Announcement

**Drake Tungsten** · February 10, 2006, 00:13

OK then...

**KrazyHorse** · February 10, 2006, 00:14

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
How can you people still care about this?

You don't care if the WH is violating the law in order to further a political agends?

**KrazyHorse** · February 10, 2006, 00:15

No wonder the US ended up with an idiot as President twice in a row. Nobody cares.

**Drake Tungsten** · February 10, 2006, 00:19

You don't care if the WH is violating the law in order to further a political agends?

No, not really. I may have cared at one point, but that was several years and innumerable breathless revelations ago...

**KrazyHorse** · February 10, 2006, 00:21

so as long as they can avoid things being proven for a while nothing they do matters?

**KrazyHorse** · February 10, 2006, 00:22

Or do you just hate them so much now that this doesn't make a difference?

**Ted Striker** · February 10, 2006, 00:31

Correct on both counts

**Ogie Oglethorpe** · February 10, 2006, 00:43

A question out there to governmental scholars, since classification procedure and authority to actually classify docs is set out by executive order specifically executive order 13292 issued G W Bush Mar 25 2003, can the President break laws with respect to leaking/declassifying information since he is the ultimate authority to classify docs in the first place?

**KrazyHorse** · February 10, 2006, 00:47

My guess is no, since otherwise this puts him at an unfair advantage.

EDIT: said yes, meant no. my reasoning should make that clear

**Imran Siddiqui** · February 10, 2006, 01:25

No, he can't. The President is not above the law, even if he is the one who sets the law (Hell, it's easy enough to issue another exec order anyway). The policy against assasination was set by executive order, but if a President ordered assasination without removing the executive order (at least in that specific case), he'd be violating US law.

**Drake Tungsten** · February 10, 2006, 01:57

so as long as they can avoid things being proven for a while nothing they do matters?

If they did something illegal, then they should be punished; whether I care about the case anymore or not doesn't change that. That being said, I simply cannot muster up any more interest in a case that was beaten into the ground years before anything may be (potentially) proven. I guess that makes me a bad person or something...

**DaShi** · February 10, 2006, 02:08

*cough*Whitewater*cough*

**Ted Striker** · February 10, 2006, 03:42

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

so as long as they can avoid things being proven for a while nothing they do matters?

If they did something illegal, then they should be punished; whether I care about the case anymore or not doesn't change that. That being said, I simply cannot muster up any more interest in a case that was beaten into the ground years before anything may be (potentially) proven. I guess that makes me a bad person or something...

That's cause you dismiss the actual illegal/cover up part of it and attribute the whole case to 100% partisan politics

Well that and every other monemental f up this administration has done

**Drake Tungsten** · February 10, 2006, 09:27

*cough*Whitewater*cough*

That's what this whole Plame matter has turned into...

**DaShi** · February 10, 2006, 21:57

Except that people were harmed before the investigation in the Plame case, not after as in the Whitewater case.

Announcement

Libby Squeals

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment