MSNBC HARDBALL, PLAME SAYS IT WAS TREASON

Source: TELEVISION

PLAME SAYS IT WAS TREASON

Read more: HARDBALL

...Now, THAT takes mad skills.



Stephanie Miller calls Chris Matthews a “Right Wing tool.”
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/10/19/stephanie-miller-calls-chris-matthews-a-right-wing-tool/

He must have mentioned it 10 times after she said it. I'll bet he stewed about it all friggin weekend. Probably kept bugging his wife "I'm not a right wing tool am I? People don't think i'm a right wing tool do they? Do they? Do you?"

Probably lost sleep about it ever since. To make things worse they've been playin little clips of him having a 'gasm over the boy kings sock stuffed flight suit on that aircraft carrier a few years back. As well as other quotes that make him sound like - a right wing tool.

THAT,...IS ALL!!!!

EWWWW!!!! treason

Hang that bitch, immediately!

in her book for helping warn her husband, much as Joseph Wilson credits him in his book. They are correct, of course.

:patriot:

However, Novak specifically mentioned the cover organization, Brewster Jennings. When he did that, he outed the whole Middle Eastern weapons tracking group, effectively blinding the CIA in a very important area.

THAT is what raises it to the level of treason, and that is why the second Stupid is out of office, they have to start going after the whole lot of them.

Revenge for Wilson's contradiction of the forged Niger document was just the icing on a poisoned cake. They were trying to prevent the CIA from obtaining any real information that would contradict their nuclear fantasy about first Iraq and now Iran.

It's also why Stupid might not leave office voluntarily and according to law in January, 2009. The power this bunch has amassed due to a supine Congress is the type of power no government has ever let go of willingly.

The CIA team outed by Cheney was working to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear WEAPONS. Working to prevent the ENEMY from obtaining nuclear weapons. They were, by that outing, prevented from doing their work protecting the United States. Iran, however, has been able to go ahead with its programs. THAT is, by THEIR definition, AIDING THE ENEMY. Treason.

are a matter of public record and cam be looked up on the net. Her employer was noted as Brewster-Jennings. If I could find it on the internet (and I did) no doubt anyone else, including foreign intel outfits could do the same.

Novak didn't actually name BJ until around October 2003 IIRC and by then the damage was already done.

So much to do, so little time to do it. And on top of everything else, now Madame Speaker has to chase those nasty Pink Ladies off the front steps along with the homeless. At least she knows how to prioritize. As in take care of the nuisances before they become problems. Wonder how she would react to a pair of bloody hands in her face?

apologizes, and keeping impeachment "off the table".

monopolize the conversation and kiss bush ass. But he was not at all what you would have thought. I know he doesn't like the war and wants it to end, but he loves bush and the manly men.

When the war plays favorable for Bush he will always be head cheerleader.

I just had that flash through my mind. Libby was pardoned, and the poor kid who was on a journey had his life ended.

Treason. Where are the wheels of justice? They seem to have come off for the real offenders.

As the charges were mostly bogus, he was allowed to plead to 20 years instead of getting put to death or put in jail for life.

...I followed the case closely at the time.

I should know that I'll be corrected around here. :)

For me, that would be life. But he was pretty young.

Son of a bitch there is going to be hell to pay.

filing all her teeth extra sharp in preparation for Caligula stepping down.

the standards of which treason and other high crimes can be determined.

Did she just single out Cheney and Libby, or did she name others?

covert but never mentioned Brewster Jennings & Assoc.. That is how these scum frame issues. They leave out the Treason. None of those scum could ever claim that Brewster Jennings Assoc. was not covert. There is the actual Treason.

He actually said that he first broke the story 18 months ago. Bullshit. I broke the story and then begged him to follow up.

:patriot: :hug:

but lucky for everyone i am sick and hoarse. how can people take credit like this for other people's work? how is this okay? i don't need the damn pulitzer, but i worked this story and earned the credit. and yet he stands there as though ... oh screw it, i am so mad right now, i could spit.

see, when i report something... i get smeared... when i am proved right, i don't get the credit (but the smear sticks). tell me, what is the point then?

:loveya: I nominate you for a Pulitzer. :patriot:

You are way ahead of the curve Larisa, and DUers recognize and really really appreciate this. Dyakooyu :hug:

I don't even know whom you're talking about. I know they stole your story but, get it, there are some people like me who know about you and what you've been blogging for years. I'm not at all 'tuned in' to corporate media except the bits I get here and there off forums and blogs. I just don't live in that information stream any more. I live in the one where you are the person I appreciate and look to for information, not 'them'. As I say, I don't even know who 'they' are. Nor do I particularly care. So far as I'm concerned, you have a great reputation and have proven yourself and your dedication to something more than 'fame' or 'fortune'. I understand these things are desirable and I understand that you've been taken advantage of and are not getting the credit you rightfully deserve and I appreciate your anger. Its righteous. I just want you to know there are some of us who know the truth -- and how deep this rabbit hole really goes. I have no respect whatever for corporate media and I don't trust them, even when they seem to be telling 'our' stories, perhaps especially when they do. I may not understand all the games they are playing but what I do understand is that they play games -- with people's minds and perceptions. They've honed it to a fine art. That is why I no longer subject myself to them except more or less second hand. Instead I look to people like you and people like myself and many such people as hang out here at DU as my source of information. I trust you and I also trust myself to be able to put two and two together and make sense of the world with information that is shared, like ripe fruit plucked from a tree and handed to a comrade. Not all prepackaged, wrapped in hype and logos and fast frozen in a plastic bag.

The world we live in is full of crap but within it and despite it there are people who care not for any other reason than it is the right thing to do. The human thing to do. Such people may be rare but you are clearly one of them.

you made my cry
:grouphug:

But, hell, who knows? :shrug:

There is ALWAYS the possibility that, one (or two or many) noble human beings are taking a stand, from where they stand.

:shrug:

No doubt it was criminal, and deserving of impeachment and removal from office (for starters). But treason? Not seeing it. Treason is a crime of foreign collaboration. Cheney et al. showed no adherence to any particular foreign government, ergo, no treason.


From Cramer v. United States, 325 US 1 (1945)

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

sounds like a violation of the 1st Amendment.

The Supreme Court was there saying, "Yes, many things render "aid and comfort" to the enemy. A speech critical of the government renders "aid and comfort" to the enemy, because it hurts our solidarity. If you just consider the "aid and comfort" phrase, then giving a critical speech would be treason. But that is not treason; nobody would say giving a nasty speech is treason*. Why? Because treason requires you to be working with an enemy power to harm America, and without the intent of adherence to an enemy there is no treason."


*Unless you're a particularly irritating right-wing columnist.

Traitors and Treason

In the 3rd definition, the following words are apt:"In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.’ One could argue that in setting up a shadow government particularly without the knowledge of Congress he was in fact seeking to usurp the legal government of this country.


‘a crime that undermines the offender's government’

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:tre...


'TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.’

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm


‘Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "......citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the ." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
*shadow government*

When looking at actual application to a specific case, the courts tend to favor the Supreme Court's prior opinions.

By the way, the Constitutions definition? The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Did Cheney levy open war against the United States? Clearly not. Did he adhere to an enemy? If you think so, who?

Did he adhere to an enemy? If you think so, who?

Ahmed Chalabi, Curveball, Prince Bandar and numerous 'Mohamed Does' throughout Arabia and environs - for starters.

Who knows exactly until a thorough investigation is undertaken? Bring on the sworn oaths and spotlights. Much damage was done and without the authority of laws etc.

There is a pattern and practice with Cheneychins, you know - one of the Halliburton companies was busted for selling proscribed WMD components to terrorist nation clients. I wish someone would ask Valerie Plame about that bust during one of these book interviews.

Pork Chop Boy is on un-disavowed public record against government interference with private enterprise control of technology such as micro-switches, sanctions be damned.

