Ken/Com logic 101 when a crime is a crime

Email Print posted by Hubble 03/20/2007 09:21:53 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
When is a crime a crime?

Ken and his fellow Cons it the great echo chamber seem to be of the opinion that until someone is indicted then no law is ever broken. As an example of his attitude I offer the following quotes.

Furthermore, Pat Fitzgerald has ended the case, packed up his shit, and moved back to Chicago. He didn't indict the people who admitted they outed the identity of Valerie Plame. Why? Because no law was broken.
And Fitzgerald ain't indicting anybody for a crime! So what does that tell you?
Question: Why did Patrick Fitzgerald not indict Richard Armitage, or anyone else, for outing the identity of Valerie Plame?
Answer: Because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was never violated.
Fact #2: Pat Fitzgerald did not indict anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame.
So in other words, no laws were broken.
Why did Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald end his investigation, pack up his belongings, and head back to Chicago without indicting anyone for outing the identity of Valerie Plame?
Because no laws were ever broken, you liberal dumbass!

Now using Ken logic if you happen to find a dead body that has a gunshot wound to the back of the head, a knife protruding from the chest, hanging from a cross beam by a noose, with it’s hands tied behind its back,  before you can say a crime has been committed someone must be indicted.

It doesn’t matter if the police have a suspect that they feel sure committed the crime but can’t actually find enough evidence to convict him, by Ken logic until the suspect is indicted no crime has been committed.

So all of you who have been victims of what you thought was a crime but the police never caught the perpetrator, take heart in the fact that until a prosecutor brings charges against someone by Con logic 101 no crime has been committed and you are not a victim……

Unless of course the allegations are against a Democrat then all that is needed is an accusation with no facts or evidence to support it, in that case a crime of Biblical proportions has probably been committed threatening the fate or the Free World as we know it.
< Who's Afraid of this War? | Help Al Gore, sign petition, Al Testifying Wednesday before the House and Senate on climate crisis >
 Display:
Ken/Com logic 101 when a crime is a crime | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
Hub, I'm shocked, SHOCKED!... (none / 0)
...that you go to such great lengths.

Have you noticed that they don't even think being convicted means you broke a law, let alone a simple indictment...

by MedfordTim on 03/20/2007 07:05:37 PM EST

I think you guys are trying to make me happy! (none / 0)
“Now using Ken logic if you happen to find a dead body that has a gunshot wound to the back of the head, a knife protruding from the chest, hanging from a cross beam by a noose, with it’s hands tied behind its back,  before you can say a crime has been committed someone must be indicted. It doesn’t matter if the police have a suspect that they feel sure committed the crime but can’t actually find enough evidence to convict him, by Ken logic until the suspect is indicted no crime has been committed.”

Hubble, your feeble attempt at logic is falling apart in a most embarrassing manner. Not only do you have a suspect, Richard Armitage, but you have his confession: “I outed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame to newspaper reporters. End of story. See ya’ later alligator.”

Let’s review some analysis of the case from the nation’s leading newspapers.

The Washington Post:
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.

The Wall Street Journal:
None of this has stopped critics of the war from trying to blow this entire case into something far larger. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the conviction as proof that the White House tried to "manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics." But the charges against Mr. Libby had nothing to do with intelligence, and Mr. Wilson was himself so discredited by summer 2004 that the John Kerry campaign dropped him as a spokesman once the Senate exposed his deceit.

USAToday:
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent years investigating who leaked Valerie Plame Wilson's identity to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003. While nobody was charged with the leak, Libby is accused of lying to investigators about his conversations with reporters. Fitzgerald wants to keep most of that backstory out of Libby's trial in January. In court papers, Fitzgerald has argued that the upcoming trial should not be a forum to debate the leak itself or question why Libby was charged and others weren't.

Rocky Mountain News:
And it involves an implacable and relentless special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who has spent three years investigating and building his case. The proceedings should make for fascinating courtroom drama - except that there is no underlying crime. Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation. Depending on who's talking, he either lied or misspoke about his conversations with reporters or simply didn't remember them. At one point in the probe it appeared that the White House orchestrated a leak to discredit an administration critic. But that leak, at least as far as we know now, came in reporters' casual conversations with a senior State Department official and not as the result of a White House conspiracy to somehow get someone.
 
Cincinnati Post:
The special prosecutor managed to turn a non-crime into one for the century and in the process nail a super villain like Libby, who even the jury concedes has been left to twist slowly in the wind by his comrades. As one of the illustrious panelists confided, "we wondered why this guy was even here."

Well, join most of those Americans who have been paying attention to Fitzgerald's masterful ability to create a mountain out of perhaps the smallest molehill in the history of jurisprudence at taxpayer expense. He really should write a book outlining the methods employed in turning insignificant creatures like Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson into household names and routine Washington events into prosecutable offenses.

A recent cartoon summed up things best. In a series of panels it portrayed Fitzgerald as being asked by a reporter whether the leak of Plame's name was a crime. The prosecutor replies it was not. Would the columnist who first printed it be prosecuted? No, was the reply. Would the person who leaked it to him be prosecuted? No. Who would be? Why Scooter Libby, was the answer. But who is Libby? Did his conversations with reporters produce any story? No. Then why prosecute him? Well, he was available.

by KenTX on 03/20/2007 09:07:07 PM EST

Bears repeating... (none / 0)
Tim, earlier: "Have you noticed that they don't even think being convicted means you broke a law, let alone a simple indictment..."

Ken, insistent: "Not only do you have a suspect, Richard Armitage, but you have his confession: “I outed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame to newspaper reporters. End of story. See ya’ later alligator.”

Tim, another thread: Two things that are often overlooked - Fitzy was only looking at it from the criminal code point of view which is the "agent protection act," but the Executive Order which states that anyone passing on classified materials will be "drawn and quartered" is an Administrative action - not in the purview of Fitz and carries a much lower standard of "proof."

That's why the White House never had an investigation.

A newly popular notion being spewed by the Right is that because Armitage spoke first, the rest get a pass. That is utter nonsense. The information was still classified when Rove, Libby, Fleischer, et al. spoke to their sources - and it was at that time that red flags would have gone off in the minds of non-partisan types. I know if I was in that position and someone asked me about a CIA agent's status, I'd find out if he/she was undercover before verifying her/his status. This is the recklessness referred to by Valerie Wilson in her testimony - none of them tried to find out, which leads one to think they already knew what the status was.

From Executive Order 12958:

"Classified national security information" (hereafter "classified information") means information that has been determined pursuant to this order or any predecessor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure

Such as the status of a CIA employee

"Unauthorized disclosure" means a communication or physical transfer of classified information to an unauthorized recipient.

Like, telling various reporters...

"Damage to the national security" means harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized disclosure of information, to include the sensitivity, value, and utility of that information.

Wiping out an entire undercover WMD research operation fits that criteria.

Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

Oops! There goes the "it was already disclosed" defense.

"Violation" means:
    (1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

Even if the leakers didn't know or didn't act willfully (I freakin' doubt it), there is no doubt that there was negligence aplenty.

 Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:
    (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;  
(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

And remember, Scott McClellan is on tape saying he talked to Rove, Libby, and Fleischer - and they all denied ANY involvement. 

Now, try and convince me that President Custer didn't knowingly squash any internal investigation...

by MedfordTim on 03/21/2007 01:58:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
NO GODDAMMIT! (none / 0)
"A newly popular notion being spewed by the Right is that because Armitage spoke first, the rest get a pass."

Here is a newly popular notion for you to chew on. 

Armitage spoke.

Libby spoke.

Rove spoke.

Fleischer spoke.

They all spoke.

It doesn't matter in what order, or who spoke first.

They all outed Valerie Plame's CIA identity to the press.

They all admitted it.

They aren't being prosecuted on Executive Order 12958.

They aren't being prosecuted on the Identities Act.

They aren't being prosecuted. Period.

There are 69 U.S. newspapers stating in the editorial page, that there is NO UNDERLYING CRIME! Scooter Libby was guilty of the process crime of perjury before the grand jury. Very similar to what Bill Clinton was guilty of.

You don't agree with the Washington Post.

You don't agree with the Wall Street Journal.

Now then, do we have all of the facts presented? Because when this case is laid out before the court of history, you will be standing all alone with your position.

I understand why you are struggling against the truth of this case with all of your might. If Democrats spent nearly four years, desperately trying to make something out of nothing, then why should we ever again believe anything they say?

Chris Matthews talked about the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame case every night for the past four years. And what does he have to show for it? Joe Wilson has been discredited as a LIAR! Pat Fitgerald found nothing but process perjury.

 

by KenTX on 03/21/2007 06:02:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Executive Order 12958 (none / 0)
 "They aren't being prosecuted on Executive Order 12958"

1. It wouldn't be a "prosecution" because it's an Administrative Offense.

2. Patrick Fitzgerald would have nothing to do with this - irrelevant.

3. The White House promised to have an investigation right away. They have not to this day.

4. All of the people who leaked this CLASSIFIED INFORMATION should have had their Security Clearances removed immediately, but they FUCKING LIED about their involvement. Armitage came forward only AFTER the FBI became involved 2 months after the fact.

5. Did you catch the part about the White House obstructing Justice? That would be the guys lying to McClellan and the President not telling what he knew, when he knew it, as is the LAW. The others are all guilty of this same infraction.

"Scooter Libby was guilty of the process crime of perjury before the grand jury. Very similar to what Bill Clinton was guilty of."

Actually, it was two more counts, and it was in a court of law - oh, and Bill Clinton was found "Not Guilty" by the Senate. The ones who actually hold the trial. Y'know...if ol' Scooter had told the truth in the first place, the trial never would have happened. But he didn't, He lied. To The FBI. To the Grand Jury. To Fitzgerald. And he got caught. And convicted. If it was for having a joint in his pocket, he'd already be behind bars. And he should be. Now.

The Wall Street Journal has very good business related articles. The Opinion Journal is nothing but a Right Wing organ and extremely negligible.

Only the most zealous of Right Wingers believe the White House over Joe Wilson. That's why they keep repeating the same discredited stories - they got nuttin'!

And you got nuttin' but stale ol' discredited (even if you WON'T look at the evidence - it still exists) lies about a true American Patriot (just ask George 1) while assholes like Bremer and Tenet get medals.

Shame!

by MedfordTim on 03/21/2007 08:16:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim Versus History (none / 0)
Tim: “Bill Clinton was found "Not Guilty" by the Senate. The ones who actually hold the trial.”

History: “President Clinton, on last full day in office, agrees to settlement in which he will avoid possibility of indictment in exchange for admitting he gave false testimony under oath and agreeing to surrender his law license for five years; deal with special prosecutor Robert W Ray is stunning end to long melodrama and pitched legal battles over Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky; also ends any criminal liability in Whitewater case and concludes $60-million investigation that plagued Clintons for much of their time in White House; Clinton explicitly admits that 'certain of my responses' were false when he gave 1998 deposition about Lewinsky in Paula Jones sexual misconduct suit; will pay $25,000 fine to Arkansas Bar Assn and promises not to seek reimbursement of legal fees from federal court, as he would be entitled to do as person investigated but not indicted; statement ending weeks of negotiations is read at White House; Clinton is described as relieved but unhappy that last day in office is marked again by scandal; attorney David Kendall says president is glad to have 'closure'; Ray reportedly did not want to leave issue, and pardon question, to incoming president George W Bush.”

by KenTX on 03/21/2007 08:33:02 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Uh huh.... (none / 0)
So, is there a felony conviction on his record?

Hmmmm?

by MedfordTim on 03/21/2007 01:37:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tim rules are different when it's a Dem (none / 0)
I refer you back to my original post. If it's a Democrat no trial is required. It doesn't matter. All that is necessary is an allegation and they are guilty, guilty, guilty.

On the other hand even after a conviction if it’s a Con then no crime was ever committed, it has to be a run away prosecutor who is a liberal Democrat even if he were appointed by a Republican President. Or the jury was too stupid to understand that Republicans never commit any crimes.

Remember Tim you can break it down like this no matter what they do
Republican-GOOD
Democrat-BAD

by Hubble on 03/23/2007 11:58:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Congratulations Hubble! (none / 0)
"Remember Tim you can break it down like this no matter what they do.
Republican-GOOD
Democrat-BAD"

How many years has it taken me to get you to accept this premise?

by KenTX on 03/23/2007 01:43:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Gawd, Kwn, your sources;;; (none / 0)
The Washington Post article you linked to should have been stopped after the first sentence: "THE CONVICTION of I. Lewis Libby on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice was grounded in strong evidence and what appeared to be careful deliberation by a jury."

The OPINION Journal, NOT The Wall St. Journal (gotta start getting that right, Ken. There IS a difference)
Who cares what they say - they're as big a propaganda organ for all things Bush as Fox Noise is.

USA Today: Up to the minute analysis here, including the claim that Libby will take the stand. Huh? Oh, this was all BEFORE the lying scumbag was tried. And CONVICTED of his crime.

The Rocky Mountain News: Again, proclaiming Libby's "innocence" before the jury said "no." Again, who gives even half a Tinker's Dam what some editorialist working for a right wing rag has to say - it's just a rehash of all the other right wing crapola. So what?

Cincy Post: Another opinion piece, devoid of pertinent fact, but at least done after the verdict. Ken, since you're the one who likes to bring up Clinton, maybe you should be the one to tell this guy that the "masterful ability to create a mountain out of perhaps the smallest molehill in the history of jurisprudence at taxpayer expense" Guinness record is still held by Ken Starr, who closer fits "the special prosecutor managed to turn a non-crime into one for the century and in the process nail a super villain..."

Although, an honest case could be made that with his addition of "the century," (while hyperbolic considering there are still 93 years left in this century) is technically correct since the Clinton non-eventful witch hunt was last century. 

It's also very telling that Ken purposefully leaves out: "But then he did have help from typical White House overreaction to Wilson"

Yes. They typically lie, assassinate the character and do their best to ruin the livelihood of people who have honest disagreements with them, and create even more animosity for themselves. Nice of the Post to point it out. Typical of Ken to leave it out.

Now, if only some of these intrepid wordsniths would question why the White House didn't start the immediate investigation that the President swore he would do - right away! - because he wanted to find out who leaked classified info so he could get rid of them. (Not to mention, he is supposed to by law, or that Rove, Libby, Fleischer, et al. are legally bound to TELL someone that they leaked) Then, when he finds out Turd Blossom was a major player, he plays a different tune.

by MedfordTim on 03/21/2007 02:32:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken/Com logic 101 when a crime is a crime | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: