Gingrich admits affair, but not hypocrisy

Garrette said:
My point:

1. The investigation was not centered on Clinton's sexual habits or the blow job he got from Lewinsky.

2. The investigation was in the course of the Paula Jones lawsuit, and Lewinsky was a witness whose testimony led to Clinton's deposition on this topic.

3. Clinton did, in fact, have sexual relations with Lewinsky.
Click to expand...

This is where the chain is subject to semantic arguments. Is what they did "sexual relations?" I'd say so, but I'd also classify naughtiness on the phone the same way. "Sexual relations" is an exceedingly ambiguous term.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Hmmm...The prosecution of Clinton was driven by a very politically connected special prosecutor...one tied to the oposition. While whatever elese Fitzgerald may be, no one has accused him of being in bed with the democrats (like the way I used that phrase in the context of this thread?) or of being a political hack. Just an observation.
Click to expand...
I don't know Fitzgerald's background, and I cannot tie him into anything specifically political, nor do I care to try.

That said, can you tell me what it is Libby was found guilty of? (It's not outing a CIA agent)

Next, can you point me to the law which states that the outing of Plame is a felony? (I can't find the actual statute, but all references to it that I have seen indicate that it is a felony only to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent. Plame was not an undercover CIA agent. She was a desk officer.)
 
ImaginalDisc said:
This is where the chain is subject to semantic arguments. Is what they did "sexual relations?" I'd say so, but I'd also classify naughtiness on the phone the same way. "Sexual relations" is an exceedingly ambiguous term.
Click to expand...
Is it so amorphous that there is legitimate controversy over whether the term includes oral sex?
 
Garrette said:
I don't know Fitzgerald's background, and I cannot tie him into anything specifically political, nor do I care to try.

That said, can you tell me what it is Libby was found guilty of? (It's not outing a CIA agent)

Next, can you point me to the law which states that the outing of Plame is a felony? (I can't find the actual statute, but all references to it that I have seen indicate that it is a felony only to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent. Plame was not an undercover CIA agent. She was a desk officer.)
Click to expand...

Her identity was a secret. By definition, she was undercover.

Excellent article about the "not undercover" myth.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Her identity was a secret. By definition, she was undercover.

Excellent article about the "not undercover" myth.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
Click to expand...
I will be quite happy to retract my position on Libby if it is shown that a felony was committed. As I said, I cannot find the actual statute. But it seems even the author of your linked article can't find the statute:

ID's linked article said:
The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached.
Click to expand...
I was not under the impression that we in the U.S. prosecuted for ethical and moral breaches.
 
Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice...and lying to a grand jury. You can't lie to federal officers -- as Bill Clinton learned -- just because you question the investigation or whether there was even a crime. The fact that there MAY NOT have been a crime...a fact I am not sure I agree with ... doesn't excuse Libby from lying under oath when questioned as part of the investigation.
 
headscratcher4 said:
Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice...and lying to a grand jury. You can't lie to federal officers -- as Bill Clinton learned -- just because you question the investigation or whether there was even a crime. The fact that there MAY NOT have been a crime...a fact I am not sure I agree with ... doesn't excuse Libby from lying under oath when questioned as part of the investigation.
Click to expand...
As long as you're consistent then.

My position is that I think both Libby and Clinton were guilty but that their guilt was immaterial to the original allegations and as such inconsequential and that therefore their prosecutions were of no value legally and should not have been pursued.

I take it you agree except that you think they should have been pursued.
 
Garrette said:
I will be quite happy to retract my position on Libby if it is shown that a felony was committed. As I said, I cannot find the actual statute. But it seems even the author of your linked article can't find the statute:
Click to expand...

Oh, is that what you were asking for?

You're looking for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Section 421, B is the pertinent passage, I believe.

Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Click to expand...


http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
 
Garrette said:
Thank you.

I was wrong, and I retract.
Click to expand...

I think almost every member of the press either didn't know the details of that law, or took it for granted that everyone does, because I did have a dilly of a time finding reference to it in the media.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I think almost every member of the press either didn't know the details of that law, or took it for granted that everyone does, because I did have a dilly of a time finding reference to it in the media.
Click to expand...
Less a dilly than I did, as I couldn't find it at all. And I've done Statute searches before.
 
Garrette said:
Is it so amorphous that there is legitimate controversy over whether the term includes oral sex?
Click to expand...

I'd say no. In my humble opinion, "sex" includes a lot of behaviors that do not involve genital contact. Unfortunately, it really is a matter of opinion. The whole point of calling it "oral" sex is intended to distinguish it from "intercourse."

He really should have published a list.

I did not put my **** in her ******. Neither did she ****** my ***, nor I hers. I did not ****, ******, ***** **** her ****** nor her ***. . .
 
Last edited:
And this is one instance in which pictorial evidence is definitely not required.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom