The flaw in your "reasoning" is patent: 1. If Plame were covert, Armitage would not have known 2. Artmitage knew 3. Therefore, Plame was not covert.
#1 is simply and absurdly false. If Armitage or any other person with a "secret" clearance accidentally learned something he should not have known, the secret is still a secret both in fact and in law.
More important: the uncontested evidence of the Libby trial is that the Vice-President Cheney ordered that her identify be spread about. That is how several reporters found out (but had patriotism to keep their mouths shut); and that is how Armitage found out (he read a memo with her ID labeled "S" for Secret; his knowledge was not "casual" as you stated.
Keep in mind that outing a spy in time of war is treason. Your focussing on Armitage and ignoring the treason is just denial. If you refuse to ignore that evidence, how do expect credibility?
As for GW: If you find some people "obnoxious" that's as may be, but the facts behind GW are no longer in doubt - only in denial - just as Plame's covert status.
Nope, my analogy was deliberately precise, and you illuminate it better than you think when you continue to talk about Plame's covert status as a "myth" and about "eco-types that have a vested interest in shouting down discussions". It reminds me of Bohr's comments on believers in the Phlogiston theory.
Don't jump to conclusions. Making an Intentionalist argument does not mean that there are not equally valid "living constitution" arguments. Indeed, the argument that Congress is the sole judge of impeachability is based on an (admittedly early) impeachment case in which the federal court system declined to get between the two political branches.
And I'm not gonna get diverted into the "well-regulated milita" issue"; when the chips were down, the 2nd-Amendment types failed to protect us against the most despotic Chief Executive on record.
Precisely. The argument that this is a non-issue because the information might not have had to be preserved is nonsense. If the information actually was destroyed, we may never know whether it had to be preserved, but we may infer from other circumstances that it should have been preserved. These are not completely novel legal concepts; it is common in litigation for parties to get scored for having destroyed documents that they should have known should have been preserved (see ''Spoliation of Evidence"). Indeed, sometimes the finder of fact (e.g. jury) is instructed that, as a penalty to the party that committed spoliation, it must be assumed that the destroyed information would weigh against the spoliating party.
Denying Plame's covert status at the time of her outing is like denying global warming. People are gonna do it no matter the evidence to the contrary; no facts I could present pursuades deniers, not even the CIA's complaint that a covert agent had been outed, not the evidence presented at Libby's trial of organized outing of Plame to multiple reporters, not even sworn testimony before Congress.
BTW Plame was overseas on secret missions during the statutory period; if you still think otherwise, you should re-consider your sources.
Now here's the answer to the question you should have asked: support for the concept that the original intent of the Framers was that non-criminal acts be impeachable --- Madison's
Speech in Congress on Presidential Removal Power June 16, 1789. Notice the discussion of impeachment as a remedy for the non-criminal removal of meritorious officials.
That definition of misdeameanor is the one prevelant in 1787 and the one intended by the Founders. Just because some aspect of the Constitution has never been exercises (such as the deliberative nature of the Electoral College) does not alter the Original Intent of the drafters.
And of course, as is well settled law, Congress is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Do you really need citations to the sun being hot?
"....Whoever...
in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative or judicial branch ...covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
a material fact...
Shall be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years
or both."
And if he ordered the activity, that's called "conspiracy". After all, Nixon didn't actually do the break-ins
>There has to be some evidence that he personally committed some specific criminal act.
Wrong!
The standard for impeachment is not criminal activity, but "High Crimes and Misdeameanors". That last word is the kicker; it does not mean "criminal activity less than a felony" but rather "something Congress thinks is bad but is not necessarily criminal".
>More like when your president is a former head of KGB.
Former? Hmmmm....
Just because the secret police says it isn't around anymore, doesn't mean the secret police isn't around anymore. Although, in the case of Russia, it may have been privatized.
IS2M a deeper issue is not whether the policy of discouraging downloading is good or bad, but whether Congress should combine that issue with the issue of funding Pell grants. These are really two separate matters that could be addressed in different bills.
It is as if Congress were to put 2 different bugs into a single bug ticket. Trying to figure out whether the proposed fix will work gets harder the more things you put into a single fix.
If Verisign indeed holds a monopoly on its service, then all the free-market talk in the world doesn't apply. With respect to the customers of the monopoply, in practical terms, how do you distinguish the holder of a monopoly from a government?
When you control every property on the board, you can change whatever rent you want so long as the players keep rolling the dice
When I got married, my sense of hearing adapted to enhance my sense of color ("You're going to wear that?"), smell ("The garbage needs taking out") and self-preservation ("Does this make me look fat?")
The denials are certainly remarkable similar: the same denial of the science establishing the hazards of tobacco are structurally very like to the denail of the science establishing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I believe that the emotional basis for non-scientists to be deniers is, essentially,the same.
>If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then?
You're referring to the "Dred Scott" decision, which is generally condemned as an activist, results-driven decision that resulted in disaster. Even so, the basis of that decision was not Congressional regulation under the interstate commerce clause, but whether the slave was a citizen.
>A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce".
IncorrectThe Constitutional Amendments to which you refer had nothing to do with whether slavery was commerce, but banned slavery outright. That buying and selling slaves is commerce has never been disputed.
> Where does the EPA derive its power from?
Among other things, the interstate commerce clause. The constitutional basis of EPA was not litigated in this case; merely whether States had standing to sue, and whether the EPA in fact covered CO2
>He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film.
I regret to say that you have almost certainly been mislead on this. If Al Gore had actually said that 2ndhand cigarette smoke is a large component of global warming, there would be some evidence of this quote from a reputable source, such as the NYT or a peer-reviewed scientific journal ( FYI NewsMax and Drudge are not reputable sources). And if it were a claim in the movie, it would be repeated on the website.
AFAIK there is no scientific evidence that tobacco smoke contributes significantly to global warming; for all its many other health faults, burning tobacco merely releases carbon previously extracted from the atmostphere by the tobacco plant. Thus (discounting the carbon impact of farming) tobacco burning is roughly carbon-neutral.
And Al's presentations are scrupulously based on mainstream science; for him to have deviated from this pattern would be so newsworthy that it cannot be believed without an unsourced assertion to one of the most widely viewed documentaries of all timed.
Gore may be dismayed at tobacco farming because of the health impact of its product (a predictable 30+% of its users die prematurely from normal use, making it one of the most dangerous products in common use), see http://www.tobacco-facts.info/warning: unpleasant photos. There may also be a carbon impact from tobacco farming different from that of other crops; but neither items have much to do with 2ndhand smoke. If you cannot quote the exact words and the point in the DVD when Gore says them, it must be concluded that the source of this data has misinformed you.
Slashdot Mirror
The flaw in your "reasoning" is patent:
1. If Plame were covert, Armitage would not have known
2. Artmitage knew
3. Therefore, Plame was not covert.
#1 is simply and absurdly false. If Armitage or any other person with a "secret" clearance accidentally learned something he should not have known, the secret is still a secret both in fact and in law.
More important: the uncontested evidence of the Libby trial is that the Vice-President Cheney ordered that her identify be spread about. That is how several reporters found out (but had patriotism to keep their mouths shut); and that is how Armitage found out (he read a memo with her ID labeled "S" for Secret; his knowledge was not "casual" as you stated.
Keep in mind that outing a spy in time of war is treason. Your focussing on Armitage and ignoring the treason is just denial. If you refuse to ignore that evidence, how do expect credibility?
As for GW: If you find some people "obnoxious" that's as may be, but the facts behind GW are no longer in doubt - only in denial - just as Plame's covert status.
No rats, please!
If the attorney firings were not for political reasons, then Rove would have no reason to discuss them with George Jr.
If, OTOH, they were for political reasons, then the discussions are not protected by Executive Privilege. So which is it?
Nope, my analogy was deliberately precise, and you illuminate it better than you think when you continue to talk about Plame's covert status as a "myth" and about "eco-types that have a vested interest in shouting down discussions". It reminds me of Bohr's comments on believers in the Phlogiston theory.
Don't jump to conclusions. Making an Intentionalist argument does not mean that there are not equally valid "living constitution" arguments. Indeed, the argument that Congress is the sole judge of impeachability is based on an (admittedly early) impeachment case in which the federal court system declined to get between the two political branches.
And I'm not gonna get diverted into the "well-regulated milita" issue"; when the chips were down, the 2nd-Amendment types failed to protect us against the most despotic Chief Executive on record.
Precisely. The argument that this is a non-issue because the information might not have had to be preserved is nonsense. If the information actually was destroyed, we may never know whether it had to be preserved, but we may infer from other circumstances that it should have been preserved. These are not completely novel legal concepts; it is common in litigation for parties to get scored for having destroyed documents that they should have known should have been preserved (see ''Spoliation of Evidence"). Indeed, sometimes the finder of fact (e.g. jury) is instructed that, as a penalty to the party that committed spoliation, it must be assumed that the destroyed information would weigh against the spoliating party.
It was destroyed, therefore it was not required to be preserved?
BTW Plame was overseas on secret missions during the statutory period; if you still think otherwise, you should re-consider your sources.
Now here's the answer to the question you should have asked: support for the concept that the original intent of the Framers was that non-criminal acts be impeachable --- Madison's Speech in Congress on Presidential Removal Power June 16, 1789. Notice the discussion of impeachment as a remedy for the non-criminal removal of meritorious officials.
>Give me one example...
Why?
That definition of misdeameanor is the one prevelant in 1787 and the one intended by the Founders. Just because some aspect of the Constitution has never been exercises (such as the deliberative nature of the Electoral College) does not alter the Original Intent of the drafters.
And of course, as is well settled law, Congress is the sole judge of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Do you really need citations to the sun being hot?
"....Whoever...
...covers up by any trick, scheme, or device
a material fact...
in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or both."
>she wasn't covert
At this late date, any posting that passes on the talkin' point that "Plame was not covert" should be modded +5 Troll
>Did he probably know what was going on? Yes.
And if he ordered the activity, that's called "conspiracy". After all, Nixon didn't actually do the break-ins
>There has to be some evidence that he personally committed some specific criminal act.
Wrong! The standard for impeachment is not criminal activity, but "High Crimes and Misdeameanors". That last word is the kicker; it does not mean "criminal activity less than a felony" but rather "something Congress thinks is bad but is not necessarily criminal".
>More like when your president is a former head of KGB.
Former? Hmmmm....
Just because the secret police says it isn't around anymore, doesn't mean the secret police isn't around anymore. Although, in the case of Russia, it may have been privatized.
Making it here would mean that the money spent would cycle back into the economy, providing a double benefit.
Of course, we would have to conceal the manufacturing facility as a professional sports stadiums.
IS2M a deeper issue is not whether the policy of discouraging downloading is good or bad, but whether Congress should combine that issue with the issue of funding Pell grants. These are really two separate matters that could be addressed in different bills.
It is as if Congress were to put 2 different bugs into a single bug ticket. Trying to figure out whether the proposed fix will work gets harder the more things you put into a single fix.
If Verisign indeed holds a monopoly on its service, then all the free-market talk in the world doesn't apply. With respect to the customers of the monopoply, in practical terms, how do you distinguish the holder of a monopoly from a government?
When you control every property on the board, you can change whatever rent you want so long as the players keep rolling the dice
>incessant repetition of Democratic Party talking points on Slashdot
Well, to be honest, the top post started it by talking about ExxonMobil ... which AFAIK does not do domain names.
... if only he'd patented "electricity-generating kite"!
That way, we'd accrue the benefits 365.25 days of the year!!!
Example: "I have been ordered to hand over the records I have on you, and forbidden to tell you"
When I got married, my sense of hearing adapted to enhance my sense of color ("You're going to wear that?"), smell ("The garbage needs taking out") and self-preservation ("Does this make me look fat?")
The denials are certainly remarkable similar: the same denial of the science establishing the hazards of tobacco are structurally very like to the denail of the science establishing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I believe that the emotional basis for non-scientists to be deniers is, essentially,the same.
>If the transportation of a slave across state lines wasn't eligible for interstate commerce in 1857 then what has changed since then?
You're referring to the "Dred Scott" decision, which is generally condemned as an activist, results-driven decision that resulted in disaster. Even so, the basis of that decision was not Congressional regulation under the interstate commerce clause, but whether the slave was a citizen.
>A Constitutional Amendment was required, even a Civil War wasn't enough, for the slave trade to be considered "commerce".
IncorrectThe Constitutional Amendments to which you refer had nothing to do with whether slavery was commerce, but banned slavery outright. That buying and selling slaves is commerce has never been disputed.
> Where does the EPA derive its power from?
Among other things, the interstate commerce clause. The constitutional basis of EPA was not litigated in this case; merely whether States had standing to sue, and whether the EPA in fact covered CO2
>He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film.
I regret to say that you have almost certainly been mislead on this. If Al Gore had actually said that 2ndhand cigarette smoke is a large component of global warming, there would be some evidence of this quote from a reputable source, such as the NYT or a peer-reviewed scientific journal ( FYI NewsMax and Drudge are not reputable sources). And if it were a claim in the movie, it would be repeated on the website.
AFAIK there is no scientific evidence that tobacco smoke contributes significantly to global warming; for all its many other health faults, burning tobacco merely releases carbon previously extracted from the atmostphere by the tobacco plant. Thus (discounting the carbon impact of farming) tobacco burning is roughly carbon-neutral.
And Al's presentations are scrupulously based on mainstream science; for him to have deviated from this pattern would be so newsworthy that it cannot be believed without an unsourced assertion to one of the most widely viewed documentaries of all timed.
Gore may be dismayed at tobacco farming because of the health impact of its product (a predictable 30+% of its users die prematurely from normal use, making it one of the most dangerous products in common use), see http://www.tobacco-facts.info/ warning: unpleasant photos. There may also be a carbon impact from tobacco farming different from that of other crops; but neither items have much to do with 2ndhand smoke. If you cannot quote the exact words and the point in the DVD when Gore says them, it must be concluded that the source of this data has misinformed you.