Tom DeLay Pwn3d by Chris Matthews

[wootool]

He's against all leaking........unless ...ummmm....karl Rove does it....and ....ummm....besides...Valerie Plame wasnt a CIA Agent.

huh?


http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Delay-NYTimes-Plame.mov

-

 

[Phenom78]

Karl Rove didn't do it

And Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.

Which part confused you?

 

[wootool]

Karl Rove didn't do it
And Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.
Which part confused you?

Karl Rove didn't do it

Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did—and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.


Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper has testified that he was told about Plame by White House senior adviser Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200508290004

And Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.

Newsweek Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/







-

 

[Phenom78]

You're a good guy Wootool. You're just misinformed.

No one "leaked" information. To say it was leaked presupposes that it was classified, which it was not.

The second part is such an absolute misrepresentation of the facts that it is astounding.

The Special prosecutor has refused at every turn over any of the documents the defense has requested arguing that it is a perjury case and as such they are irrelevant. He aslo represents that he intends to offer np proof as to actual damages vis a vis the leaking of Plames name.

The last arguments before the judge in fact were with respect to defense attorney requests that the prosecutor provide evidence of the agents status at the time. Fitzgerald continues to refuse to provide it. Why? In his own indictment he mentioned the potential damage to national security. But now he refuses to provide evidence of same with respect to verifying her previous status.

Because it doesnt exist

Why else not just refuse, but actually draw legal filings to prevent, any documents in his possession with respect to her status at the time being shared with the defense?

 

[wootool]

You're a good guy Wootool.

thanks you too
--

You're just misinformed.

You're saying the Time and Newsweek articles I cited contain inaccurate information? do you have better sources? post them up.
----

No one "leaked" information. To say it was leaked presupposes that it was classified, which it was not.

Show me a definition of "leak" that requires classified info be involved. In context, a "leak" is merely a disclosure of information.

You said he didnt do "it", his lawyer admits he did "it". that is disclosed the Plame information, iow leaked.

the issue of whether the leak was of classified information is a separate legal question.



The second part is such an absolute misrepresentation of the facts that it is astounding.

The Special prosecutor has refused at every turn over any of the documents the defense has requested arguing that it is a perjury case and as such they are irrelevant. He aslo represents that he intends to offer np proof as to actual damages vis a vis the leaking of Plames name.

The last arguments before the judge in fact were with respect to defense attorney requests that the prosecutor provide evidence of the agents status at the time. Fitzgerald continues to refuse to provide it. Why? In his own indictment he mentioned the potential damage to national security. But now he refuses to provide evidence of same with respect to verifying her previous status.

Because it doesnt exist

Why else not just refuse, but actually draw legal filings to prevent, any documents in his possession with respect to her status at the time being shared with the defense?

Thats good theory and speculation on your part, but thats all it is.

What we know as facts are that the CIA requested the Justice Dept investigate the leak. The Justice Dept began an investigation, and a judge then had to approve assignment of a special prosecutor.

The CIA would be in the best position to know if her status was classified, yes?. The fact that they asked for criminal investigation and the Justice Dept initiated it and a Judge then approved assignment of a Special Prosecutor would seem to indicate that the threshhold question of her status as classified must have been met.

Also, numerous CIA supervisors retired have indicated her staus was classified as well as Fitzgeralds filing. As you know, Fitz or any prosecutor is under a duty to represent factually or face sanctions.

If you have better sources indicating her CIA status was not classified post them up lets review them.

p.s. I keep saying I'm going to stay away from politics and I slip up. I blame YOU because you started all those other political threads lol.


..

 

[TADHealth]

well done wootool

with sources and links

 

[AAP]

Anyone trying to deny what was said/did in the face of overwhelming evidence is just an idiot.

 

[Phenom78]

Wootool

Why do you dipstciks do that? Am I supposed to spend an hour quoting you now? I'll number them instead

1)"Show me a definition of "leak" that requires classified info be involved. In context, a "leak" is merely a disclosure of information. "

If I were to "leak" your clown fetish it wouldn't precipitate a criminal investigation. The context and nature of the original accusations defines the term "leak" in a criminal context ie divulging classified information. Else why this discussion?

Point : Phenom

2)"You said he didnt do "it", his lawyer admits he did "it". that is disclosed the Plame information, iow leaked.

the issue of whether the leak was of classified information is a separate legal question."

He didn't leak classified information. Which is why he can freely acknowledge having named Valerie Plame as a CIA agent and not worry about facing prosecution. Or didn't you imagine his attorney had considered how it might reflect upon him professionally by advising his client to admit guilt to a criminal activity in open court without first obtaining a plea agreement?

2)"What we know as facts are that the CIA requested the Justice Dept investigate the leak. The Justice Dept began an investigation, and a judge then had to approve assignment of a special prosecutor.

The CIA would be in the best position to know if her status was classified, yes?. The fact that they asked for criminal investigation and the Justice Dept initiated it and a Judge then approved assignment of a Special Prosecutor would seem to indicate that the threshhold question of her status as classified must have been met."


You make a common error as to procedure. The CIA is not a prosecutorial arm of the government. A charge was made by Plame and her husband, as well as by half the House and Senate (extra credit if you can guess which half) that a crime took place.

As is routinely the case the CIA sent the accusation to the Justice Department to investigate. This happens all the time, albeit they don't always receive so much attention, but that is entirely the function of the political nature of this particular issue as opposed to actual merit of the case.

3)"Also, numerous CIA supervisors retired have indicated her staus was classified as well as Fitzgeralds filing. As you know, Fitz or any prosecutor is under a duty to represent factually or face sanctions.

If you have better sources indicating her CIA status was not classified post them up lets review them"

Im not sure you wish to make that argument. In actuality former supervisors are speaking out,but claiming instead she wasn't. Former colleagues as well. I chose not to mention the fact before because I dont see it as definitive.

What I do see as definitive is a prosecutor first unwilling to make a charge of breaking the outing law despite having multiple confessions as to the "outing." Given that he is pursuing a perjury charge on a non crime suggests he isnt failing to do so out of good will.

Secondly because I know her cover was blown twice previously over a decade prior. Once by a spy in the Ames case. A second time by the State Department itself.

Third because Im not stupid, and do not have an agenda at stake. So I can discern that the prosecutor would not, even if he wished to avoid pursuing a criminal charge on the "outing" for other reasons, emasculate his own case by forcing the judge to refuse to admit any claim, even in passing, by the prosecutor of damage due to the "outing"

Meaning. The prosecutor rather than seek to establish that Plame was covert, a claim that would significantly enhance his perjury charge, has argued instead repeatedly that her status is irrelevant in the perjury case. Simultaneously he has used that justification to avoid repeated defense attempts to have him turn over documents which would establish her status once and for all. He refuses to give them, and not on national security grounds ie: they are too sensitive to divulge.

Why hide them Wootool? How could it possibly hurt his case to establish that she was covert? The simple answer is it couldn't. It would only strenghthen his case.

What would hurt his case is having it known definitively that she was not covert. Which would then bring up the embarassing question as to why he pursued a case for years in which no crime could have been committed, as mentioning Valerie Plames name in any other context would not be a crime.

 

[Phenom78]

Also you were incorrect as to who was starting all the political threads. My own efforts have been rather miniscule.

 

[AAP]

So in a nutshell, you are saying the info contain in that post/link is incorrect.

Yes or no.

Simple question, one or the other. Yes or no. No need to debate it with 6 paragraph posts. The info is either correct or incorrect.

Which is it?

 

[bluepeter]

lol, maybe if I write a novel and use really big words, nobody will realise I have no argument.

Of course, the most despicable aspect (though not criminal) of the whole business is the attempt by the Bush admin to discredit someone who did not buy into their doctrine. Too bad they chose to do this to someone who turned out to be 100% correct. Then again, that's not really a surprise is it?

 

[WODIN]

LMAO.
The Debate to this point.

Wootool. "Frank got shot by Bill."
Phenom. "No Frank stepped in the way of a bullet that was from a gun which bill just happened to be holding and he squeezed the trigger and had no idea that a bullet would come out of the gun."

Wootool. "Bill said he wanted to kill frank and then pointed the gun (see video) then shot him."

Phenom. "That's not a real video!" .

LMAO!!!

Tard.

 

[Phenom78]

lol, maybe if I write a novel and use really big words, nobody will realise I have no argument.

Of course, the most despicable aspect (though not criminal) of the whole business is the attempt by the Bush admin to discredit someone who did not buy into their doctrine. Too bad they chose to do this to someone who turned out to be 100% correct. Then again, that's not really a surprise is it?

LOL @ this thread

Which part of what I said was inaccurate Blue?

The one good thing in all this is we wont have any more posts from AAP or Wodin about how Rove should be fired since hes about to be indicted.

 

[heatherrae]

lol, maybe if I write a novel and use really big words, nobody will realise I have no argument.

Of course, the most despicable aspect (though not criminal) of the whole business is the attempt by the Bush admin to discredit someone who did not buy into their doctrine. Too bad they chose to do this to someone who turned out to be 100% correct. Then again, that's not really a surprise is it?

lol...then he will insult your arguments by merely saying that you "parrot" liberal viewpoints, and when he can make no further argument, he will call you "stoopid" LOL.

It's hard to engage in debate with that sort of argument...lol.

 

[Phenom78]

lol...then he will insult your arguments by merely saying that you "parrot" liberal viewpoints, and when he can make no further argument, he will call you "stoopid" LOL.

It's hard to engage in debate with that sort of argument...lol.

You bring the insults on yourself.

You ask an empty headed question like why Iraq. You make the specious representation that many countries are just as bad.

Humoring the notion that you were tired or hung over when you wrote the above statement, I responded thoughtfully by stating that while there may very well be many bad regimes, not all of them (as you implied) have developed and used WMDs both against their citizens and their neighbors. Not all of them have repeatedly invaded their neighbors (one of which by the way required placing US troops at war to correct. Not all of them require unpopular large US troop presence on their border to prevent future invasions. And not all of them are under legal obligation to disarm.

Your response was Israel , Turkey, and Monaco, as well as some suggestion that we should have invaded ourselves. When pressed as to whether or not you really wished to defend such absurd examples, you responded no but couldnt be bothered to research actual examples which might actually be relevant.


But feel free to provide at any time an example of one of the "many countries" that meet our criteria for having gone into Iraq. Im sure Ill be waiting forever

 

[heatherrae]

It was all relevant. My argument with regard to the Kurds, the Shiite uprising, the violations of UN resolutions by other countries, were all relevant. You didn't have the ammo to respond, so you said that unless I found a country who fit in all these seperate categories which you made up, I must be wrong. Now who had the specious argument? LOL...laughable.

 

[Phenom78]

It was all relevant. My argument with regard to the Kurds, the Shiite uprising, the violations of UN resolutions by other countries, were all relevant. You didn't have the ammo to respond, so you said that unless I found a country who fit in all these seperate categories which you made up, I must be wrong. Now who had the specious argument? LOL...laughable.

No Heather. You established the premise of "why Iraq when there are lots of equally bad countries" when you were pretending to be a neutral observer who had no preconceived positions on the argument.

And I didnt ignore your argument on the Kurds, or Shia uprising. You also mentioned alleged US complicity in Saddam's actions in the 80's

Instead what I did say was how is it relevant. Lets assume every charge you made was accurate. Lets say we helped Saddam in the 80's, aided his rise to power, and alloweed the butchery of Iraq's citizenry.

How does that in any way bind us from acting differently today? How do the previous transgressions of prior administrations in any way bind a new President from acting more humanely or from correcting those errors?

Your entire argument is based on some absurd fairness doctrine which suggests the following as its tenets

1)If you dont help everyone you cant help anyone

2)Unless you have always been pure and correct, you can't do so in the future.

3)all tyrants must go or none can be removed.

It is inane.

We also once practiced slavery. Does that mean that we are now impotent in asserting that we will use our current strength and influence to discourage slavery elsewhere?

We have been accused of virtual genocide against native Americans. Does that mean it would be unfair to prevent future genocides elsewhere?

Its just a silly grasping at straws in an attempt to justify the inexcusable.

 

[heatherrae]

You don't get the point of any argument. Thus, it is useless to argue with you. You try to make everything absurd rather than discuss facts from the time periods involved, the players, and the events. The best at debating your side of the argumednt on that thread, was, by far, redguru. He at least understood the import of the arguments made and had a viable and coherent response based upon facts.

 

[AAP]

Still no answer to my question.

Yes or no.


Very simple question. Very simple answer. It is either yes or no.


Now which is it?

 

[Phenom78]

You don't get the point of any argument. Thus, it is useless to argue with you. You try to make everything absurd rather than discuss facts from the time periods involved, the players, and the events. The best at debating your side of the argumednt on that thread, was, by far, redguru. He at least understood the import of the arguments made and had a viable and coherent response based upon facts.

And once again you prove incapable of addressing any of the points actually made but instead hide behind silly claims of "Im just too smart, and you couldnt possibly understand me"

Frankly you arent that bright

And while I readily admit I often include a great deal of insults and sarcasm in my responses, I always address the points that were made. The practice of the latter seems to escape you.

Your problem is you are accustomed to having your empty headed babbling readily validated by other empty headed liberals. You are unaccustomed to having the idiocy questioned, so when it is you are at a complete loss as to how to respond to what up till then you considered universal truths, but any thinking person would have knows was just vapid excuse and evasion.

 

[AAP]

Still no answer.

 

[bluepeter]

And once again you prove incapable of addressing any of the points actually made but instead hide behind silly claims of "Im just too smart, and you couldnt possibly understand me"

Frankly you arent that bright

And while I readily admit I often include a great deal of insults and sarcasm in my responses, I always address the points that were made. The practice of the latter seems to escape you.

Your problem is you are accustomed to having your empty headed babbling readily validated by other empty headed liberals. You are unaccustomed to having the idiocy questioned, so when it is you are at a complete loss as to how to respond to what up till then you considered universal truths, but any thinking person would have knows was just vapid excuse and evasion.

And once again you prove incapable of engaging in debate without resorting to infantile insults and name calling. Frankly, you sound like you're 5 years old. Do everyone a favour and go hunting with Dick Cheney.

 

[Phenom78]

LOL @ this thread

Which part of what I said was inaccurate Blue?

The one good thing in all this is we wont have any more posts from AAP or Wodin about how Rove should be fired since hes about to be indicted.

...

 

[AAP]

Still no answer.

Lack of answer is an answer in itself.

 

[heatherrae]

And once again you prove incapable of addressing any of the points actually made but instead hide behind silly claims of "Im just too smart, and you couldnt possibly understand me"

Frankly you arent that bright

And while I readily admit I often include a great deal of insults and sarcasm in my responses, I always address the points that were made. The practice of the latter seems to escape you.

Your problem is you are accustomed to having your empty headed babbling readily validated by other empty headed liberals. You are unaccustomed to having the idiocy questioned, so when it is you are at a complete loss as to how to respond to what up till then you considered universal truths, but any thinking person would have knows was just vapid excuse and evasion.

Yes, here come the insults again. LOL . I'm a parrot, and I am "stoopid." ROFL. It's like trying to debate a third grader.

When you begin to realize that there are brillian Republicans, brilliant Democrats, etc, you will become better at seeing their arguments and posting arguments in response to what has been said. Merely calling people parrots and "stoopid" doesn't do much to convince anyone of your viewpoints.

 

[AAP]

Is there any sissy ass Republican around that can answer a simple yes or no question?

Surely it can't be that frightening can it?

 

[Phenom78]

Yes, here come the insults again. LOL . I'm a parrot, and I am "stoopid." ROFL. It's like trying to debate a third grader.

When you begin to realize that there are brillian Republicans, brilliant Democrats, etc, you will become better at seeing their arguments and posting arguments in response to what has been said. Merely calling people parrots and "stoopid" doesn't do much to convince anyone of your viewpoints.

Instead of crying post after post, you might consider actually addressing one or two of the points made.

Having a hypocrite correct my people skills is bad enough. That she repeatedly does so while simultaneously avoiding responding to any of the easily refutable points she repeatdly ignores, presumably so she can do her nails, is beyond annoying.

 

[WODIN]

LOL @ this thread

Which part of what I said was inaccurate Blue?

The one good thing in all this is we wont have any more posts from AAP or Wodin about how Rove should be fired since hes about to be indicted.

Amazing how you claim to be so patriotic and all American and then support a seditionist treason scumbag like Rove who would have been shot on the White House Lawn had this happened 200 years ago.

 

[Phenom78]

Amazing how you claim to be so patriotic and all American and then support a seditionist treason scumbag like Rove who would have been shot on the White House Lawn had this happened 200 years ago.

ahahahah

On what grounds Wodin? Or is just kicking the democrats ass election after election sufficient provocation in your estimation?

 

[heatherrae]

Instead of crying post after post, you might consider actually addressing one or two of the points made.

Having a hypocrite correct my people skills is bad enough. That she repeatedly does so while simultaneously avoiding responding to any of the easily refutable points she repeatdly ignores, presumably so she can do her nails, is beyond annoying.

Go back and actually read my responses and arguments and address the UN resolutions, the situation with the Kurds, the situation with the Shiites, etc. etc. I responded to each of your arguments. I, frankly, have come to the opinion that you know little about the history of the region or our past involvment there.

 

[Phenom78]

Go back and actually read my responses and arguments and address the UN resolutions, the situation with the Kurds, the situation with the Shiites, etc. etc. I responded to each of your arguments. I, frankly, have come to the opinion that you know little about the history of the region or our past involvment there.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.

I don't have breasts so maybe you can provide the answer for me. How many times do I have to respond to your points before you address them a single time. Apparently half a dozen isnt sufficient. So you provide the number.

I already responded once again to your points in this thread. Why not, and here is a novel idea, andswer thnbose before asking me to respond once again. If you take issue with any part of the response then articulate it.

