NationStates Jolt Archive

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.

You called Judith Miller a traitor who should be tried for treason for failing to reveal her source. In the same thread, you said the person responsible for outing Plame should be tried, and now you're saying if it's Karl Rove, he's a national hero? I just want to make sure I have your hypocrisy straight. :rolleyes:

Your government knows Rove is a Norwegian sleeper, just check 'his' parents. We all know what Norwegians are after... OIL!

Rove is a pigsucking chickenkhawk and should be shot for treason!
:eek: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper: :sniper:
It is his responsibility to not undermine our national security in the interest of his own love affair with Bush. I wonder about those two sometimes.. And its the presses responsibility to protect sources and maintain their integrity in reporting.

You called Judith Miller a traitor who should be tried for treason for failing to reveal her source. In the same thread, you said the person responsible for outing Plame should be tried, and now you're saying if it's Karl Rove, he's a national hero? I just want to make sure I have your hypocrisy straight. :rolleyes:
It depends on the reasons he did it for. If that is the case, then Judith Miller is not a traitor but a sacrificial lamb for the right since, as you stated yourself, she is a conservative columnist. Though she should have just given up the name since the source already revealed himself.

Your government knows Rove is a Norwegian sleeper, just check 'his' parents. We all know what Norwegians are after... OIL!


Yeah , as a Dalmarian Swede once told me, it was the Norwegians that wreaked havoc all over europe 1000 years ago not the Swedes.
:mad: DAMN NORWEGIANS!

Yeah , as a Dalmarian Swede once told me, it was the Norwegians that wreaked havoc all over europe 1000 years ago not the Swedes.
Yes, but we must hurry! The oracle said to take this knowledge to the BBC... But what is B...B...C...? Makes no sense..!

It depends on the reasons he did it for.

No. It doesn't. You said yourself that giving up a secret that jeopardizes national security is treason. You're going back on your own words. Luckily, people can see that.

Yay hypocrisy!

Damn Whitt I knew you were looney but you are bording Sieg Heil mentality when it comes to the actions of the goverment.

Plame could have been "handled" behind the scenes and there would have been next to no fallout.

If Reid was the source, you would been screaming for the firing squad.

Ah the hypocracy.

Hmmm does that count as a Hitler reference? :p

I posted this in the Rove poll, but I really liked it and I hated to see it fade into obscurity.

This is all a bunch of nonsense about Rove. So far, there's nothing new. Rove came clean about what he said a long time ago, testified to a grand jury and has been told by the special prosecutor that he's not a target. If he's not a target then that would mean that the prosecutor does not believe that Rove committed a crime. Time magazine has confirmed that Rove was one of reporter Matthew Cooper's sources on a piece he wrote identifying Valerie Plame as working for the CIA. This has been translated by the Democrats and the media into a story whereby Karl Rove "outed" a CIA undercover agent.

Here's something for you to think about ... assuming, of course, that you aren't so deeply entrenched in the liberal mentality that the idea of actually thinking about something is out of the question. Where do we get the idea that Valerie Plane was an undercover agent for the CIA when Rove had his conversation with Time Magazine Reporter Matthew Cooper? From Bush critic Joe Wilson and from the media, that's where. At no time has there been any confirmation that Plame was covert. If she wasn't covert, there is no crime.

Did Rove cross a line...screw up...make a mistake? You can make that case. His motive was to prevent Cooper from reporting false facts in a Time Magazine story about Joe Wilson. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Rove broke any law. For right now there is also no way Bush is going to give the left the satisfaction of firing him. Right now, this is the #1 issue for the Democrats.

Don't forget, sitting in prison right now, protecting her source, is Judith Miller of the New York Times. She, along with Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak, also wrote about Valerie Plame. Novak has apparently cut some sort of sweetheart deal with the special prosecutor. Miller is refusing to name her source to the special prosecutor. So she's sitting in the hoosegow.

