Nobly said. It takes a big man to acknowledge the error of his ways, and in this thread we have not one, but two examples.
One minor nitpick though, the next time you call elucidator an ass, could you please supply a link to show us exactly what you mean?
-Pruriently yours,
Squink.
Just watch. And I bet the Democrats will be painted as hypocrites for defending Clinton and attacking Rove now. The script writes itself. I just can hear Rush bloviating in rightous indignation. Please fetch me an airsick bag.
That so wasn’t the farm animal I was expecting…
You’ve never been to a stud farm, I take it?
I would think that if Plame’s job position had been reassigned/reclassified prior to the leak (such an action subsequent to the leak would, of course, be irrelevant) that fact would have become known by now.
Remind me again how the MPC is relevant to enforcement of federal statutes. Some States have adopted portions of it but the federal government has yet to do so, to my knowledge.
Furthermore, how would constructive knowledge apply to the statute in question and the scenario I described?
If this were the case, it seems she would lack the wherewithal to do any recommending of anyone for fact checking mission.
You would thing so, but so few facts are known, that it’s very confusing.
On a related note, it’s odd how stridently the press is coming out against the jailing of Miller. Do they really want a shield law for reporters that will cover knowingly keeping a source secret when the very nature of the source was not only breaking a law, but putting lives in danger? (I’m making the assumption here that Plame was, in fact, a covert opertive. Since we don’t know for sure, we have to assume that she was if we are to unambiguously defend Miller.) Surely it’s possible to have a shield law that works perfectly well for the press, but doesn’t allow government officials to commit felonies and get away with it.
It’s a pretty darned safe assumption. This morning Josh Marshall speaks to this point, better than I ever could:
Can we please put the whole “was she covert” question behind us? I’d think Pat Fitzgerald could have made one phone call to Langley two years ago and ended his investigation right there if that were the case.
No. I’ve heard testimony after testimony from experts about how complicated the law is governing this type of crime. I’m happy to say that it is highly likely that she fit the category, but until a public ruling is issued by the governing authority, there is going to be some lingering doubt.
It would be right to paint the Democrats as hypocrites, if their point was that the mere fact of lying to a grand jury, under oath, was fine then and terrible now. Equally, of course, a Republican who asserted it’s a minor thing now but was ready to impeach a sitting president then is also hypocritical.
My point of view is that BOTH actions are reprehensible, and BOTH should be punished.
There were a few who defended it at the time, and I wouldn’t agree with them. There were many who argued that it didn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, and I agree with that.
Yep.
Assuming Rove is the guy (or one of the guys) it’s a tough comparison. Rove can’t be impeached. Hell, he can’t even be voted out of office. OTOH, impeachment is pretty much the only option when dealing with a sitting president in his 2nd term…
As much as I admire even-handedness, that’s utter nonsense.
Bill Clinton was playing cute lawyerly games with a question he never should have been asked in the first place. The motivation was about as significant as the crime, nada.
In the Plame instance, the power of the Admin was leveraged to punish Mr. Wilson for telling the truth, a truth which embarassed the Bushiviks, as so many do. The motivating issue was war, and disinformation in support of war, it just doesn’t get much more serious than that!
Asserting an equivalence between the two is inflating a Japanese condom to the dimensions of the Hindenburg.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
No. A woman sues her former boss for sexual harrassment. She is entitled to depose him, under oath, and get truthful answers to the questions she asks. If a civil litigant cannot compel truthful testimony, her case, however meritorious, is seriously injured. Mr. Clinton had no right to play any cute lawyerly games that crossed into lying under oath. That was wrong, and illegal, and it’s not a “so-what” crime.
How deftly you concentrate our attention to one side of the issue!
Perhaps you will explain to us exactly how the alleged virtue of Ms. Jones, the Heidi of the Ozarks, rises to the level of importance of war promoted under false pretenses?
If he believed that to be the case, he should not have signed the law that empowered Jones’s lawyers to introduce that line of questioning.
I for one, would like to know how once again a thread about the felonies of the current administration has been hi jacked into a discussion of the Clinton peccadillos?
Probably my fault.