Reply #9: Interesting spotlight on Kristol's

[slaveplanet]

latest spin...he is an enemy of the public and the rule of law... that should come as no surprise...

The Neocon psychos are starting to crack up real bad. It's incredble to see Bill Kristol arguing today that the Special Prosecutor should not use the laws of this nation. If you haven't seen it, have a look at Kristol's latest, entitled -- Fitzgerald's Moment.

He argues that Fitzgerald should prosecute any violations under the IIPA, perjury or obstruction, but that any use of the Espionage Act (i.e. 18 USC 793 and 794) would be evidence that Fitzgerald is overreaching his mandate and would equate to prosecutorial misconduct.

Hey Bill, get a freakin' life. Everybody in the White House signed a non disclosure agreement agreeing to follow the laws of this nation and 18 USC 793 and 794 are clearly listed. Here's what it says Billy boy:

"I have been advised and am aware that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation of violations of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 Title 18 United States Code, the provisions of Sections 783 (b), Title 50, United States code, and the provisions of the Intelligence identities Prosecution Act of 1982."

Notice how 18 USC 793 and 794 are listed BEFORE the IIPA which is last on the last. If your neocon cronies didn't want to sign it, that was their prerogative. They wouldn't have been given the confidence of the American People and they wouldn't have been hired for security clearance positions and we'd all be a hell of a lot safer today.


You damn neocon waterboy. Get the hell off my planet you bushy haired evil empire crony son of a bitch. How dare you.

I challenge you to show me where in Comey's official DOJ delegation of authority it says Fitzgerald is limited to the IIPA? Read the damn letters, Billy boy.

From Kristol's latest...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/239rebkj.asp

What is more, the Clinton White House mounted an extraordinary--and successful--political campaign against the office of the independent counsel and the person of Kenneth Starr. All the evidence suggests that the Bush White House has been fully cooperative with, even deferential to, the Fitzgerald investigation. And as for the first point, many people in government and politics engage in behavior that is less than admirable. That said, defending one's bosses against criticism, and debunking their attackers, is not a criminal conspiracy. Spin is not perjury. Political hardball is not a felony.

and this

So let us stipulate this: If someone knowingly made public the identity of a covert CIA operative and compromised her status, whether to maliciously damage her career, to punish her husband, or to deter criticism of the White House--if, in other words, someone violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--that person deserves to be fired and prosecuted. If individuals purposefully lied to a grand jury or engaged in a knowing conspiracy to cover up the truth, those persons deserve to be fired and prosecuted. Fitzgerald's investigation may well have uncovered crimes like these.

But it may not have, too. Press reports suggest that Fitzgerald is unlikely to bring charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the original act whose possible violation he was charged with investigating. Based on what we know, and absent startling revelations, it would seem to be a huge prosecutorial overreach to bring charges under the 1917 Espionage Act. So we are presumably left with possible instances of perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statements to the FBI or the grand jury.