But why is she in jail? It's been disclosed that Rove signed a statement giving anyone permission to speak about any contact he had over the Plame affair. Matthew Cooper of Time cited that assurance when he finally rolled over and agreed to testify, avoiding jail. It was also made easier when his employer released his e-mail contacts with Rove. So there was no more source to protect.

Who is she protecting?

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.


Whittier, weren't you one of the people who called deepthroat a traitor, or at least argued he was a criminal and that he was morally wrong?

Regardless, "having a good reason" doesn't mean you can break the law. Should it be found that Rove was involved in exposing an undercover CIA agent, then he committed treason and will suffer the concequences. It's the same thing with vigilantism, it's illegal because people simply cannot take the law into their own hands if our justice system is going to work.

If Rove honestly thought there was something going on with the people he exposed, he should have instead gone through the CIA director and had them fired.

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

Good reasons?

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.

No, this is not something we know... because this is not true. Plame was unlikely to be in the position to send Wilson to Nigeria on CIA business even if she was inclined to. She possibly recommended he be the one sent, and that's it.

The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.

You're writing pure fiction here. That applies both to the statement quoted above and the ones that followed it.

You called Judith Miller a traitor who should be tried for treason for failing to reveal her source. In the same thread, you said the person responsible for outing Plame should be tried, and now you're saying if it's Karl Rove, he's a national hero? I just want to make sure I have your hypocrisy straight. :rolleyes:

Excellent!

Here's my thought...

Outing of a covert operative would make that operative's job all the more dangerous, and would compromise the safety of all with whom the operative had had contact, thus imperiling our efforts to gain covert intelligence.

This is why such an act is defined as TREASON. And if it is proved (and I think it will be) that Karl Rove committed TREASON, then I have one more thought...

Treason is one of those crimes defined in the constitution as a capital crime. And I think if KKKarl Rove is guilty of TREASON, then he should get the DEATH PENALTY. And the same for Rummy, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney, Bush, and whoever else knew...and was behind, the outing of Ms. Plame.

I'd love nothing more than to see this entire criminal Administration put to death for it's crimes against humanity. And I'm an American.

If no one hears from me again, assume they sent me to Gitmo. I wouldn't put it past them. I'm merely stating my absolute disgust and hatred for our current government...still my right to do that as an American citizen, but, then again, do I still HAVE rights, anymore? Especially if I exercise those rights in a way that the Bushies don't like?

When the fuck did we become such a goddam banana republic? What the fuck happened to my country...how, and when? I want my fucking country back!! Please, please, please, please, neo-cons...all of you...as filthy, dirty, rotten as you are...full clemency for you all if you just please LEAVE...NOW!!! and give us back our country!

Damn Whitt I knew you were looney but you are bording Sieg Heil mentality when it comes to the actions of the goverment.

Plame could have been "handled" behind the scenes and there would have been next to no fallout.

If Reid was the source, you would been screaming for the firing squad.

Ah the hypocracy.

Hmmm does that count as a Hitler reference? :p
It would depend on why Reid did it.

And it could have been handled behind the scenes. Mrs. Plame could have been fired from her job and suffered other consequences.

This is all a bunch of nonsense about Rove. So far, there's nothing new. Rove came clean about what he said a long time ago, testified to a grand jury and has been told by the special prosecutor that he's not a target.

Actually I have read he denied mentioning it and then said he didn't mention her name. Just mentioned she was the wife.. :rolleyes:


If he's not a target then that would mean that the prosecutor does not believe that Rove committed a crime. Time magazine has confirmed that Rove was one of reporter Matthew Cooper's sources on a piece he wrote identifying Valerie Plame as working for the CIA. This has been translated by the Democrats and the media into a story whereby Karl Rove "outed" a CIA undercover agent.

Here's something for you to think about ... assuming, of course, that you aren't so deeply entrenched in the liberal mentality that the idea of actually thinking about something is out of the question.

Eww that just gave you all sorts of credibility. :rolleyes:

Where do we get the idea that Valerie Plane was an undercover agent for the CIA when Rove had his conversation with Time Magazine Reporter Matthew Cooper? From Bush critic Joe Wilson and from the media, that's where. At no time has there been any confirmation that Plame was covert. If she wasn't covert, there is no crime.

Eww ok I guess that negates everything.

Do you have anybody from the CIA or let alone the goverment saying she wasn't?


Did Rove cross a line...screw up...make a mistake? You can make that case. His motive was to prevent Cooper from reporting false facts in a Time Magazine story about Joe Wilson. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Rove broke any law. For right now there is also no way Bush is going to give the left the satisfaction of firing him. Right now, this is the #1 issue for the Democrats.


Outing somebody that works for the agency is wrong no matter the issue. Since you like analogies. In the war on terrorism isn't she greatly endangered by the fact she is now formally known to work for the agency? How many times do you hear the arab world make comments about CIA actions?


Don't forget, sitting in prison right now, protecting her source, is Judith Miller of the New York Times. She, along with Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak, also wrote about Valerie Plame. Novak has apparently cut some sort of sweetheart deal with the special prosecutor. Miller is refusing to name her source to the special prosecutor. So she's sitting in the hoosegow?

But why is she in jail? It's been disclosed that Rove signed a statement giving anyone permission to speak about any contact he had over the Plame affair. Matthew Cooper of Time cited that assurance when he finally rolled over and agreed to testify, avoiding jail. It was also made easier when his employer released his e-mail contacts with Rove. So there was no more source to protect.

Who is she protecting?

Do you even understand the concept of protecting the source? Now because of this action, the goverment will start pressing any agency that they find offends their actions rightly or wrong.

But hey if the left has their conspiracies; I guess the right can have them as well.

I posted this in the Rove poll, but I really liked it and I hated to see it fade into obscurity.

This is all a bunch of nonsense about Rove. So far, there's nothing new. Rove came clean about what he said a long time ago, testified to a grand jury and has been told by the special prosecutor that he's not a target. If he's not a target then that would mean that the prosecutor does not believe that Rove committed a crime. Time magazine has confirmed that Rove was one of reporter Matthew Cooper's sources on a piece he wrote identifying Valerie Plame as working for the CIA. This has been translated by the Democrats and the media into a story whereby Karl Rove "outed" a CIA undercover agent.

Here's something for you to think about ... assuming, of course, that you aren't so deeply entrenched in the liberal mentality that the idea of actually thinking about something is out of the question. Where do we get the idea that Valerie Plane was an undercover agent for the CIA when Rove had his conversation with Time Magazine Reporter Matthew Cooper? From Bush critic Joe Wilson and from the media, that's where. At no time has there been any confirmation that Plame was covert. If she wasn't covert, there is no crime.

Did Rove cross a line...screw up...make a mistake? You can make that case. His motive was to prevent Cooper from reporting false facts in a Time Magazine story about Joe Wilson. The fact is that there is no evidence whatsoever that Rove broke any law. For right now there is also no way Bush is going to give the left the satisfaction of firing him. Right now, this is the #1 issue for the Democrats.

Don't forget, sitting in prison right now, protecting her source, is Judith Miller of the New York Times. She, along with Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak, also wrote about Valerie Plame. Novak has apparently cut some sort of sweetheart deal with the special prosecutor. Miller is refusing to name her source to the special prosecutor. So she's sitting in the hoosegow.

But why is she in jail? It's been disclosed that Rove signed a statement giving anyone permission to speak about any contact he had over the Plame affair. Matthew Cooper of Time cited that assurance when he finally rolled over and agreed to testify, avoiding jail. It was also made easier when his employer released his e-mail contacts with Rove. So there was no more source to protect.

Who is she protecting?

You bring up an excellent point that everyone seems to forget which is that Valerie Plame was not undercover. If she was, then it is a crime.
And the only reason the media are telling us that she was undercover is because that is what Joe Wilson told them. But think a minute, why Joe Wilson say his wife was working undercover when in fact she was not. Unless he was trying to settle a personal score by lying about it.

I notice that the Republican apologist faction is up and running again in post #11.

You bring up an excellent point that everyone seems to forget which is that Valerie Plame was not undercover. If she was, then it is a crime.
And the only reason the media are telling us that she was undercover is because that is what Joe Wilson told them. But think a minute, why Joe Wilson say his wife was working undercover when in fact she was not. Unless he was trying to settle a personal score by lying about it.

So far it sounds like Rove is doing that.

BTW: Got anybody saying she wasn't undercover?

Whittier, weren't you one of the people who called deepthroat a traitor, or at least argued he was a criminal and that he was morally wrong?

Regardless, "having a good reason" doesn't mean you can break the law. Should it be found that Rove was involved in exposing an undercover CIA agent, then he committed treason and will suffer the concequences. It's the same thing with vigilantism, it's illegal because people simply cannot take the law into their own hands if our justice system is going to work.

If Rove honestly thought there was something going on with the people he exposed, he should have instead gone through the CIA director and had them fired.
As someone else stated, it would not be treason because, unlike Mr. Wilson, Mr. Rove has never taken up arms against, nor criticized the national security policies of the US.

I think deepthroat was a criminal without morals but I don't remember stating so on these forums or anywhere else. That's because of his reason for doing so.

It depends on the reasons he did it for. If that is the case, then Judith Miller is not a traitor but a sacrificial lamb for the right since, as you stated yourself, she is a conservative columnist. Though she should have just given up the name since the source already revealed himself.
no it doesnt matter why he did it. it is one of the most serious crimes he coule possibly commit, one that has gotten agents killed from time to time.

he needs to be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, given a jail cell next to aldrich ames.

So far it sounds like Rove is doing that.

BTW: Got anybody saying she wasn't undercover?
It is doubtful if she is working in the office in DC, and that she was working in an undercover capacity. If she was in a foreign nation, she would likely would have been undercover.

It is doubtful if she is working in the office in DC, and that she was working in an undercover capacity. If she was in a foreign nation, she would likely would have been undercover.

Still a guess.

You need proof to dispell the claim.

It is doubtful if she is working in the office in DC, and that she was working in an undercover capacity. If she was in a foreign nation, she would likely would have been undercover.

And of course it's because she wasn't undercover that the CIA directly requested the Justice Department to launch an investigation into who leaked her identity... :rolleyes:

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

Cute.

You called the reporters to whom Rove exposed Plame (and who didn't even publish the story) traitors.

Even in the face of argument, you insisted they were guilty of treason.

You claimed that the reporters gave "aid to the enemies of the United States" by exposing a CIA agent.

You claimed the reporters deserved to be jailed so they would learn that one cannot "betray your nation or violate the rights of other people."

You said the leak "undermined the war on terror."

You said it was not a matter of partisan politics -- that the reporters will simply guilty of treason.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201248&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201306&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201420&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9212928&postcount=50

You also agreed that "whoever originally gave [the reporters] the name committed treason" and added, "They will get theirs ..."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201320&postcount=8

But, now that it looks like the main villian -- the leaker -- is Karl Rove (aka Bush's Brain), the leaker is now a hero????!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :headbang:

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.

1. Bullshit. This is almost completely made up of lies, hyperbole, half-truths, and ridiculous assertions.

I'd love to see you document these accusations with objective sources -- not right-wing screeds or editorials. Perhaps then I will go to the trouble of refuting this crap.

Otherwise, I'll stick with: "That just ain't so."

2. I'd also love to see you explain how political manuevering is a defense to the federal crime(s) involved here. Or how politics justifies exposing the identity of a CIA agent.

(Others in the past have thought for political reasons that particular CIA agents were undermining national security. That has not been taken as an excuse for exposing them.)

3. If all this is true, why has the White House for so long denied Rove's involvement and the President repeatedly said he wanted to find and fire the leaker? Hmm?

God, this is so Nixonian. First, the "modified, limited hangout." Now, the "we aren't admitting he did it, but if it did it was in the nation's interest" punditry.
:eek: :headbang:

no it doesnt matter why he did it. it is one of the most serious crimes he coule possibly commit, one that has gotten agents killed from time to time.

he needs to be arrested, tried, and if found guilty, given a jail cell next to aldrich ames.

Exactly, what a lot of people (or some people anyway) are failing to notice is that this makes Watergate look like shoplifting a candy bar in comparison. Someone is going to go to jail for this, it should be Rove, but we shall see.

This is far worse than Watergate and that brought down the government. However, as crooked as Nixon was he did have some , I stress "some" integrity! Bush is not Nixon.. don't expect this administration to say sorry for nothing. Even now that it's been caught bold face. It's not like it's the first time this administration has been caught lying and I'm sure it won't be the last.

LOL - I thought this was about Rove McManus...

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/18/400rove,0.jpg
WHAT THE???

As someone else stated, it would not be treason because, unlike Mr. Wilson, Mr. Rove has never taken up arms against, nor criticized the national security policies of the US.

But he did expose a CIA agent, threatening national security, which is treason.

I think deepthroat was a criminal without morals but I don't remember stating so on these forums or anywhere else. That's because of his reason for doing so.

But he did it to expose a criminal organization in our government that was working to undermine the American way. Is that not the exact same reasoning you gave for why Rove shouldn't be put to death for committing treason?

*SNIP*

You said it was not a matter of partisan politics -- that the reporters will simply guilty of treason.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201248&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201306&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201420&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9212928&postcount=50


Damn it Cat! I wanted to serve those! :D

Good show old man! :)

As someone else stated, it would not be treason because, unlike Mr. Wilson, Mr. Rove has never taken up arms against, nor criticized the national security policies of the US.
Criticizing national security policies is treason!?!? Well, lock me up for life cuz I'm guilty and proud of it!

I can't see Rove going to jail. Why? Three words- presidential pardoning power. About the worst I can see happening is him getting fired, and I even doubt that.

As someone else stated, it would not be treason because, unlike Mr. Wilson, Mr. Rove has never taken up arms against, nor criticized the national security policies of the US.
.
You're not even trying to be logical are you

Cute.

You called the reporters to whom Rove exposed Plame (and who didn't even publish the story) traitors.

Even in the face of argument, you insisted they were guilty of treason.

You claimed that the reporters gave "aid to the enemies of the United States" by exposing a CIA agent.

You claimed the reporters deserved to be jailed so they would learn that one cannot "betray your nation or violate the rights of other people."

You said the leak "undermined the war on terror."

You said it was not a matter of partisan politics -- that the reporters will simply guilty of treason.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201248&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201306&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201420&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9212928&postcount=50

You also agreed that "whoever originally gave [the reporters] the name committed treason" and added, "They will get theirs ..."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201320&postcount=8

But, now that it looks like the main villian -- the leaker -- is Karl Rove (aka Bush's Brain), the leaker is now a hero????!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :headbang:

*Applauds Loudly*

Right-on Cat-Tribe. :)

Ouch... Whittier... didn't twisting facts like that HURT? Just reading it and trying to work out the convoluted logic gave me a headache.

Whittier, you've proven over and over that you're nothing but a partisan hack, and a Republican apologist. Karl Rove is a treasonous bastard. He should be locked up for a long, long time for this.

:eek: :sniper:

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.
Three items of interest.

#1 Plame was not undercover and had not been classified as a "covert" agent for 9 years. This combined with the timing of Novak's story, which may have been released before Cooper called Rove(11:07am on July 11th.) Means that her identity had been released at that point and so even had she still been classified as covert it would have been permissible to talk about her as her "cover" was blown.

