For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? (Page 18): Lavender Room: Slowtwitch Forums

Bike Shops Coaches Fitters Race Calendar Running Stores Store Stack & Reach Training Log Triathlon Clubs We Noticed
		MAIN INDEX	RULES & LEGEND	LOG IN

Slowtwitch Forums: Lavender Room:
For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl?

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18

View All

Mike Lamb

Aug 1, 05 22:08

Post #426 of 450 (9467 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

the defense is a winner? that's a wretched defense. neither of the statutes at issue has "correcting the public misstatements" as a defense. the only thing it does is go to motive, but doesn't change the requirements of the law or any of the underlying facts. motive isn't an element of the crime.

miller is in jail for a very simple reason: she refused to testify when compelled by the court and was thus guilty of contempt. that's the reason. now, we don't know why she wouldn't testify, but that has nothing to do with the reason she is in jail.

so what's your implication with the leak being over at the cia? it's not like miller is particularly hostile to the admin. so what type of person is it doing the leaking?

lastly, another thing that bothers me with your characterization that plame abused her office for partisan purposes. it would be one heck of a conspiracy to think that plame heard they needed someone for the trip, found out why they wanted someone going to niger, decided it was a great way to discredit bush, then further decided her husband would be the best person to do it. that's just silly and way too far-fetched. plame recommended her husband for the trip(no more, no less), but the genesis of the trip was the office of the vice president. the whole abuse of her office doesn't pass any sort of reality check...

f/k/a mclamb6

(This post was edited by mclamb6 on Aug 1, 05 22:12)

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 4:55

Post #427 of 450 (9459 views)

Re: Novak speaks [mclamb6] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I don't think Plame did anything wrong by setting up the trip. The problem came when Wilson had too much time on his hands, took the story about his trip, went public with it, and made it out to be much more than it was. Rolling all those things together creates a serious problem.

If you gave a damn about your wife's identity, would you write an article like that in the NY Times? Of course not. They both knew she would be pulled into the story before he wrote the article.

The type of person doing the leaking is probably a person rather like Deep Throat. Felt leaked in order to further his own personal agenda. That agenda might be very complex and driven by a number of factors, mostly parochial, some of which conflict. The entire town leaks in exactly this way every day. No mystery here.

Miller is in jail protecting someone for a very good reason. Most likely, the person she is protecting is the only person in the entire loop whose information actually does come from classified sources. All the antipathy directed at Rove is more likely properly directed at this source.

I grant that much of what I say is speculation, but it explains all the facts. The only person stonewalling is Miller. If we don't get the facts eventually, it will be because of Miller.

Of course the statutes don't have a public statements exception. The statutes assume that a covert agent spends her time at the CIA or wherever acting as a covert agent. If, instead, that person leverages her position to help her husband play presidential politics, the underlying assumptions of the legislation are not met. You are a lawyer. You would have no problem with this case. It is called having the judicial branch interpret the law.

Fantasize all you want here, but Rove isn't going to be charged on that basis. Whether he screwed up like Martha Stewart and testified inaccurately during the investigation is another matter. Don't know about that.

Mike Lamb

Aug 2, 05 7:18

Post #428 of 450 (9453 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

and again, i would point out the fact that there are TWO different laws being implicated. i don't know for certain if either was violated, but it's certainly not a slam dunk. and the more info coming(about the state department memo, for instance), the more plausible a violation of the second, older law becomes(heck, the state department memo itself was a classified document, leaking any info from that would violate the older act).

your theory as to why miller refused to testify doesn't explain the facts any better than if the leak was john bolton. you just don't want anyone in the admin to be the leaker(aside from the already established karl rove).

as for the op ed, you seem to also miss the fact that wilson worked for months after his return behind the scenes explaining what he found. he didn't return from niger and immediately write and editorial. did he have that in mind all along? i don't know and neither do you, but it wasn't the first thing he did.

i also see it as incongruous that on the one hand you say plame did nothing wrong with "setting up the trip"(love how you stick to that bit of misinformation, by the way), then on the other, you say she was wrong to use her position for political purposes in order to help her husband play presidential politics(and thus apparently she was complicit in outing herself and there's no problem). those are mutually exclusive statements. if her goal was to help her husband play presidential politics, then that occurred by helping her husband get selected for the trip, and that's when her leveraging of her position happened. the only way she leveraged her position is if, as i mentioned before, they hatched this grand scheme to discredit bush when plame heard that the office of the vp, via channels in the cia, wanted someone to go to niger...

yet another point to be made, as i understand it, covert designation is determined by the cia. similarly, labeling something classified is also something determined by the gov't. they aren't labels that are proven or disproven based on the facts. we don't get to say she was or wasn't covert, the cia does. we don't get to say whether something is classified or not, the gov't agencies do. so all your discussion of plame's behavior as negating elements of the statutes is quite irrelevant.

and lastly, your not so subtle dig at the judicial branch is so utterly ridiculous in this case. the statutes are very clear and it's very clear that it takes little more than reading comprehension to recognize the very real possibility of violating one of them. oh, and just so you know, it's the judicial branch's job to interpret the law. that's what they are paid to do.

f/k/a mclamb6

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 8:53

Post #429 of 450 (9442 views)

Re: Novak speaks [mclamb6] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I don't really know if the idea was to play political games from the outset. It might have been, but I can't read minds.

None of Plame's behavior was a problem until the the circle was closed with the political hatchet job. Close the circle and the entire chain gets called into question. If Wilson wanted his wife to remain anonymous, all he had to do was keep his head down. I don't buy the feigned outrage.

I made no dig at the judicial branch whatever. They will do their job of interpreting the laws. They are not going to be impressed with the whining of a CIA agent who blew her identity by helping her husband via her agency contacts obtain national prominence.

If you really are an attorney, in a more rational moment you will see I am right.

Miller is not in jail with the support of the Times protecting Bolton or Rove or anyone like that. My CIA leaker theory explains the Plame outing, the front pages of the Times over the last couple of years, and the behavior of all the parties. I hope we will eventually see if I am right.

Just because the leaker is at CIA doesn't mean the leaker is not very close to the administration by the way. It certainly could be.

Mike Lamb

Aug 2, 05 9:28

Post #430 of 450 (9435 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Quote:

If you really are an attorney, in a more rational moment you will see I am right.

that's so much nonsense. covert or classified designation is just that--a designation. it's not something that is proven or disproven by facts on the ground. if information on plame and her connection to the cia is classified, then it's classified whether she herself went around shouting at the top of her lungs she was cia or whether we hadn't heard a peep out of her. you can talk about her behavior all you want, but it is irrelevant to the statutes in question. if the label was given to her or information relating to her, that's all that matters.

christ art, you are still doing it: you claim that you don't know if the idea was to play political games from the outset(a patently absurd theory), yet you talk about "the whining of a cia agent who blew her identity by helping her husband...obtain national prominence." the latter statement makes sense ONLY if there was a pre-conceived plan to go to niger and come back and trumpet to everyone the results of his trip. there's little to no evidence that any such plan existed. it's not like there was some big hullabaloo over the trip before wilson left--the public at large had no clue he was going.

furthermore, you are still blaming plame for the whole mess and STILL insist on that this is only about the covert identities act, which is not the case. what, art, was plame "asking for it"? you really need to stop being such an apologist for a second and start assigning blame where it is deserved.

f/k/a mclamb6

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 10:20

Post #431 of 450 (9422 views)

Re: Novak speaks [mclamb6] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

You have your view of the black letter of the law, but your law school training taught you to think much better than that. In a different context you would.

If someone were pulled over for speeding when they were rushing their pregnant wife to the hospital, they would not be found guilty despite there being no pregnant wife exception in the law. The Wilson/Plame family has unclean hands in this matter. They aren't going to get protection under these laws. We will see if Fitzgerald proves me wrong. I very much doubt it in regard to Rove or anyone else.

Plame and Wilson didn't have to have a preconceived plan. Everything was borderline but clean until Wilson made his CIA trip public. That completed the circle that pushed the entire situation from the fair side of the line to the foul side. It may be that Wilson did this over Plame's objection. She may be completely blameless, though I doubt it.

mopdahl

Aug 2, 05 10:22

Post #432 of 450 (9421 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

You are still up to your old tricks I see: deflect, deflect, deflect. No matter what smokescreen you & the rest of the kool-aid drinkers throw up, it comes down to this:

SOMEBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION LEAKED THE IDENTITY OF A CIA AGENT TO THE PRESS.

The reasons behind their actions are irrelevant.
____________
�There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old�s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.� John Rogers

vitus979

Aug 2, 05 10:27

Post #433 of 450 (9418 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

The statutes assume that a covert agent spends her time at the CIA or wherever acting as a covert agent. If, instead, that person leverages her position to help her husband play presidential politics, the underlying assumptions of the legislation are not met.

Absurd. The statutes assume that classified material is classified because to expose it would cause damage to national security. This argument is really outrageous, Art.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 10:33

Post #434 of 450 (9415 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [mopdahl] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

As usual, you shout your weakest points. You are simply not sure if that is correct or not, unless you twist the meaning of the verb leak.

If the reality is that the connection was fairly widely known or suspected, the connection was verified by Miller via a CIA leaker and in turn mentioned by Miller to Rove, who in turn repeated when asked that he had heard this fact to another reporter, it is a real stretch to say that Rove is a leaker. Passing along rumors from one reporter to another is not leaking.

These facts might well point to the CIA source as a leaker. I concede that a CIA leaker could also be characterized as an Administration source depending on circumstances, so you could be right via that angle.

I also concede that you could be right in general, but we simply do not know that.

mopdahl

Aug 2, 05 10:42

Post #435 of 450 (9412 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

We are in general agreement on this. I also agree that it most likely will play out as politics-as-usual gone awry---just too much time has passed & unless Rove/Scooter pulled a Martha, they are probably going to skate. That being said, it really smells--Novak et all have had too much time to fabricate justifications & escape routes from what really happened, which is that the administration was trying to get back at Wilson. I also don't doubt that Judith Miller is more than just casually involved---most likely she'll become liberal's Benedict Arnold as time goes by & more of her actions come out.
____________
�There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old�s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.� John Rogers

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 10:45

Post #436 of 450 (9409 views)

Re: Novak speaks [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Not absurd at all. Wilson/Plame compromised themselves by going public.

It is typically not illegal to repeat classified information if your source of that information is not from your direct access to classfied material. So in this example, no one is suggesting that Novak committed a crime by printing the material. If Rove passed on a rumor from one reporter to another ("I heard that too") that is not a crime by any stretch.

If my scenario proves correct, the only one who may have leaked classified information would be the contact Miller is protecting. I am guessing that person is CIA.

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 10:51

Post #437 of 450 (9406 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [mopdahl] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I don't know much about Miller, but I don't know anything that would peg her as a liberal puppet.

I am going to hazard a guess that she is the one who got this entire story rolling for reasons of her own. She doesn't seem to have been trying to write a story. Maybe she was just trying to be a player. Then things went unpredictably out of control. Who would have guessed at such a weird scenario?

This entire investigation should have been shut down years ago. Regardless, I would really like to see that CIA/NY Times hotline shutdown.

vitus979

Aug 2, 05 10:52

Post #438 of 450 (9406 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Passing along rumors from one reporter to another is not leaking.

In the first place, the scenario you lay out is pure, 100% speculation on your part. (And conveniently ignores the fact that Rove knew the information was more than just a rumor.) And even if it's entirely accurate, it's still entirely irrelevent.

Case in point: Ship's movement is classified information in the Navy. You aren't allowed to talk about when your ship is pulling out, or when it's pulling in, or which port it's headed to, etc etc. Every single time I talked to Mrs. Vitus from the ship, she'd know exactly which port I was about to get to, and when. All the wives knew. And if I had confirmed her knowledge, I would have quickly found myself standing tall before the Man, and if you think I would have gotten off because I was only dealing in rumors that were already in circulation, you don't know much.

Rove leaked it. It boggles my mind that anybody would consider defending him.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Mike Lamb

Aug 2, 05 10:54

Post #439 of 450 (9403 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

your analogy bears no resemblance to the case at hand. in your speeding, there were exigent circumstances that essentially forced the person to speed as the health of baby and mother could have been in jeopardy otherwise. in the current situation, there were no such circumstances that exist such that it was necessary to reveal wilson's name plus her connection to the cia. the ONLY marginal defense is if there was some paperwork mix up and her information was not supposed to remain under the classified or covert designation. and even then, that's shaky at best.

you can try to rationalize it all you want, but with respect to the statute, it's irrelevant how wilson acted.

and to get to your other cia leaker theory. the only way that makes sense and explains everything is if there is a single leaker for a rather large organization--the cia--which is supplying information on multiple subjects to several other individuals at another large organization--the ny times.

how about this theory: miller is a publicity hound and decided the notoriety she would gain from not testifying and acting the martyr would more than off-set her 3 month stint in a country club prison?

and an additional point, no one has really mentioned the fact that mrs. wilson's maiden name was used. could that be because whoever leaked the name sought to do max damage as she hasn't gone by plame in several years and it's quite likely her time as an noc was under the name plame?

f/k/a mclamb6

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 10:57

Post #440 of 450 (9403 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [vitus979] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Yes, I am speculating. I could be proven wrong.

Troop movements are an entirely different matter. If Novak were to try to publish troop movements, he would have been shut down long before it went to print.

vitus979

Aug 2, 05 11:01

Post #441 of 450 (9400 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Troop movements are an entirely different matter.

So troop movements are entirely different from a CIA agent's cover? I'm sorry, I don't see the qualitative difference, there. Maybe our classification system is outdated. Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret just don't do it. What we need are a couple of additional categories- Secret For Real, and Secret But Can Be Leaked For Political Reasons.

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

ajfranke

Aug 2, 05 11:03

Post #442 of 450 (9400 views)

Re: Novak speaks [mclamb6] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

Novak explained the use of the Plame name as being found in Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who. Not sure that is really how it went down, but certainly possible.

I gave a simple example of how a statute would be interpreted beyond the black letter of the statute. I can't count the number of times I have tried to enforce the black letter of the law, especially with statutes of limitations, and been turned down by the court. Fitzgerald is not going to build a leaking case on these circumstances. That doesn't mean there isn't a Martha Stewart type case against any number of people.

I think your Miller theory is very likely, but this in a improvisation on her part. No one could have predicted this situation.

mopdahl

Aug 3, 05 17:50

Post #443 of 450 (9382 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

This just in:

Advertisement

WASHINGTON, DC�The White House denied rumors of wrongdoing by anyone named Karl Rove Monday, saying the alleged deputy chief of staff does not exist.

Above: White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

"To my knowledge, no one by the name of Karl Rove works for this president, his staff, or for that matter, anyone on earth, since he is not a real person," White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters Monday.

Despite White House denials, allegations have surfaced in recent weeks that Karl Rove is the man who leaked covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to the press. He is rumored to be President Bush's senior advisor, chief political strategist, architect of the president's 2000 and 2004 election victories, and the current deputy White House chief of staff, as well as a frequent guest on televised political talk shows.

"None of these allegations are supported by the facts," McClellan said. "The opponents of this administration have created a mythical figure in order to discredit the president. All they have done is divert attention from the important work at hand�the war in Iraq and the war on terror. In doing so, they have dishonored the sacrifices of our brave men and women in uniform."

"This time," he added, "the Democrats have gone too far."

According to fringe journalist Lou Dubose, author of Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The Brains Behind The Remarkable Political Triumph Of George W. Bush, Rove was born Dec. 25, 1950 in Denver, CO. Dubose alleges that Rove lived in Colorado with his family until 1963, when he moved to Salt Lake City, UT. According to Dubose, the shadowy figure entered politics in college, quickly moving through the ranks to become the chairman of the College Republican National Committee at age 22.

Above: This rare photo depicts the man Bush Administration critics are calling "Karl Rove."

The White House has called such reports "nonsense."

McClellan reiterated his denial of Karl Rove's existence 33 times during the press conference. When pressed, he distributed a list of "real, actual political figures about whom I'd be happy to comment." The list included only President George W. Bush and Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta.

Rumors of the figure's existence were given a boost early this month when, as part of the official investigation into the CIA leak, a Time magazine reporter named Rove as the source of the leak.

"This is a very clever fiction concocted by those on the other side of the aisle," Vice President Dick Cheney said. "It's preposterous at its core."

The phantom advisor has come under heavy fire in recent weeks from critics of the administration, who say he should be fired for his role in the scandal. President Bush has pledged that anyone in his administration found to be involved in the CIA leak will be dismissed.

"There is no such organization as the CIA," McClellan said. "This is tinfoil-hat stuff."

Initially demanding that the alleged Rove be fired, Democrats say they are now focusing their efforts on proving the figure's existence.

"I believe this deputy White House chief of staff is real, despite White House claims to the contrary," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "But to disprove this wild ghost story, we must begin an exhaustive fact-finding mission, for which I pledge all the time and resources of the entire Democratic party."

As always, the Onion gets it right.
____________
�There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old�s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.� John Rogers

klehner

Sep 30, 05 5:44

Post #444 of 450 (9287 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

In Reply To:

Oops. Guessed wrong:

"Ms. Miller was freed after spending more than 12 weeks in jail, during which she refused to cooperate with the inquiry. Her decision to testify was made after she had obtained what she described as a waiver offered "voluntarily and personally" by a source who said she was no longer bound by any pledge of confidentiality she had made to him. Ms. Miller said the source had made clear that he genuinely wanted her to testify.

That source was I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, according to people who have been officially briefed on the case. Ms. Miller met with Mr. Libby on July 8, 2003, and talked with him by telephone later that week, they said. "

So you think that the VP's chief of staff may have leaked classified information?
----------------------------------
Of course, with your ears stuffed with outrage cotton balls, all you heard was, rahrahra, govt comes to get your guns, rhahrahrah, stamp out your FREEEEEDOM! - slowguy

ajfranke

Sep 30, 05 5:53

Post #445 of 450 (9282 views)

Re: Novak speaks [klehner] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

We will see, but early indications are that I guessed wrong about the CIA.

There is more to this Libby connection though. She could have gotten whatever she needed from Libby without sitting in jail for three months. I suppose it could be as simple as wanting to go to jail to boost her name ID as a reporter, but why not wait out the extra month for the Grand Jury term to expire?

We may never get to the bottom of this thing.

ajfranke

Sep 30, 05 7:04

Post #446 of 450 (9267 views)

Re: Novak speaks [klehner] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I really need to look before I jump to conclusions. It sounds like Libby is not Miller's only source. From WAPO today:

One lawyer involved in the case said Miller's attorneys reached an agreement with Fitzgerald that may confine prosecutors' questions solely to Miller's conversations with Libby. Bennett, reached last night, said he could not discuss the terms of the agreement for Miller's testimony.

I doubt we will ever get to the bottom of this. That is why these investigations are not worth doing in terms of time, taxpayer money and ink.

Tyrius

Sep 30, 05 8:53

Post #447 of 450 (9252 views)

Re: Novak speaks [klehner] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

From the cnn.com article about this story.

"Tate told CNN Libby testified before a grand jury about his "conversations with Judy Miller and everyone else," appearing two or three times in 2003 and 2004. But he said he has not gone before the grand jury since, and until called by Bennett in early September had not been contacted by anyone in connection with the case in more than a year. Tate said he has no reason to believe Libby is a target of the investigation.

Libby testified he talked about the Plame matter with a few reporters, including Miller and Time magazine's Matt Cooper as well as two Washington Post reporters, Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus. He said he had assured Kessler and Pincus' attorney that Libby's waiver of confidentiality was voluntary. "To me, that was the end of the story," Tate said.

He said he and Libby assumed Miller was jailed for protecting another source or for another unknown reason, and said he did not know why it took 10 days to release Miller following her conversation with Libby."

Looks like Libby has already testified in front of this grand jury. Very interesting set of circumstances where the person the reporter was protecting had already testified to the grand jury.

trio_jeepy

Sep 30, 05 9:54

Post #448 of 450 (9242 views)

Re: Novak speaks [ajfranke] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

In Reply To:

That is patently ludicrous Art. By that logic we should never investigate any government malfeasance crime because they are expensive. Does that mean we should shut down the Frist investigation or any of the investigations into Delay's connections with Abramoff? Or do you only count the investigations of Republicans as pointless?

We shouldn't do these investigations? C'mon. You can do better than that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin
"Don't you see the rest of the country looks upon New York like we're left-wing, communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers? I think of us that way sometimes and I live here." - Alvy Singer, "Annie Hall"

ajfranke

Sep 30, 05 10:02

Post #449 of 450 (9236 views)

Re: Novak speaks [trio_jeepy] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

I was refering to leak investigations. I have never seen one work out. In this case, it is almost certainly a leak that is not a crime. My expectation is that the out of control special prosecutor has long since left the purpose of the original investigation and is now on some obstruction of justice or perjury witch hunt. This has been going on for years at a cost of millions. If there are any charges they will hopefully be brought very soon.

As with Stewart, we have the investigation of a non crime that may potentially lead to charges against people who responded incorrectly to the investigation. If there is no corruption, go ahead and investigate corruption anyway and you can be confident your investigation will create some.

I grant the Special Prosecutor could yet prove me wrong, but I seriously doubt it. They never have.

ajfranke

Sep 2, 06 5:57

Post #450 of 450 (2762 views)

Re: For Whom Does the Bell Toll, Karl? [mopdahl] [In reply to]	Quote \| Reply

"You are still up to your old tricks I see: deflect, deflect, deflect. No matter what smokescreen you & the rest of the kool-aid drinkers throw up, it comes down to this:

SOMEBODY IN THE ADMINISTRATION LEAKED THE IDENTITY OF A CIA AGENT TO THE PRESS.

The reasons behind their actions are irrelevant. "

Want to try again?

1 ... 14 15 16 17 18

View All