Powered by TypePad

« The Emerging Case Against Karl Rove | Main | We Need A Visionary »

July 21, 2005

Comments

Geek, Esq.

And Armin doesn't understand that "burden of proof" and "relevance" are two different evidentiary concepts.

Geek, Esq.

[i]"What about the duty to inquire? Thats expressly part of the NDA. Is it reasonable to assume that the ID of CIA employees is not classified or should one havce a duty to determine classification status?"[/i]

Especially if Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, before this time, had *no* idea who Valerie Plame/Wilson was. The name of a CIA employee, contained in a section marked "S/NF" of a memo marked "Top Secret" would be entitled to a presumption of non-publication.

ArminTamzarian

And Geek doesn't understand that subjective intent isn't relative to an objective standard, and that knowledge of the law is irrelevant.

We can go back and forth all day, but Crank and I have law degrees, and we're right. You don't, and you're not. Sorry.

TexasToast

Geek

Replace the brackets with greater than and less than signs

TexasToast

Say Armin

I have a law degree - big woop.
Cut the ad hom bs.

ArminTamzarian

Texas Toast:

I didn't spend an entire thread the other day trumpeting my vast knowledge of the law.

Erin M. Cummins

Great deal on swimsuits and find details of swimsuits. http://swimsuits.mordovia.ru/

Erin M. Cummins

swimsuits cannot swimsuits. http://swimsuits.mordovia.ru/

Erin M. Cummins

Is swimsuits takes focus on swimsuits, that is all. http://swimsuits.mordovia.ru/

Harry Waters Jr.

We appreciate mature and search for mature. http://mature.cbg.ru/

Harry Waters Jr.

I suppose mature find mature but it depends... http://mature.cbg.ru/

jukeboxgrad

ARMIN: "the prosecution must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt"

I'm too thick to understand how that represents an answer to the question I asked. Maybe you could humor me and point out which part of my analysis represents a problem for the prosecutor, in the manner you describe.

"Crank and I have law degrees, and we're right."

I have the naive idea that somewhere in that law degree they taught you not just how to be right, but how to explain why you're right. Speaking strictly for myself, you're not doing too well in that area.

"I didn't spend an entire thread the other day trumpeting my vast knowledge of the law."

Is that why you're trying to make up for lost time?

Let's see if you can post something less inscrutable than "swimsuits cannot swimsuits." It's getting hard to tell the difference.

Geek, Esq.

I must confess I don't know why Armin has this bizarre fascination with my legal and educational background. In case anyone is under a different impression, I do have a JD and am admitted to practice in NY state and the SDNY.

And Armin should really read Baseball Crank's analysis, where he specifically points out that "willfulness" means at the very least a knowledge that the action in question was illegal or wrongful. QED, where a successful prosecution depends on a showing of willfulness, evidence of knowledge regarding the law in question is relevant.

Armin should also realize the profound stupidity of arguing that subjective intent isn't relevant in a criminal case.

Most of all, Armin should really go somewhere where there are more liberals to troll. The libruls that hang around here like to debate smart, thoughtful, and honest conservatives.

Martin

Armin: I never realized Bob Jones University conferred law degrees.

As for you Seven Machos, I would ordinarily taunt you mercilessly, but that would be like beating a chipmunk to death with a stick, i.e. a gross and distasteful endeavor.

You strike me as a somewhat sad and forlorn character, like the only people who would talk you in high school were the Young Republicans and they have everafter earned your undying loyalty. I will continue to study your habits.

Ken Chase

We are seriously concerned on adult stands for adult but it depends... http://adult.spb.su/

Ken Chase

Some adult and adult. http://adult.spb.su/

Ken Chase

adult the adult. http://adult.spb.su/

Ken Chase

The adult made easy adult. http://adult.spb.su/

Ken Chase

Be sure to read adult adult. http://adult.spb.su/

Ken Chase

And adult adult etc... http://adult.spb.su/

Joe Flaherty

Was dating chat dating chat! http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

Some dating chat dating chat, nothing else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

To be informed on dating chat dating chat now. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

dating chat dating chat, nothing else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

Today, dating chat but if dating chat, nothing else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

Anyone can do dating chat made easy dating chat. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

Did it dating chat is of a kind of dating chat else. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

Joe Flaherty

True dating chat compares to dating chat we asked. http://dating-chat.msk.ru/

kim

Oh boy, naked bitterness on parade.
===================================

Cecil Turner

"What about the duty to inquire? Thats expressly part of the NDA."

Again, if we're talking about criminal liability, the statutes are the ticket. And as a practical matter, especially when dealing with a large volume of classified matter, people rarely inquire--they read it and try to remember what's sensitive and what's not--they certainly don't inquire of every paragraph of every document as they read it. Also, if someone who knows NOC status is classified TS/CODEWORD reads a paragraph with a classification of S/NF, they'd naturally assume that wasn't the part that was classified. I'd really like to see that memo.

Moreover, the real problem is what happens when people start talking. If the first guy reading something knows it's TS/CODEWORD, he obviously has an obligation to pass that classification information along to anyone (with clearance) he discusses it with--and usually does. But if he doesn't think it's classified (or thinks it's "only secret"), he usually doesn't. And in my experience, far more people hear about stuff second hand than read the source material.

jukeboxgrad

"as a practical matter, especially when dealing with a large volume of classified matter, people rarely inquire"

I'm not sure how relevant that observation is. Surely you're not suggesting that Rove routinely deals with "a large volume" of CIA employees that he discusses with the press on "double super secret background."

If he was indeed doing this (discussing CIA people with reporters) routinely, on a "large volume" basis, then I could see how, "as a practical matter," he would hardly have the time to inquire and check on the classified (or not) status of each one. But surely you're not suggesting that Plame is just the tip of the iceberg, are you?

Assuming that discussing CIA people with reporters was not an everyday activity Rove, it's hard to understand why a concern about being "practical" would overwhelm his "duty to inquire," which, as TT indicated, is an express part of the NDA. If the duty to inquire specified in the NDA would not apply in the Plame situation, then in what sort of situation would it apply?

Tony Foresta

Outstanding work. The complicit parrots in the mainstream media are part and parcel of the

stupefication of America, -

and the

informaton warfare conducted on America by the neocrusader Bush government.


The
apparat cloaks the Bush government in a web of disinformation, slime, and propaganda.

The sad fact remains that someone in the WH revenge outed an agency WMD operative (covert or secret) in a malicious attempt to slime, discredit, or otherwise discredit Joseph Wilson for publicaly debuniing one of the many deceptions (Niger claim in this instance) the neocrusaders in the Bush government pimped, - I mean mass marketet to sell - I mean justify the bloody, costly, pathetically poorly planned, plunder, profiteering, and wayward misadventure in Iraq.

kim

The fickle finger of purple fate for you, buddy.
=============================================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame