Confed999

Nope, same one. Your misunderstanding is normal, and why I usually don't talk to you. But this kind of topic gets me my jollies. I wouldn't even have to post but you started ignoring Dale, and Bluesman started ignoring you!
Until the media, and everyone else, goes after their favorites the same way as the hated, then they will allways be duplicitous. As long as they smudge an accused leaker with leaked information, they will be duplicitous. As long as they say one thing to the public, and write another in their court briefs, they will be duplicitous.
Main Entry: du·plic·i·ty
Pronunciation: du-'pli-s&-tE also dyu-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English duplicite, from Middle French, from Late Latin duplicitat-, duplicitas, from Latin duplex
1 : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action; especially : the belying of one's true intentions by deceptive words or action
Nope, I said a leak is a leak, and using a leak to expose a leak while ignoring the proving leak is duplicity. Also said that leaks of Grand Jury testimony are criminal, and leaks were unreliable as well.
Leaks aren't reliable, they're hearsay. If the document exists, is not classified, or being used for Grand Jury evidence, then it should be available...
If they do, then you might have something!
I've never said it didn't exist. Never said it did either. The reason for that is I've never seen it, and the only ones who have talked about it did so unnamed. Maybe you don't understand this, but I have no stake in anything about Rove. I could truly care less if he were convicted and imprisoned for a decade. Your belief being strong enough to bet on it is not proof it exists.
I'll apologize now: I'm sorry you just don't see the joke, or understand what I say.
None. Maybe you could reread the thread...
Correct, I was the one making the duplicity claims, you were the one claiming you knew Rove did something criminal. Sinse my question was about your position, your attempt to change the question's meaning, I must assume your answer is "none". Just like I said before, and my entire point. I am still laughing...
Well, where is the brief? Until the official investigation is over, and the information released to the public, not just leaked, I have only opinion in this matter.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Confed999

Oh,and a quick BTW right from the "Handbook for Federal Grand Jurors" :

"It is the responsibility of the grand jury to weigh the evidence presented to it in order to determine whether this evidence, usually without any explanation being offered by the accused, persuades it that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the accused was the person who committed it."

So, like I said before, there can be an investigation without a crime.

Broken

Heh, that's good. You usually stop talking to me after I've poked holes in your arguments.

You might try actually researching your points; it would make for a more challenging debate. For example, don't you think you look a little silly claiming your three statements,

"they [the media] insist a crime has been commited in their stories",

"they do not routinely state they belive no crime was commited in their stories".

"they accuse someone of a crime in their stories, but insist no crime was commited in their court briefs."

all mean the same thing? If you want to demonstrate "media duplicity", you will have to do better than that.

For example, you might try to demonstrate that the media is harder on this president than on the last one.
I respond to Dale when he is making a point relevant to the debate. If he is simply cheerleading, I ignore him. Flame wars bore me.

Bluesman has actually toned down his rhetoric since joining this board. You guys seem to be domesticating him. He doesn't put me on his ignore list nearly as often as he used to.

I actually found myself agreeing with him on the flag-buring issue. Wonders never cease.
Here is a novel idea: present some evidence to back up your claims.
We are simply going around in circles here. If you want to believe the quotes from unnamed sources are as unethical or illegal as leaking classifed information and outing an agent, go right ahead. Some that read this thread might not agree with you.
Then ask the Bush Administration to release it.
Wrong again. I said Rove lied to the media when he said (through Scott McClellan) he "had nothing to do" with the leak. It is not a crime to lie to the media, as I clearly stated. You may, however, get the media quite angry with you. by claiming things which are not true.
No your statement was:
"The duplicity is the joke, not the investigation."
and I answered that you should back up your claim.


If you mean where is the concrete evidence that outing Plame was a crime, you need look no further than the fact that there is a criminal investigation. One that the White House is taking quite seriously. As are you, judging by your repeated visits to this thread. As are others, judging by the high visit count to this thread.