Would I put treason past this gang of thieves? Not if there was a dollar left to steal for "the old coffers".

Possibly some dealings with Chalabi would qualify as treason. Possibly not. There's simply no public evidence that he has committed treason: the Plame outing at this moment appears to be nothing "more" than the horrific misuse of government power to discredit a political rival.

I think that in a way he has levied war against the United States. In setting up a parallel, yet secret (and this is the operative word) government I would argue that the intent was to subvert or subjugate the legal government to his. We've seen other inklings of this in the so called legal opinions of Yoo and Addington where the rule of law has been twisted and subverted to Cheney's will. Further in so seeking to subvert the laws of our nation he is working against the best interests of this country and betraying his oath of office. I'm thinking a case for treason could be made.

Many, many people have overstepped the bounds of their office or attempted to expand their office beyond their Constitutional mandates. To my knowledge, treason has never been applied in any case like that. I suppose it's possible, but it would set a chilling precedent in which any Constitutional officer would have to worry that so much as a misappropriation of funds might lead to their execution.

We are a government that (as everyone knows) has three branches of government. When Cheney set up his secret government it was not only secret from us but from the other two branches, which made the executive the solitary authority in the secret government. That goes against the constitution he swore to uphold. This situation goes beyond overstepping.

I would call what Al Haig did when he tried to take over, overstepping. Trying to change the very nature of our government is in my view tantamount to a coup and therefore qualifies as treason. And while no other government benefited directly (so far as we know) there could be indirect benefits to some, though a government benefiting is not a necessary qualifier for treason.

Intent to betray (outed CIA operative)--check.

Rendering aid to the enemy (inherent to outing a covert CIA agent)--check.

Treason--check.

Both the Cramer case (and, in 1947, the Haupt case) make it extremely clear that simply engaging in an action that one is aware will harm the United States is not in and of itself treason. That is only half the case. The other half is proving that it was done in adherence to an enemy--that one has given allegiance to a state enemy to that which one owes one's allegiance. There's no case that Cheney outed Plame because he wanted to help the terrorists.

..."enemy" reserved for terrorists, as it has non-objective connotations. An enemy is one, like this cabal, a person or group dedicated toward the decimation of the Bill of Rights, thus the law of our land. DU members can give you the names of many of these groups, but I like the Neo-con moniker.

Edit: lar=law

to the satisfaction of any court would be an absolutely impossible task.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Project for the New American Century has over Bush's presidency been the most influential think tank in Washington, and has been at the forefront of the neoconservative movement.

The PNAC published many documents, true.
But essentially they are a group of "people,"
if you can use that term when dealing with such filth.
BHN

But it seems the discussion was of a group of adversaries. A definable, illegal partner, with whom one engages in "treason". A web-site, treatise, etc, does not a group make. It seems we pick nits.

PNAC is a real group made of real people who proudly identify themselves as being members. It is not a web-site, and it is not a treatise. They publish, they write, they give speeches, they hold conferences. Membership in PNAC is an extremely exclusive badge of honor for neoconservatives.

If you're going to make neocons "The Enemy," I would say that the most influential, highest-regarded neoconservative think tank in Washington might be the place to start. Then we can go and round up everyone who subscribes to The Weekly Standard, and half of the University of Chicago.

I agree with you. We're picking nits, and wasting bandwidth.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is an American neoconservative think tank based in Washington, D.C., co-founded as "a non-profit educational organization" by William Kristol and Robert Kagan in early 1997. The PNAC's stated goal is "to promote American global leadership."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Group. Not document. They have published many documents. Its members have also published many documents. But PNAC is not a document. You're probably thinking of "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century," the document with the "new Pearl Harbor" reference.

I think we're both on the same page, so why not give it a rest.

PNAC is a document, despite what PNAC says.

the best I've ever had.

Where, in fact, Plame was directly involved in anti-Iran operations. Outing Plame, by you definition, is an act of treason, regardless of whether or not the intention was to benefit Iran. You're arguing negligence, and that argument always fails in a court of law.

My argument is that Cheney did not have the intent of benefitting Iran, and the Supreme Court has twice ruled that for treason to exist, one must deliberately intend to benefit a foreign nation. Negligence and ignorance actually are valid defenses in treason cases.

Consider treason to be like first-degree murder. This case is like manslaughter.

Negligence, in this case, is treasonous. Factor in who benefits, and if this went to a trial by jury, a good prosecutor could convict Cheney. If not Cheney, then at least Rove.

The secrecy act does not account for willful leaks, you either leaked information or you didn't.

for violation of that. Treason? I don't believe so. Treason is a crime of intent and of foreign collaboration. The Supreme Court has made that very clear.

However, that of course would be a matter for the courts to ultimately decide, and I admit more damning evidence may surface with a trial.

...therefore, anyone who wilfully exposes their operations is ipso facto aiding the enemy.

Aiding the enemy has to be one's intent. Otherwise, he's simply committing espionage here--clearly illegal, but not treason.

...was to subvert B&J's operations in order to facilitate arms sales to Iran (done through a subsidiary of Halliburton and/or KBR -- it's hard to keep track, sorry), then it would rise to treason.

Ah if only we could get at those 5M+ emails that have gone missing...

And I have little doubt that there's something we simply don't yet know that would would put Iran-Contra to shame.

This discussion regarding treason has been made here before. And I won't argue as to the validity of it with respect to definition. Here is what I think is important.

The difference between what they actually did versus the accurate definition of treason compared to the difference between what has happened versus what should have happened judicially is very large. I am saying that justice has not been served. And that Libby was only a piece of the puzzle. One which by all reason should result in serious consequences.

The lack of justice here is staggering.

"but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray."

Seems they've qualified intent to betray as adherence to the enemy.

Outing a covert intelligence agent BOTH aids the enemy AND is a betrayal of one's country. Two for one.

Seems clear to me, but I'm not a legal scholar.

Ed. for clarity

to mean "adherence to the enemy," as they make extremely clear through both Cramer and Haupt. Outing a covert intelligence agent certainly aids the enemy. However, not all things that aid the enemy are treasonous.

The Haupt case refers to a man who aided and sheltered his Nazi son. The court found that if he had done so purely as a father, he would have been innocent--but that he had instead done so knowing, believing, and accepting that he was assisting the Nazis against America. To prove treason, you would have to prove that Cheney was not acting as a political hatchet-man looking only to discredit his enemies, but instead was acting to assist al-Qaeda or Iran or something. I don't think there's a case for that.

In the interview she mentioned they had, by outing her, put our national security at risk.

Why do you think Brewster Jennings was outed? Why do you think Edmonds was fired? There's a lot of linkage out there.

regardless of what the media defines as 'covert'.

She was hung up to dry, by the 'patriotic Bush admin'. And now we're all paying for it.

1) the "war" on terror, according to the administration, is against terrorists everywhere - across international boundaries.
2) the conscious act of destroying a major intelligence component in this war has given aid and comfort against terrorists, black marketeers and rogue nations which seek tremendously destructive weapons.
3) the poor conduct of this "war" particularly as it pertains to the Saudis who did 9-11 and continue to threaten us has been transparently due to their desire to excuse and protect the Saudi Royal family (and the terrorist sympathizers therein) for business reasons.

that's why her choice of words is so provocative.

“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”
George H.W. Bush

they'd ask Junior to reconcile his daddy's words with his and his cronies actions re Plamegate.

She sure did say it. And I agree with her completely.

When someone hits the bullseye, it's kinda hard to say it isn't on target.

:hi:

Re-regulate the fucking media.

the CIA on who was hurt by Novak's outing her and Brewster.

?

Got a problem with it?

"Got a problem with it?"

Are you making weird assumptions, or trying to pick a fight?

Kicked!

Jeff Gannon thinks he has 'the scoop' on how Wilson was sent. he's bragging about it at his own site, along with playing up his seat on the dais with cheney