he believed that the source did not know that Valerie Plame had been involved in any covert activities in the last 5 years.''

that's the essence of the strategery of the WH traitors, if it ever comes to trial

I don't know why all have such faith in Fitzgerald....he could have gotten to this point WELL before the election, when it would have meant something

[kohodog]

86. There are a few who care and as I said earlier,

No Attoerny General would go to these lengths for a losing cause.


(Unless the payoff was Sooooo big), and I don't think that's the case here.

[H2O Man]

89. Really?

"....he could have gotten to this point WELL before the election,..." Please tell us how he could have done that? What specifically did he do wrong, in order to stretch this out? What would you have done differently?

[Gabi Hayes]

120. gone right after Novak immediately, of course.

give him the same alternative other newsmen have gotten

talk or jail for contempt

it still stuns me that this hasn't happened

am I missing something here?

also, what evidence of justice having been served since Grand Theft Nation exists?

I'd dearly love for things to be different, but I just don't see it

[H2O Man]

130. Why would you assume

Fitzgerald did not "go after Novak" already? Or assume that Novak did not cooperate by testifying to the grand jury? There is no reason to believe that Fitzgerald did not have Novak on the witness stand early on.

That does not diminish or exclude the need to have each and every one of the six or seven journalists who were contacted by the two White House officials testify. Each "contact" equals one count of whatever charge Fitzgerald decides upon. It doesn't make any difference if Novak wrote a column, and Miller didn't: telling each of them was equally illegal.

Equally important is investigating what, if any, efforts to "cover-up" the original crime occured. Thus, the article I linked to that says Fitzgerald is in need of Miller's tesimony to substantiate charges of perjury by one White House official. That indicates the scope of the investigation has gone far wider than simply "who told Novak?" It is an error to think that telling him was somehow more of a crime than telling the half-dozen others.

If Fitzgerald were a White House puppet, he would have ended the investigation last July 14, and said there was no evidence of wrong-doing.

[EVDebs]

99. What if Novak himself, thru Operation Mockingbird, is a CIA asset

non official cover, just as Plame ?

[TomClash]

87. Here's what Novak wrote

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

"Agency operative" means someone who works in Operations - case officers whose identity is not usually revealed.

The key is NOT whether the informant intended to break the law - he doesn't even have to know it existed - though that's hard to believe since you are briefed on the confidentiality rules rather well when you have security clearance. He had to intend that Valerie Plame's identity be revealed.

Fitzgerald has to prove

1) Defendant intended to tell Novak (easy if Novak testifies to this)
2) Defendant had access to info that Plame was covert (easy if he is a WH staffer)
3) Plame was actually covert (easy - she was abroad within the last 5 years and her id was classified)
4) Defendant knew US was concealing her ID (She's in CIA Operations and they asked for the investigation)

If I were his counsel I would try to argue that he did not know her ID was classified. The Gov't will argue that if he had access to the information then that's all they need.

[H2O Man]

90. Very good.

The only thing I disagree with is point #2: her level of cover made it so very, very few people knew she was a CIA operative. The only way that White House officials would have known is through the group that met on 3-8-03 in VP Cheney's office spreading the word.

[seventythree]

107. Cheney would have the authorized access

so if he told WH aide XYZ that Plame was CIA, he, not the aide, is on the hook because the aid was not authorized to receive the classified info. But the aide gets hung as does Novak under part(c), for a lesser sentence. The info Miller and Cooper have is probably needed to show a pattern of activities. My bet is Novak turns state's witness and gets a deal cut.

[H2O Man]

131. Each journalist told

is an equal count. If they told six journalists, that's six counts that they can be charged with. It makes no difference that Novak was the first to expose Plame.

[TomClash]

125. I don't know

Novak publicly claimed it was "common knowledge" in DC but he doesn't have much credibility IMHO. You're right - case officers in operations rarely reveal their identities - why would they?

But if the leaker can argue that he knew her identity from a public or unclassified source, I think it is tough to convict him.

I forgot about the contact group meeting on 3-8-03. Still, if they discussed it then, is it plausible that you would wait four months to leak it to Novak? Only Fitzgerald and his team know if you can tie that meeting to the leak.

[H2O Man]

132. Two good questions.

First, if it had been "common knowledge" it is odd that none of these journalists knew until the White House contacted them. There was a LTTE in the Washington Post recently by Plame's attorney, responding to that silly claim. He had not known she was CIA. Her family didn't. Her friends didn't. And her neighbors didn't. That would rule out "common knowledge."

The 3-8-03 meeting was to organize a "work up" on Wilson, because he had made a comment on the news that the White House felt could expose the Niger lie. The plan was to be able to quickly discredit Wilson if he should become a problem. In July, his op-ed ran in the NYT, and it was met immediately with the White House officials contacting the journalists regarding Plame's identity.

[TomClash]

134. Common Knowledge and the March 8 Meeting

Joe Wilson knew she was CIA and covert. That's why he would not discuss his wife with Novak.

I'm only saying that one possible defense I would explore would be where the leaker got the information from. The national security commmunity is pretty tight knit and Wilson was high profile, so the person who told Novak's source might not have had classification. One of the holes in that is there may have been TWO leakers, making this defense much tougher.

I suppose Fitzgerald has evidence that the March 8 meeting took place and discussed how to deal with Wilson. He'd also have to tie the leaker to the meeting and a discussion of Plame.

Of course, if the meeting had Cheney, Libby and others present, that's the basis for a pretty big conspiracy charge - there are alot of spokes coming out of that wheel.

[Blue Wally]

96. Now what happens at trial

When they put Porter Goss and his managment team on the stand to testify as to the precise nature of her covert status and as to whether they considered her to be one of the CIA personnel covered by the law.

[seventythree]

104. good analysis

[yodermon]

118. Question:

When you say "Fitzgerald has to prove" these things, do you mean he has to PROVE these things to indict, or would the Prosecution have to prove these things to obtain a conviction in a trial?

I think we are over-analyzing wrt indictments, n'est-ce pas? And, at this point in the game, indictments are what we are after.

[TomClash]

124. Same thing

No way he will indict unless he thinks he can present evidence to support these elements.

[Roland99]

145. IMO, the key thing is just finding out who this is! Even if no law was...

broken, the act of doing it was obviously based upon political revenge.

[H2O Man]

147. You can tell a lot

about what happened by looking exclusively at people's reactions. If an innocent person is accused of something, they generally are eager to speak openly to authorities, to clear the air. Guilty people tend to try to avoid talking to the authorities, and will take any step they can to cover up their role in the incident that is being investigated.

[Swamp Rat]

88. Capital crime... no excuses!

:mad:

Novak, you are finished, you fucking traitor!

[porphyrian]

97. Novak is a fucking traitor. - n/t

[dzika]

106. Video - News Hour reports on Journalists Prosecution, Novak, Gannon - 2/24

PBS News Hour reports on Journalists Prosecution, Novak, Gannon - 2/24



Video in Real Media format (7 minutes):
http://www.edwardsdavid.com/BushVideos/newshour_plame_novak_gannon_050224-01.rm

[seventythree]

108. thanks so much for the link

Does anyone know if Plame was abroad within 5 yrs of her outing??? What a stupid law -- so 5 yrs and 1 month after your overseas duty ends you can be outed with no problem? I thought the idea of this law was to protect the other people still in the field who worked with the agent? I've read that 70 people have been killed because the firm she worked for as a cover was outed, and so anyone she came in contact with and everyone in the firm were potential targets. Anyone have any definitive link for this information -- I've seen no back up for the blatant statement.

[Al-CIAda]

112. I think Plame has bee a broad all her life- barump bump. n/t

[0007]

133. This is as sickening as listening to Novak and watching his

false teeth go up and down.

[dryan]

135. I think the heart of the matter...

with Wilson and his wife is that now she can never be used in covert operations again which I read somewhere pretty much keeps her from advancing professionally.

[Roland99]

136. Yes! I saw this last night. Great coverage, imo

And Lehrer pointed out that Guckert's seemy personal life is NOT the issue at hand.


Bravo!

[Hugin]

140. Whaaaaat?

"Saying if the leaker didn't know he was committing a crime then it wasn't a crime."

Boy, if that isn't the lamest defense in history.

"But, But, But... I didn't know <Insert heinous crime here>
was a heinous crime!"

I think I'm going to adopt that strategy... Do what ever the
hell I want and then scream... "CRIME? WHAT CRIME?"

[wishlist]

142. Leaker's defense is that it was already common knowledge

Seems apparent that Fitzgerald has had to subpoena so many journalists because the leaker claims to not have leaked the secret but to have merely discussed Plame with journalists who brought up her name first because it was already common knowledge outside the WH. WH has apparently purposely spun a complicated web involving journalists in order to prevent the source of the leak from being easily proven and prosecuted. This complicated web of deceit is what is taking Fitzgerald so long to unravel.

[Hugin]

150. Good point...

... It would also fit into their well established M.O.

I think that's why Gannon must wrap himself with the
"Journalist" label. It's being used to give him some
sort of immunity.

[TomClash]

144. I listened to the interview again

Terrance Smith said that Novak claims the leaker did not violate the law because he/she didn't know that Valerie Plame was covert because he didn't know she worked outside the country during the last five years.

I'm not so sure about this defense. It seems to me Fitzgerald could argue that the intent concerns the disclosure and the knowledge concerns whether the information identifies not whether the defendant knows that the agent is covert. In other words, Leaker had to intend to leak it to Novak, know that the information leaked was classified and know that the information leaked identified Plame. I'm not so sure he had to know whether she was out of the country during the past five years.

Two cheers for Fitzgerald from someone who has criticized him on this site. I now see that it is entirely plausible that he wants the testimony of Judy Miller and Matthew Cooper to make the conspiracy charge stick against the whole lot. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

[H2O Man]

146. While I am usually

a nonviolent person, I wish someone would slap Novak for suggesting that the leakers said, "Now, get this straight, Bob: I'm pretty sure Valerie Plame hasn't worked in a covert status in at least five years, or I wouldn't ask a man of your dehydrated intergity to smear her and Wilson with this lie. But I have information that she was involved in some highly secret meetings of CI and DoD folks, and was trying to force her husband down their throats."

Never loose sight of the fact that Plame was involved in an investigation of the possible sale of WMD components at the time that Novak's column ran. The significance of the fact that she was involved then in an extremely important investigation, which was utterly destroyed by this leak, answers any claim that she was "inactive."

[TomClash]

161. Oh, don't get me wrong

I have been peeved over this for a year and a half. This administration has done a lot wrong but this really takes the cake.

The CIA takes a lot of heat for the actions and desires of elected officials. People in the clandestine services lead nice lives but also risk their lives with little or no protection. The least the elected officials and their staffs can do is keep their identities secret.

[fob]

163. H2O Man, you seem to be most on top of this story so let me ask you this,

What was the point of Novak writing that Valerie was a Cia operative? If Novak truly felt Wilson was out of line for his op ed and felt like throwing a little heat Wilson's way, wouldn't it work just the same to say that Plame was a "government employee" or some such other non-descript way of tying her to an apparent "role" in getting Joe hired?

Novak acts as if the point of the whole thing was simply to point out that Wilson was not as independent and non-biased as he really is and to "prove" it Novak says Joe got the gig in the first place because of his wife, a federal employee, "pushed for him to go". If that's Novak's reasoning, SPELLING OUT that she was a CIA OPERATIVE is gratuitous in my opinion, EVEN IF that was well known.

I hope I explained that sufficiently. In other words, if you take Novak's "outing" article and remove the CIA operative reference, doesn't it perform MORE faithfully to Novak's alleged intent for even bringing her up in the first place?

[H2O Man]

168. In my opinion,

the people within the administration were more intent upon derailing the case that Valerie Plame was working on at the time, than merely attempting to discredit Wilson. In the CIA, it is simply not possible for a wife to get her husband sent on a mission (regardless of if he is qualified or not, it does not happen), and it is a non-issue. Wilson not only was qualified, but his investigation and report was 100% in line with what two other previous investigations had found. It seems unlikely that people would risk breaking a federal law in order to discredit a report that was virtually the same as two previous ones.

[fob]

171. AHA! Then outing Plame was the intent, discrediting Wilson was the

gratuitous part (ie - Cover for the outing).

THAT sounds more like bush*co modus operandi!

[oc2002]

149. So why is the investigators pushing the other journalists to give names?

If Novak named names, then all they could require from the other journelist is a 'yes, that the guy Novak already identified' or "no".

Since Novak already spilled the beans it would not harm the confidentiality agreement of the other journelists. , and at the same time prove if Novak is a telling the truth or is lieing to the invstigators.

seems simple to me.

[H2O Man]

152. It is simple.

Each time they told a journalist about Plame, it was a crime. Telling Novak was no more or less a crime than telling Miller or any other journalist. Fitzgerald's investigation is to find out how many crimes were committed. Because many DUers find Novak more repulsive than other journalists is not a factor in the investigation.

[oc2002]

153. .. eh? so your holding up a prosecution of one crime and jailing people?

who did nothing?

That just does not add up. Something else is going on.

One count or several counts of the same crime is not the issue why 2 reporters may be going to jail while Novak is not.

[Me.]

158. The Journalists In Question

have been ordered to speak to the grand jury, not only by the judge on the case but by an appeals court. To not do so is to be in contempt for not adhering to the law. For that they will go to jail. Also, what has been argued and where their attorney Abrams may have made his mistake is that he argued that journalists have an absolute right to confidentiality. They do not and have never had. Also, lest we forget there are two other cases which may be tied to the Plame case. The money laundering case where Miller allegedly warned an Islamic "charity" that the FBI were on the way, and the Larry Franklin/AIPAC matter of passing state secrets to Israel. These are matters Fitz is also looking into.

[H2O Man]

169. Of course not.

They are going to go to jail for refusing to obey a court order.

[julialnyc]

162. unless they went for a charge of treason

in that case you need at least two people to testify.

[JunkYardDogg]

151. Novack Named Names-Valerie Plame

Protecting the BushReich is a Higher Priority than
Protecting America

[izzybeans]

165. If he named names why aren't we seeing the names anywhere?

[H2O Man]

170. Grand juries

are not public affairs. Thus, the media has not reported on anything that has taken place in the hearings themselves, with Novak or any other witness.

[Rob H.]

172. Why the names aren't being published

I served on a grand jury for six months (one day every two weeks for six months). Most of the cases involved child molestation or drug trafficking, and in one instance, horse-thieving, and the names weren't published because the people hadn't yet been formally charged. If the names were published, the alleged offenders would immediately become flight risks. I would imagine that that would be a particular concern in this case, given that most of the people involved probably have the money to flee the country if/when they wind up being indicted.


Edit: Clarity (I hope).

Further edit: They're called "sealed indictments" iirc. (For that matter, all indictments might be sealed, I dunno.)

[izzybeans]

173. Thanks to both of you.

I thought that was it. But was hoping that if leaks happened on a matter of national security someone would be kind enough to out the traitor-trade in kind.

[wryter2000]

174. Bury it on Friday night?

If the Corporate Media ignore this, I really will give up on saving this country.