Broken

By the way, here is a recent summary of where the investigation is headed:

Conflicting Stories

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 22, 2005; 1:22 PM

New reports today indicate that special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is zeroing in on conflicting stories officials and reporters have provided his grand jury, lending credence to the theory that he may be considering obstruction of justice or perjury charges against top White House officials. Wash Post

Confed999

A legend in your own mind I guess...
If you don't see the duplicity, definition allready provided, in filing a court brief stating no crime has been committed, while stating that a crime has been committed in their stories, I probably can't help you. Read what you quoted in context to what it was a reply to. Taking it out of context isn't helpful to understanding.
Again? Are you going to bother reading them this time? In order: "Until the media, and everyone else, goes after their favorites the same way as the hated, then they will allways be duplicitous." The John Kerry story I posted vs. the Rove story (you defended Kerry yourself on that one lol), or how about the Sandy Berger story vs. the Karl Rove story (as Dale has mentioned)... "As long as they smudge an accused leaker with leaked information, they will be duplicitous." Everything in the media from the Grand Jury leakers, check your links for those... "As long as they say one thing to the public, and write another in their court briefs, they will be duplicitous." I allready linked you to their briefs, and I doubt you can show me where they have come out publically stating the same position they took in their briefs...
I've never said that. In fact I challenge you to show me where I said so. I'm the one pointing to the leaks of classified documents (as several of your links called them), and confidential (Grand Jury testimony and evidence), that you keep linking too. I'm still laughing!
Oh my, then it hasn't been released! Then it may really be confidential, like your story said, or be Grand Jury evidence.
Ummmmm, aren't you the one insisting a crime was committed simply because there is a Grand Jury investigation? Who it the central player in your thread here?
I have, you just don't understand...
Part of the Grand Jury's job is to decide if a crime was committed. Until they say there was, you have no concrete evidence a crime was committed. Read the handbook, I expected you to ignore it as it destroys your belief that an investigation indicates a crime. But that's how it works in federal court, state, county, and city courts may differ...
I'm here for the entertainment, and to get you to keep posting your leaked stories about a leak believing it has any more meaning than a rumor.
"Bloomberg and the New York Times move the ball forward today, courtesy of what appear to be a growing number of leakers."
It's just too funny!!!!! x 1000000

Leader

"A legend in your own mind I guess..."

oooooo...Good one.

__________________

Broken

In March 2005, the media filed a court brief stating, amoung other things, that they did not believe a crime had been committed under the standards of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The courts judged their argument incorrect. So, it is entirely fair for the media to report the court's finding and to rely on their judgement. The media have never declared Karl Rove guilty of anything, except lying to the media, which is not a crime. Where is your duplicity?
Let me try to understand this poor mangled sentence. I will assume you meant "Until the media act impartially, they will be duplicitous". That is your claim. It is not evidence. You do understand the difference between a claim and evidence for that claim don't you?
You mean the Sen Luger(R) and Sen Kerry(D) story? No one accused either one of them of an intentional leak. Someone had forgotten to redact the agent's name from the documents they were reading. How can you claim the media reported this story in a "duplicitious" way, since they didn't treat the Republican involved any differently than the Democrat?If a Democrat does wrong, that is evidence of media duplicity? That's almost as logical as saying "my dog is asleep, that is evidence the Earth is flat".
The only thing NYT, MSNBC, CBS, WP, LAT, ABC, and WSJ (the MSM) have accused Karl Rove of is lying to the media. That is not a leak.

The media have reported on what has been told to them about Fitzgerald's investigation by various vague sources. One of these sources is Karl Rove's attorney. I hope you are not accusing him of "smudging" Karl. There is nothing criminal or even unusual in any of this.

You are equating this media reporting to the outing of a covert agent; saying there no difference. There s a big difference: one is legal, one is a crime.
These are just repeats of what you said above.
How about:

"You can't sit there saying leaks are bad/criminal, and back up those leaks by reporting more leaks! *****ing about a leak while repoting it through leaks is duplicity"

You are equating the two as being equal. You even did it in your last post,

"As long as they smudge an accused leaker with leaked information, they will be duplicitous."

Again, you equate the reporting from unnamed sources with outing a covert agent. It is 'duplicitous' you claim, over and over. And then deny it, over and over. Stop wasting my time. I will simply ignore such nonsense in the future.
An unnamed source stating that a document is classifed is not a crime. Stating the classifed contents of that document is a crime. This is the third time we have been over this. Apparently, you are unable to grasp that concept.
I believe you. You cannot possibly be as inane as the arguments you are making; you have posted reasonablly well thought-out arguments in the past. You are just wasting my time. Post something sensible or I will ignore it.

Confed999

Actually the Grand Jury is doing that now. Unless you can show me where there was a judgement was made on that brief?
Declaring Rove guilty was not part of my point was it? Do you read what you quote? If the media has never indicated a crime was ever committed in this case, where did you start to think a crime had been committed? Make it up yourself?
Funny, I get it...
The evidence was in the next line.
For like the third time, yeah...
Yep, even though they had been briefed, and everyone else had used "Mr. Smith", they still said it. Why was there no investigation? Why was there no reporting? At the very least they are total morons and I would think that would deserve some air play...
I have a dollar that says that if it was just Lugar, you wouldn't be defending him. Using your logic, or lack of, you are saying it's ok to out agents if you can claim it was an accident.
By comparing the reporting to the Rove case, hence the "vs." in my statement...
Doesn't matter what side does wrong, I've said that before too, the unequal reporting is duplicitous. Where was the press durring the Berger case, or after? Durring the "Devil in the Blue Dress" case, it was reversed for most of the media. That was duplicity too...
They haven't used leaked information? Why do they claim it was leaked information then? Your links claim it was from unnamed sources, and involved "classified" documents and Grand Jury testimony. Those are leaks. No accusations were included in my point. Do you read what you quote?
Duplicity does not require it to be criminal or unusual.
Duplicity does not require equal levels of criminality. I have never said one is of the same degree as the other. Anything that was leaked from a "classified" document, or Grand Jury testimony/evidence is illegal.
Where is your evidence a crime was committed? Leaking information from "classified" documents and Grand Jury testimony/evidence is not legal.
All of this is. I've said it all over and over and over. I'm just enjoying watching you try to understand it, and then to twist it.
Duplicity does not require equal criminality. If you don't think complaining about leaks with leaks is duplicity, what is? Using your logic, or lack of, you're saying it's wrong to out an agent, but it's ok to leak confidential/classified information from documents and testimony. Duplicity in action...
When they are reporting from "classified" documents, or Grand Jury testimony/evidence, it is pretty close to equal. Both are illegal. Equality of criminality is still not required for duplicity.
Ummmm, they did describe the contents of the document in your link, and you've parroted it...
Actually, it's you that does not understand the word "duplicity". Maybe if I dumb it down to "two-faced"?
I have no reason to lie...
Almost the exact same thing I say about you!
Awww, taking you away from your suppositions and hearsay? That would actually be a good thing, you put too much stock it those concepts...
Post something containing concrete evidence, and maybe you'll actually have an argument.

I'm still laughing...

dalem

Broken-

I see your "discussion" style as simply throwing a bunch of shoes into the machinery in hopes of confusing the issue.

To get back on topic, what is the core of the claim that Rove is on the hotseat?

-dale

Bluesman

No response from our hero, huh?

Funny; one would think that of ALL posters, Broken would be the guy that would want to get back to that ole OP.

Then again, I'm being EXTREMELY sarcastic.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

Broken

I started this thread when reporter Cooper of Times mag, under threat of going to jail, started testifiying in contradiction to what Karl Rove had testified. The only people "throwing a bunch of shoes" are those who would like to distract from that fact.
Rove's testimony to the grand jury does not agree with reporters testimony. Libby and Bolton may get sucked in as well.

The deputy AG James Comey, who appointed special prosecutor Fitzgerald, has been let go. Bush's new deputy AG nominee, Tim Flanigan is a longstanding Bush loyalist and worked on the Florida Gop legal team during the 2000 Florida election controversy.

Tim Russert and Walter Pincus, who report as if they are passive bystanders, turn out to be active participants. The incestuousness of the Washington culture is on full display. I think the blogs have helped tear away some of the usual smokescreen.

For me, the Niger uranium scandal, the root of the Plame controversy, is more interesting than Karl Rove. Bolton is tied up in this as well, which is why Sen Lugar now says he won't vote for him.

dalem

I did not comment on why or how you started this thread. I commented on your discussion style overall.

So there are a gajillion names mixed up in it now but it's still Rove on the hotseat?

-dale

Confed999