Otherwise you're long past boring me.

 

[AAP]

Instead of crying post after post, you might consider actually addressing one or two of the points made.

Perhaps you can address and answer a simple question posed to you.

Yes or no?

 

[heatherrae]

Perhaps you can address and answer a simple question posed to you.

Yes or no?

He absolutely doesn't know shit about these things AAP. You may as well give up. LOL.

 

[Phenom78]

Perhaps you can address and answer a simple question posed to you.

Yes or no?

No offense bro, but responding to you is pointless.

It always ends up with your claiming "I never said that" or we all msiapprehend your non point in some unintelligible and non articulated way.

But to humor you this once I more accurately demonstrated that it was incomplete as to facts, and inaccurate in its suppositions.


Let me ask you a question in turn.

Putting aside for a second the reality that despite confessions in court, no one has been charged with outing a CIA operative. Why in your estimation, since nationals security isnt being argued, does the prosecutor continue to fight defense requests to be provided with documents proving she was covert?

The CIA isn't fighting it.

No one is making the claim that it would jeopardize national security or top secret documents to do so.

Why AAP is the prosecutor working so hard to prevent the truth to come out?

 

[AAP]

I ask for a yes or no answer and get 6+ paragraphs that does everything BUT answer the question.

The question is simple : those parts of the article that WT listed in bold... are they incorrect?

The answer should be simple. Yes or no.

No need for paragraphs of debates/excuses/explanations.

Why run from the question? Yes or no?

 

[bluepeter]

Why AAP is the prosecutor working so hard to prevent the truth to come out?

ROFLMAO

Now that's funny. Especially when considering the events that precipitated this discussion.

 

[AAP]

What is real funny is he can type all those irrelevant paragraphs but can't type a simple "yes" or "no".

 

[gotmilk]

And Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.

Is this the Bill Clinton Semantics Club? Valerie was an active agent at the time. Yes, it was a leak. Like when you think you are done pissing but you get a dribbler down your leg.

Her name and location should have NEVER been publicly discussed. PERIOD.

 

[AAP]

Why haven't anymore of those silly conservatives run in here to help jersey out? He is getting butchered on his own to the extent of being comical.

 

[Phenom78]

I ask for a yes or no answer and get 6+ paragraphs that does everything BUT answer the question.

The question is simple : those parts of the article that WT listed in bold... are they incorrect?

The answer should be simple. Yes or no.

No need for paragraphs of debates/excuses/explanations.

Why run from the question? Yes or no?

Im sorry was the word "incomplete" to large for you? What part of it didn't you comprehend?

Would it help if I copied it from someone else and attributed it as my own? Would that help you grasp it easier?

 

[Phenom78]

ROFLMAO

Now that's funny. Especially when considering the events that precipitated this discussion.

Three dumb ass liberals

Not a single plausible answer

Par for the course.

 

[AAP]

Would a yes or no be any harder?

The words in bold... are they incorrect. Yes or no?

Pehaps if you run get dullboy and bigpube the three of you might can answer a simple question.

Not that I would expect you to. As I said, lack of answering is an answer itself.

 

[bluepeter]

Three dumb ass liberals

Not a single plausible answer

Par for the course.

Didn't expect you to understand that. It's OK.

 

[Phenom78]

Would a yes or no be any harder?

The words in bold... are they incorrect. Yes or no?

Pehaps if you run get dullboy and bigpube the three of you might can answer a simple question.

Not that I would expect you to. As I said, lack of answering is an answer itself.

Im sorry bro. It isn't my fault you become confused by non monosyllabic answers. Those are accidents of nature over which I have no control.

Maybe you should have someone smarter than you define incomplete for your benefit.

Ill continue to wait for you to cut and paste an answer to the question I asked. Is google giving you difficulty today?

 

[AAP]

Yes or no.

 

[TADHealth]

Yes or No

 

[wootool]

what an idiot thread. what retard started this shit anyways?

 

[gjohnson5]

Karl Rove didn't do it

And Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent.

Which part confused you?

Lord the "covert" issue is such a lame right winged excuse it's just not funny.
The culture of corruption at it's best...

 

[Phenom78]

Lord the "covert" issue is such a lame right winged excuse it's just not funny.
The culture of corruption at it's best...

LOL @ culture of corruption.

 

[gjohnson5]

LOL @ culture of corruption.

LOL @ Family Values while being indicted and thrown in jails for as plethera of crimes / ethics issues

 

[gjohnson5]

And LOL @ Rush Limbaugh being caught with his doctor's viagra....