Posted on 10/18/2005 2:34:42 PM PDT by blogblogginaway
There now appears to be consensus that no one violated the 1982 Agent Identities Protection Act in publishing the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame. It’s a hard law to violate. Its high threshold requires that the person whose identity is revealed must actually be covert (which requires at the least a foreign assignment within five years of the revelation), that the government must be taking “affirmative measures” to conceal the person’s identity, and that the revealer must know that the government is taking those measures.
So why didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel investigating the “leak,” close up shop long ago?
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
'especially since she basically just said it is all BOGUS!"
Please leave me out of this!
When does the clock run out?
Click on the link to Human Events and their Table of Contents will come up.
What I worry about is the "theory" that he has spent 2 years and millions of dollars...so he would be inclined NOT to want to say "NEVER MIND".
Therefore, he would go for the old conspiracy or whatever, just to have something to show for it.
By the same token, Kristof and Pincus didn't make up the connection between their anonymous source and the Vice President out of pixie dust. It was planted there by the "anonymous source" -- who took pains not to correct the misrepresentation once it was published.
lOL---sorry!!
Either Harriet Miers...or Alberto Gonzales. Recall that Ashcroft was still AG when this imbroglio began.
I think that would be the act of a weak and unprincipled man, so I guess we'll see where Mr. Fitzgerald stands. I keep thinking of those who are saying this, virtually all the kinds of people who would seek and relish the spotlight. Maybe they are just projecting? I just watched the Matthews thing, which was awful. Hayes was the only reporter there.
Rumors have a life cycle of their own.
I know...and did you notice that at the end, when Chrissy had made yet another of his unsubstantiated "thoughts" about something, and Hayes started to correct him...
Chrissy cut him off and said, "no more time"? sheesh
With the exception of Sam Dash (who was leaking privately -- to Clinton's defense team), Starr's team didn't leak either.
Instead, what you saw was an orchestrated campaign conducted by Clinton's witnesses and their attorneys, who were only too anxious to leak (often contrived) stories to the media. It is not illegal for witnesses and their attorneys to make their testimony public. In fact, they can even tell out-and-out lies about it with impunity (as Sid Blumenthal did).
The media was complicit in that they spun the stories so that it appeared their sources were within the grand jury itself or the prosecution team.
The same thing is going on now. The reporters and their attorneys are free to report their experience and speculations -- which is ALL they've got.
Tonight, Matthews and Fineman really showed that, to "philosophicating" liberals, facts are less important than "the grand scheme of things" (i.e., "spin").
Whoa...perfect $10 word there to describe it!!! LOL
Here, here. Wait and see what the guy has to say. If he has nothing, he investigated thoroughly and plumbed any possible wrongdoing. If he has something - well, then, he probably has something.
Perhaps it means Mitchell had that straight from Wilson.... OR it may just indicate once again that she's just as crappy and sloppy a 'reporter' as most in the MSM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.