CCR Blog

Conservative's Chat Room members write on the CCR Blog. Notable statements made in the chat are posted so others can discuss.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

W. Mark Felt was Deep Throat

Felt had the second highest position at the FBI. He was suppose to be for justice and was to protect government material during investigations. Peoples liberties are harmed when material is released and their Constitutional rights violated. Protections of rights of due process and liberties are the most cherished of our rights as Americans. Felt violated rights and liberties of President Nixon and countless others. It is criminal activity to release government property in an investigation. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradley of the Washington Post covered up the crimes of Felt and used it to their own gain which is criminal activity on their part. They were conspirators to do harm to a President and the nation. They want the praise from their friends in the media but they should also have paid for their criminal activity. It would have only been beneficial if Nixon remained in office to the end of his term. He would have been able to manage the end of the Vietnam war without the suffering and deaths of millions in Southeast Asia. There was no benefit of Nixon resigning. The results of Watergate has poisoned politics ever since with politicians and media trying to bring down those they oppose by stirring up Watergate style investigations. Members of the media try to destroy others to become the next "Woodward and Bernstein" with little care who they may slander falsely or whose rights and liberties are violated. What Felt, Woodward, Bernstein and Bradley did was destructive to the nation, they were disgraceful in their conduct and it was criminal.

7 Comments:

  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Thurston said…

    Peoples liberties are harmed when material is released and their Constitutional rights violated.

    Agree that personal information should generally be kept in confidence. However, the constitution does not specify a right to privacy (specify article and section to prove me wrong) and anything otherwise is "judicial activism."

    Felt violated rights and liberties of President Nixon and countless others. It is criminal activity to release government property in an investigation.

    This sentence is particularly odd in that it was the then anonymous tips of Felt to Woodward and Bernstein that led to a congressional investigation. But why let the facts get in the way?

    Woodward, Bernstein and Bradley of the Washington Post covered up the crimes of Felt and used it to their own gain which is criminal activity on their part. They were conspirators to do harm to a President and the nation.

    Wow, this is rich! Since when was uncovering an illegal break-in and a pattern of obstruction of justice a crime? Are all criminal investigators criminals themselves? Should we lock up police detectives? Shall we arrest the whitewater investigators? Shoot the whistleblower!

    It would have only been beneficial if Nixon remained in office to the end of his term. He would have been able to manage the end of the Vietnam war without the suffering and deaths of millions in Southeast Asia.

    Aha! I think we finally begin to understand TomG's point here! Apparently, the various investigations and legal maneuvering towards the end of the Nixon administration distracted the President from taking steps against the Khmer Rouge. TomG's solution: Don't investigate government officials for illegal conduct! So if TomG had his way, Clinton should have been allowed to share as many cigars as he wanted with Monica unmolested by various impeachment proceedings thus allowing him to put an end to pesky petrochemical baron Osama Bin Laden.

    Watergate was an critical event in the history of the USA. It demonstrated that our country is a nation of laws and even the Command in Chief can be held responsible for criminal behavior. For their actions, Woodward, Bernstein, Felt, and many others should be lauded as heros for standing up for their country.

     
  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger TomG said…

    Thurston said, "Since when was uncovering an illegal break-in and a pattern of obstruction of justice a crime?"

    Like a typical liberal you make up something and then criticize it. Of course uncovering a crime isn't illegal, but it's illegal to release FBI material under investigation. Like Felt did.

    Thurston writes, "it was the then anonymous tips of Felt to Woodward and Bernstein that led to a congressional investigation. But why let the facts get in the way?"

    The fact that it's illegal to leak FBI investigation material got in your way.

    Thurston writes, "Watergate was an critical event in the history of the USA. It demonstrated that our country is a nation of laws.."
    But you defended the law breaking by Felt. No one else convicted in the Watergate investigation was higher up than the number 2 guy at the FBI, Felt. Apparently you only agree it's a nation of laws for people you want the law to apply to.

     
  • At 2:17 AM, Blogger Somebodi said…

    Thurston said, "Since when was uncovering an illegal break-in and a pattern of obstruction of justice a crime?"

    Like a typical liberal you make up something and then criticize it.


    Huh? What did Thurston make up? Are you suggesting the Watergate break-in never happened?

    ...but it's illegal to release FBI material under investigation.

    I thought we had a Freedom of Information Act. Feel free to quote the relevent section of US Code, however.

    But you defended the law breaking by Felt.

    Not clear if Felt violated any laws related to the Watergate break-in. However, I'm pretty sure he violated the law with his "Black Bag Jobs" against the Weather Underground. Oddly enough, Ronald Reagan pardoned him for that crime.

     
  • At 4:03 PM, Blogger TomG said…

    upyorz wrote, "Huh? What did Thurston make up? Are you suggesting the Watergate break-in never happened?"

    He made up what I didn't write. I said it's illegal to release FBI material under investigation. I didn't say what Thurston claimed when he said, "Since when was uncovering an illegal break-in and a pattern of obstruction of justice a crime?"

    You need to read the article first before defending a liberal who makes up stuff.

    upyorz wrote, "I thought we had a Freedom of Information Act. Feel free to quote the relevent section of US Code, however."

    There is no relevant section in the Freedom of Information Act. Leaking FBI information is illegal. Freedom of Information Act has nothing to do with it.

     
  • At 12:22 AM, Blogger Somebodi said…

    There is no relevant section in the Freedom of Information Act. Leaking FBI information is illegal. Freedom of Information Act has nothing to do with it.

    I'd be interested in the part of the US Code that specifies that requesting FBI records is illegal.

    Here's a little snipped from the "CITIZEN'S GUIDE ON USING THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 TO REQUEST GOVERNMENT RECORDS" from [www.house.gov/reform]

    "...For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has a central index for its primary record system. As a
    result, the FBI is able to search for records about a specific person. However, agencies that do not maintain a central name index may be unable to conduct the same type of search. These agencies may reject a similar request because the request does not describe records that can be identified..."

    Seems like FBI records can be legally requested.

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger TomG said…

    Liberal upyorz is even more stupid than I first thought. It's "Leaking FBI information is illegal" . Get that? Let me say it again or in this case write it again, "Leaking FBI information is illegal". Then upyorz writes, "I'd be interested in the part of the US Code that specifies that requesting FBI records is illegal." Do liberals have any concept or know the difference between an illegal leak and a request under the freedom of information act?

     
  • At 4:02 AM, Blogger trl_path said…

    Then upyorz writes, "I'd be interested in the part of the US Code that specifies that requesting FBI records is illegal." Do liberals have any concept or know the difference between an illegal leak and a request under the freedom of information act?

    Tom, I think you forgot to quote the section of the US code that criminalizes the release of public records. Also, it might help to read Woodward and Bernstein's accounts of their interactions with "Deep Throat." Perhaps then you can be better prepared to provide an example of illegal activity (other than brownbagging-- which perturbingly enough may be legal now).

     

Post a Comment

<< Home