Politics As Usual - Page 293

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Huh? Is Novak claiming he can't disclose because of security reasons? I thought he was claiming priviledge (or whatever the technical term is). You don't see Bush leaning on Novak to disclose as cohersion?

(1) Whoever talked to Novak did so on background.
(2) When the White House wanted to release background briefings by Richard Clarke, it did so, without asking him.
(3) You had no problem with this then.
(4) Likewise, the White House can now tell Novak that it is lifting the background protection of his sources, so he can reveal them.
(5) Bush could also tell Novak that it would be for the good of the country if he were to disclose who his sources are. Seeing as how they committed a criminal act and all.

AG's point is that Bush could do all these things, and Novak could still win the admiration of his future sources by refusing to disclose. The only salient difference between this situation and the one with Clarke is that there the White House had the transcripts of his briefing, but here they don't know who it was.

There's no coercion here. I'm not saying that Bush should threaten Novak with anything. Nor is Atticus. His point about the bully pulpit is that the President's office gives him moral and persuasive authority that he could use here, if he really wanted the culprits to be exposed.

Not Me · 07-12-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
As usual, I don't understand the point you are making.

2.

Atticus Grinch · 07-12-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
There's no coercion here. I'm not saying that Bush should threaten Novak with anything. Nor is Atticus. His point about the bully pulpit is that the President's office gives him moral and persuasive authority that he could use here, if he really wanted the culprits to be exposed.

43's good points are his Extreme Moral Clarity and his folksy ability to tell right from wrong, without getting bogged down by legal niceties. This is a good thing, but it leaves 43 vulnerable whenever he decides it's important to stand on those niceties. We liberals tend to notice when he goes off the "right is right and wrong is wrong" script. Usually he makes Donald "What's charged here is not technically torture, it's abuse" Rumsfeld or Scott "The President has addressed this repeatedly, and you know his position on that" McClellan do it.

The President could say, "I urge Mr. Novak to come forward with any information about this crime, which we all deplore, that he might have." There's no infringement of the First Amendment there. Jeez, you didn't seem too up-in-arms over the guys getting tossed from public property for wearing t-shirts.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) Whoever talked to Novak did so on background.
(2) When the White House wanted to release background briefings by Richard Clarke, it did so, without asking him.
(3) You had no problem with this then.
(4) Likewise, the White House can now tell Novak that it is lifting the background protection of his sources, so he can reveal them.
(5) Bush could also tell Novak that it would be for the good of the country if he were to disclose who his sources are. Seeing as how they committed a criminal act and all.

AG's point is that Bush could do all these things, and Novak could still win the admiration of his future sources by refusing to disclose. The only salient difference between this situation and the one with Clarke is that there the White House had the transcripts of his briefing, but here they don't know who it was.

There's no coercion here. I'm not saying that Bush should threaten Novak with anything. Nor is Atticus. His point about the bully pulpit is that the President's office gives him moral and persuasive authority that he could use here, if he really wanted the culprits to be exposed.

I don't understand the jump from (3) to (4). What background band is there for the WH to lift? I thought Novak is saying "I don't disclose sources." What does the WH have to do witht this?

If you are suggesting that the WH make a general, public plea to Novak I have less of a problem. I thought you were hinting at something more.

And whether a crime has been committed has not been proven, not by a long shot.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
43's good points are his Extreme Moral Clarity and his folksy ability to tell right from wrong, without getting bogged down by legal niceties. This is a good thing, but it leaves 43 vulnerable whenever he decides it's important to stand on those niceties. We liberals tend to notice when he goes off the "right is right and wrong is wrong" script. Usually he makes Donald "What's charged here is not technically torture, it's abuse" Rumsfeld or Scott "The President has addressed this repeatedly, and you know his position on that" McClellan do it.

The President could say, "I urge Mr. Novak to come forward with any information about this crime, which we all deplore, that he might have." There's no infringement of the First Amendment there. Jeez, you didn't seem too up-in-arms over the guys getting tossed from public property for wearing t-shirts.

As I said to Ty, I don't really have a problem with a public plea. I thought you guys were suggesting something more than that. And as I said to Ty, from what I have read it is really questionable whether a crime has been committed here. As for the T-Shirt issue, as a corporate lawyer I am sworn to ignore all posts with lengthy sites to case law.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't understand the jump from (3) to (4). What background band is there for the WH to lift? I thought Novak is saying "I don't disclose sources." What does the WH have to do witht this?

If you are suggesting that the WH make a general, public plea to Novak I have less of a problem. I thought you were hinting at something more.

No. The White House tells Novak that as far as it's concerned, the background protection (AG knows more about this than I do, but I don't think there's a privilege here) is waived, and that he's free to name names, and should do so. That's all. If Bush really wanted the culprits identified, he'd be doing more than he is. Some top White House officials are criminals who exposed a covert operative, and he doesn't seem particularly bothered by this.

Quote:

And whether a crime has been committed has not been proven, not by a long shot.

You are technically correct, but I thought that Republicans didn't think much of defendants who rely on technicalities.

Atticus Grinch · 07-12-2004, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
As for the T-Shirt issue, as a corporate lawyer I am sworn to ignore all posts with lengthy sites to case law.

You've been funny today. Have you been drinking? If so, can you please drink more often?

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No. The White House tells Novak that as far as it's concerned, the background protection (AG knows more about this than I do, but I don't think there's a privilege here) is waived, and that he's free to name names, and should do so. That's all. If Bush really wanted the culprits identified, he'd be doing more than he is. Some top White House officials are criminals who exposed a covert operative, and he doesn't seem particularly bothered by this.

You are technically correct, but I thought that Republicans didn't think much of defendants who rely on technicalities.

Wait a second. Although I grant you that I do not support the conduct, criminals are those that actually committed a crime. You say in one breadth that they are criminals and in another that an actual crime may not have been committed. Which is it? I think we all can agree that this is not condonable behavior.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You've been funny today. Have you been drinking? If so, can you please drink more often?

been on a 2 week bender.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-12-2004, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wait a second. Although I grant you that I do not support the conduct, criminals are those that actually committed a crime. You say in one breadth that they are criminals and in another that an actual crime may not have been committed. Which is it? I think we all can agree that this is not condonable behavior.

I haven't heard a plausible reason to believe that whoever called Novak didn't commit a crime. I thought you were resting on the technicality that they haven't been charged or convicted yet. That said, I think Fitzgerald would have them dead to rights if he knew who they were. And maybe he does.

If Bush could engineer a way for them to 'fess up and then pardon him, he could be done with the story after a few days. But he can't really pardon them, politically speaking, if they don't 'fess up. And he's risking that they'll be indicted, which would be worse all the way around.

Not Me · 07-12-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
As for the T-Shirt issue, as a corporate lawyer I am sworn to ignore all posts with lengthy sites to case law.

So is Ty, or at least when he asks you for a case to support your position and you provide him with one and it proves him wrong.

Sidd Finch · 07-12-2004, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
If anything, the Johns were the victims.

I'm sorry to hear. Overcharged again?

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm sorry to hear. Overcharged again?

Every time.

sgtclub · 07-12-2004, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I haven't heard a plausible reason to believe that whoever called Novak didn't commit a crime. I thought you were resting on the technicality that they haven't been charged or convicted yet. That said, I think Fitzgerald would have them dead to rights if he knew who they were. And maybe he does.

If Bush could engineer a way for them to 'fess up and then pardon him, he could be done with the story after a few days. But he can't really pardon them, politically speaking, if they don't 'fess up. And he's risking that they'll be indicted, which would be worse all the way around.

No, I was resting on the fact that, perhaps, no law was violated.

Sidd Finch · 07-12-2004, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me
FYI - I gave the money I was going to give to the Reps to Nadar's campaign instead. I figured GWB has enough cash and that it would do more good by giving it to Nadar.

Hopefully he can't cash the check if you can't spell his name right.

From what I hear, you should give it to Slave instead.