But… but… but… That’s a letter to a Democrat! Clearly tainted!! No doubt, if investigated, this Stanley M. Moskowitz – Moskowitz! Doesn’t that Russki name tell us all we need to know about this self-described “Director of Congressional Affairs”? I daresay he’s a Democrat too, the traitorous bastard!
Scylla: Pathetic. Just pathetic. You’re not even trying any more.
The leaking of classified information.
Yes.
Since that information was classified, leaking it would have been illegal.
No. I didn’t say that. You will need to quote me directly from now on if you want a response about something you’re claiming I said.
I hate getting into this with you. The contents of Joe Wilson’s report are “classified.” Joe Wilson leaked those contents in his editorial to the general public. You would argue (I guess) that Wilson was a whistleblower acting for the public good and that his revealing of the truth was a public service.
In principle, I would agree with you. So, would the ACLU.
http://www.aclu.org/natsec/classified/14445leg20021211.html
Because of the ongoing leaks in Washington there is a push to punish people for revealing classified information. By itself, it is currently not punishable. It must be attached to something else like espionage, or what have you.
IANAL, nor an expert in this particular area. I would guess that the leaking of classified information is not punishable, as a matter of practicality, to protect whistleblowers, and the press.
In other words, the leaking of classified information for better or worse, is mundane and commonplace and not necessarily innapropriate. There really isn’t a story if Plame’s status is merely “classified.”
If Plame is covert than leaking her status is a severe and punishable offense. “Covert” is specific and the revealing of “covert status” is a punishable offense and a much more serious one than the mere leaking of “classified” information.
You will need to defer to a lawyer familiar with such things for the specifics on circumstances under which leaking classified information can be attached to a punishable offense.
The question though, as to whether Plame’s status was merely classified, or covert is a central issue in the whole debate and one which you should be familiar with at this point, or you need to become familiar with.
I’m not trying to be rude with this, but it was discussed on page 3 and 4 and you participated. If you don’t understand, you shouldn’t waste my time and ask all these insistent questions, and misparaphrases, and demand that I educate you. It bores me, and it wastes my time.
Whoops, my mistake.
The .pdf I posted is of a letter written by the CIA’s Director of Congressional Affairs to the ranking Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, summarizing the actions taken by the CIA (notification of the AG; internal review of the newspaper articles [presumably Novack’s, and likely others];report to the DOJ of a possible violation; internally-conducted investigation; delivery of a memo to the DOJ with the results of the investigation and a request for a criminal investigation by the FBI). The letter appears to have been sent in a response to a request by Rep. Conyers for information as to the role the CIA played in the genesis of the Justice Department’s investigation.
Scylla, I’m not sure how that letter fails to serve as evidence that the CIA referred the matter to Justice for criminal investigation. I’m also failing to see how the text of it impeaches the accuracy of Mediamatters’s reporting. Could you share with me the paragraphs on that site that, in your view, misrepresent the facts set forth in the letter, please (or in what way you see them as placing undue weight upon certain facts, to the disparagement of others)?
[QUOTE=Scylla]
That’s ok. I found the actual letter to John Conyers, and it is as I thought. Meidamatters is not reporting this accurately…QUOTE]
Well, yes. But your own summation leaves out some details. Permit me to belabor.
and
Well, now! That’s all sorted out, then!
(Still, gotta fantacize about working for the section of the FBI devoted to investigating unpunishable crimes…)
I thought I did.
The CIA is saying they reported the possible unauthorized leaking of classified information.
Mediamatters is saying they the disclosure of an undercover agent.
These are not the same things, are they?
I wasn’t looking at that letter now, was I?
I haven’t made that argument, have I? Can you cite it?
Than you should cite where I made that argument.
Well, ok then. You’re following two out of three. Frankly, I don’t know where you get the “evil versus incompetant” argument, and I’d love to see a cite.
Sorry, I’m late in the game…
Is it me, or have we moved from
to [paraphrase]It is technically speaking OK to leak merely classified information, so it’s not as if some sort of crime was committed…[/paraphrase] ?
