response 13 of 57:

Oct 26 04:07 UTC 2003

I suppose it's currently trendy for Republicans to pooh-pooh violations of
federal law...

response 15 of 57:

Oct 26 09:47 UTC 2003

  Actually, let's *not* call it "treason from the White House" until
  there's a lot more proof about what actually happened and how.
  "Treason" is a very serious and specific crime -- it's also a spectacularly
  loaded term, which is no doubt why there's such a temptation to assign
  it to one's political adversaries.

  I'm not qualified to judge whether a serious crime was committed in the
  revelation of Valerie Plame's CIA operative status (and I seriously doubt
  most of the Grexers expressing strong opinions one way or the other are
  any more qualified, however many news wire stories they've read or talking
  heads they've listened to..)  In my opinion serious charges, backed up by
  a strong prima facie case that an illegal act was committed, deserve a 
  serious investigation.  Until we know a lot more, however, the word
  "treason" remains just Rane's wishful thinking.

response 17 of 57:

Oct 26 20:00 UTC 2003

If klg's resp:11 was accurate, then the Justice Department would have 
dismissed the CIA's request for an investigation into the outing of 
Wilson's wife.

response 19 of 57:

Oct 26 21:01 UTC 2003

I don't see how it can't be called "treason". Espionage by a citizen is
treason. Everyone seems to acknowledge that an undercover CIA agent was
outed. Novak says it came from the White House. I agree that the full
story must still be told, but the question only is *who* committed treason.

response 21 of 57:

Oct 27 04:04 UTC 2003

My, my, Mr. rcurl.
Whatever happened to your insistance that one is innocent until proven 
guilty in court - or, perhaps, a double standard applies when the 
accused is not a Democrat?
(Flippity-flop.  Flippity-flop.)
klg

(And, Mr. scott,
If you would be so kind as to identify the "federal law" which you feel 
was violated.  Thank you very much.)  

response 23 of 57:

Oct 27 06:36 UTC 2003

What's wrong with you, klg? Of course everyone is innocent for now. I never
said they weren't. I am only stating that treason has occurred. (I also
did not say that espionage has occurred....)

response 25 of 57:

Oct 27 13:58 UTC 2003

(Mr. klg, please do your own homework.  I'll give you a hint, though: section
421... you must do the rest.)

response 27 of 57:

Oct 27 17:49 UTC 2003

I now see why you are usually confused, by adopting non-sequiturs for
your logic. While espionage by a citizen is treason it does not follow
that if treason has occurred that it is espionage. 

response 31 of 57:

Oct 28 02:14 UTC 2003

My dear Mr. scott-
It is a rather simple request.  Truly.  Are all of the component 
requirements in the law met or are they not?  But if you haven't the 
desire or abilty to make the attempt, kindly do not project your 
failings onto others.  It is bad form.
Thank you.
klg

response 33 of 57:

Oct 28 18:51 UTC 2003

Actually, I can imagine that it is possible for such a disclosure to
have occured without there being treason under the definition given. 
One way it could happen is to have two people both with security
clearances.  Person A mentions to person B that whatshername is an
agent, but does not mention that she is covert.  Person B, not knowing
that she is a covert agent, mentions the fact that she is agent to a
person without a clearance.

In that scenario, it seems to me that neither A nor B is guilty of
treason under the definition above.  A did not say anything to anyone
who wasn't cleared, and B did not knowingly disclose any secret
information.

Of course A and B (especially A) are both incompetent idiots, but they
aren't treasonous idiots.

I have no idea if this is what occured.

response 35 of 57:

Nov 4 05:27 UTC 2003

valerie, not of grex-fame, but of plame-fame, years ago was an ak-47
certified undercover contact/agent. she has a history, not a present.
  
her history may be what is endangered. effectively, she had retired
AND was supposed to be kept concealed, vis-a-vis her history, not her 
present.  there is no inforamtion i know of which indicates that
she still draws a tax-dollar-salary from teh agency.
 
i think she has a pair of 3-yr olds to raise at this time. kinda
hard to get a babysitter for all those current operations she gets
called on to do....    heh-heh.
  
:::::::::

ring-ring-ring
hello?
  
-----

hello, judy... umm, say, can you babysit the kids for about 12 days?
i know it's, like, really short notice, but i just got a 
self-destructing taperecorder message to infiltrate the chinese
counter espionage cell for the kgb stationed in north korea.
  
it's not a bad as that africa-iraq-yellowcake trip last month
but it's still important. we dont' want to nuke them on the
noggin ya know.
  
------

well, ok, valerie. but this has to be teh last time. i can't keep
on lying to the kids.

-----
  
thanks, babe ... i knew i could count on you this last time.
oh, and call novak will you? i'm getting tired of this shit too.
  
----
  
sure. he's alwasy been good for a leak.
  
click ... dialtone

:::::::