Supposedly the Justice dept. gets one of these a week.
Yeah, that looks like major obfuscation on the part of the spokesman. He obviously was told about the hatchet job and wanted to cover it up. But wait, why would they tell him?
So even if it did happen, he wouldn’t know about it, I don’t think.
So maybe that’s why he responded the way he did.
What is he supposed to do? Pledge that noone has said this when he actually, to be factual, does not know. He doesn’t believe they have, based on nothing more than his familiarity with the admin., but how could you expect him to take a blood oath on it? So no, I don’t think he was being devious or evasive. He was asked to comment on things he did not know about.
Anyway, from what Novak said it wasn’t a crime anyway. It has to be a deliberate revelation of a covert agent. You had to know she was covert. She had to have been covert in the past 5 years.
The first and last of those are false. The second may be false.
So there’s no crime anyway.
It was supposedly an offhanded comment to Novak. In fact, a CIA “contact” confirmed her identity, so he should be brought up on charges too, right? Novak should be brought up on charges as well, then.
As far as those allegations of the poll question being biased, this should put your mind at ease. When CNN did a poll on the question (admittedly unscientific, but hey) they phrased the question thusly: “Who do you think should investigate the allegations?” The answer? 60% said a special counsel should be appointed, and the rest were split between The White House, DOJ, and “I don’t know.” On top of that, 80% said that polygraph tests should administered.
So, whatever way you look at this, whatever spin you try to put on this, you’ll still be left with the majority of Americans believing that the DOJ and the White House can’t be trusted to take charge of this investigation.
Also, for all you Ken Starr haters out there – that includes me, though I think the word hate is a bit strong – keep in mind that a special counsel is not at all the same as an independant counsel.
One of these leaks investigations a week, which is not the same as the outing of a covert operative every week. If that were the case we wouldn’t hardly have any covert operatives left.
**Are you seriously taking Novak’s word on this? Someone who obviously has his own ass – not to mention his reputation – to save? On top of all that, his current story on the matter directly contradicts his own statements made at the time.
**The CIA did it’s own review, and found that a crime was committed. In fact, whether or not a crime was committed isn’t even being questioned (outside of a few desperate republicans, Novak for instance). The only question is, who committed this Federal crime?
**
**Once again, a direct contradiction to what Novak was quoted as saying before this became a shitstorm.
At that point the cat was out of the bag, hindquarters and all. All they could do was try to convince him not to use it.
You’ll get no argument from me, but that’s mainly because I think he’s a prick, not because of any relevant laws that I know of. I don’t think I’d say this for just anybody, but I think a spot of anal rape might just do Novak some good. Builds character, donchaknow.
For now: IIRC, the independant counsel provision was initially passed into law directly after Watergate, and congress let it expire a few years ago after that whole fucking Whitewater bullshit extravaganza. Further, (once again, IIRC) the special counsel provision has been around for quite a long time, and simply states that if the attorney general feels like it, he can appoint his choice of a special counsel to investigate matters involving the Executive Branch. So even then the investigation’s not gonna be fully independant of the administration.
However, if congress decided they had to have an honest-to-god independant counsel, they’d have to pass the law all over again, which would be nigh impossible with republicans fighting it tooth and nail.
Ravenman
“Those people all work for the Attorney General. An independent counsel would not.”
The FBI works for Ashcroft?
spoke-
If people are forced to reveal incriminating evidence through a civil process, how would that affect the possibility of initiating criminal proceedings?
Suppose you have the culprit under oath in a deposition, in a civil case. You ask him if he leaked the info.
He can either:
A. Lie (in which case he has committed perjury);
B. Tell the truth and admit it (in which case he has opened himself up to criminal prosecution); or
C. Refuse to answer, asserting his 5th Amendment rights.
Under any of those scenarios, there is an enhanced possibility of criminal prosecution. If the culprit lies, he faces the possibility that another witness will rat him out in deposition, making him subject to prosecution not only for the underlying crime, but for perjury.
If the culprit tells the truth, he is obviously subjecting himself to criminal liability for the underlying crime.
If the culprit takes the 5th, political fallout will follow. Voters will (reasonably) assume he must be guilty. The cry will go forth for a special prosecutor (or independed counsel), this time with added moral force. And of course, a 5th Amendment dodge will reflect poorly on the Bush administration, increasing the likelihood that someone will have to walk the plank.
Can one assert one’s 5th Amendment rights in a civil case? I thought that it applies only to criminal cases. For instance, in the Paula Jones suit, Clinton didn’t have the option of taking the 5th. Taking the 5th might be harmful, but I don’t think it would be disasterous. It would probably be a matter of how it gets spun; invoking the McCarthy years would make the 5th seem more noble.
Yes, you can take the 5th in a civil case, if you are asked to answer a question which might implicate you in a criminal act.
(What makes you think Clinton didn’t have that option in the Paula Jones case? Can you think of a specific question was he asked to which he might have taken the 5th?)
I think also that you are greatly underestimating the political effects of an appeal to the 5th Amendment. It would create the presumption of guilt in the public mind.
Clinton had the 5th Amendment option, if he had been asked to provide testimony which would have implicated him in a crime. But since he hadn’t committed a crime, the 5th Amendment was never an issue.