Scylla, you’re smarter than this. Stop making up excuses for people who do not deserve it.
Are you suggesting fraud? Or suggesting nothing at all, just muddying the waters a bit? Are you Sean Hannity?
Armitage was apparently notoriously leaky. I’m not making excuses for him, nor for Wilson.
I am pointing out that those who sought to make hay with the outing a covert operative for revenge meme are full of shit.
Your entire OP was ranting against people who concluded that the leak was done intentionally and with malice. In defense of that rant, you assert that the original leak wasn’t intentional, but rather was __________ (I’ll let you fill in the blank, but incompetant surely fits), as if that somehow excuses it. Not one word of your rant was against the leaker, or the guy who confirmed the leak, or the guy who was indicted for lying about it.
If your OP included any of that kind of language, where you hold the administration accountable for the leak of what you admit is classified information, I wouldn’t have even bothered commenting. But it didn’t. Your best case scenario is that this administration leaked classified information. To leave that without comment while ranting against those who conclude it was more than just incompetant, is baffling to me.
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m pointing out that what you are suggesting is untrue.
And you get evil versus incompetance out of this from where?
Joe Wilson leaked partial confidential information that suited him and is somehow upset when the full story came out. Who, why, and under what circumstances he was sent is germaine. His expectation that he could make a partial leak is stupid.
I think Armitage’s leak and Rove’s confrimation are de minimis compared to what Wilson did and what the lying scum who tried to construct a total lie concerning the deliberate vindictive outing of a covert agent, a lie generated purely for rhetorical political effect did.
I don’t worry too much about jaywalking at murder scenes.
Baffle on. Again, explaining my motives to you isn’t very interesting, and I don’t find your defense of your fascination with what I choose to discuss to be particular convincing, and I don’t accept your motivations for doing so at face value.
I think you are just engaging in Ad Hominem attacks.
There may or may not have been a component of petty retribution. Hardly matters. The effort was undertaken to undermine the public position of a critic. A critic who has revealed information in direct contradiction to public statements of the President. Statements in support of a policy of mendacity and weasel think to further efforts towards an otherwise unjustifiable war.
If you have expended all this ammunition on a petty detail of motivation, you’re defending Ted Bundy for traffic tickets.
Thanks for taking the time. Partisan hack with no moral center when it comes to politics suits you.
I’ll ask again, and I’m quite confident you’ll fail to respond. Rove spontaneously initiated contact with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine to tell him about Plame. How is this “confirmation”? How is this related to Armitage? Remember, this all happened before Novak shared her name with the public. Matthew Cooper does not equal Bob Novak. He cannot “confirm” something anew to Matthew Cooper.
Prove me a liar and respond to this.
Like I said, you’re just looking to name-call.
You can do without pretending at some moral justification. Ginnying up a false pretense as you have done just displays a lack of integrity.
A Tom Tomorrow cartoon about Scylla (cited by Daily Kos).
hmmmm.
Ok.
Acoording to factcheck.org what you say is not true. Cooper called Rove. Rove did not spontaneously contact Cooper. So that is wrong.
http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
“Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper calls Rove, who cautions him to be careful of Wilson ’s story,”
Armitage had leaked to Novak prior to this. Rove spoke to Novak on July 8. He spoke to Cooper on July 11.
At the point in time that Rove knew that Novak knew. The information was already in the hands of the press. There is no reason why it should be exclusive to Novak, and no further harm in disseminating already compromised information.
Ok, now tell me about how you’re a liar.
You call me a racist. You think this is particularly funny. You’re not a very mature person… and… you’re an admitted liar.
Then some guy like Hamlet shows up pretending at some strained pretense of morality in order to cast ad hominems. Yet he has no problem with a real scumbag like yourself, and says nothing about it, and expects that I’m supposed to take him seriously.
I gotta admit Hentor. You’re one up on Hamlet. You take ownership in your scumminess and don’t try to hide it. You revel in it.
There’s a real integrity in your consistent and open commitment to being an asshole.