#2 All Rove told Cooper was that Wilson was a liar(which he was, to be detailed in item three), and that his wife was a CIA analyst and it was she, not VP Cheney, who sent him on the trip to Nigeria

#3 Wilson lied both about who sent him on his trip and about the content of his report, which at the time was classified so the White House couldn't specifically call him on it. He said that he had gathered no evidence that Saddam was trying to open secret trade talks when in fact the evidence he gathered was the exact opposite.

Where do we get the idea that Valerie Plane was an undercover agent for the CIA when Rove had his conversation with Time Magazine Reporter Matthew Cooper? From Bush critic Joe Wilson and from the media, that's where. At no time has there been any confirmation that Plame was covert. If she wasn't covert, there is no crime.

Well, there's also the word of a former CIA analyst and colleague of Plame's, a Republican named Larry Johnson, who was interviewd on PBS' NewsHour: (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html)

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

Plus, you know, DoJ special prosecutors always take it to the Supreme Court whenever somebody outs a low-level desk jockey at the CIA. . . :rolleyes:

So, where not talking about the Australian guy who hosts Rove Live? Because that guy is an international hero!

Three items of interest.

#1 Plame was not undercover and had not been classified as a "covert" agent for 9 years. This combined with the timing of Novak's story, which may have been released before Cooper called Rove(11:07am on July 11th.) Means that her identity had been released at that point and so even had she still been classified as covert it would have been permissible to talk about her as her "cover" was blown.

#2 All Rove told Cooper was that Wilson was a liar(which he was, to be detailed in item three), and that his wife was a CIA analyst and it was she, not VP Cheney, who sent him on the trip to Nigeria

#3 Wilson lied both about who sent him on his trip and about the content of his report, which at the time was classified so the White House couldn't specifically call him on it. He said that he had gathered no evidence that Saddam was trying to open secret trade talks when in fact the evidence he gathered was the exact opposite.

Very interesting items indeed. Sources for these?

Three items of interest.

#1 Plame was not undercover and had not been classified as a "covert" agent for 9 years. This combined with the timing of Novak's story, which may have been released before Cooper called Rove(11:07am on July 11th.) Means that her identity had been released at that point and so even had she still been classified as covert it would have been permissible to talk about her as her "cover" was blown.

#2 All Rove told Cooper was that Wilson was a liar(which he was, to be detailed in item three), and that his wife was a CIA analyst and it was she, not VP Cheney, who sent him on the trip to Nigeria

#3 Wilson lied both about who sent him on his trip and about the content of his report, which at the time was classified so the White House couldn't specifically call him on it. He said that he had gathered no evidence that Saddam was trying to open secret trade talks when in fact the evidence he gathered was the exact opposite.

Ahh another apologist appears.......so where is the source for these facts.....

Hey Whittier, Myrmidonisia, and Ravenshrike--Reality called. The divorce went through. :rolleyes:

For everyone making the dumbass argument that Plame wasn't covert, let me explain to you why you're wrong.

CIA made the referral, and Justice took the case. Considering that for there to be a crime, Plame had to be covert to begin with, you'd think that that would be the very first i to be dotted and t to be crossed. And yet the investigation continued.

Read this very carefully--if Plame wasn't covert, then there was no crime. Period, end of story, the investigation ends there. It happens all the time in criminal investigations--the crime has to be determined to have been committed in the first place, and if that can't be established, the investigation ends. But the investigation continues--ergo, a crime was committed, ergo, Plame was covert.

How much simpler do I have to lay it out for you? All the parsing by Toensing and other right-wing asshats out there doesn't get past that one simple, elegant point, that if there were no crime committed, then this investigation would have ended right about when it began.

I can't see Rove going to jail. Why? Three words- presidential pardoning power. About the worst I can see happening is him getting fired, and I even doubt that.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!

*gives Geisenfried a cookie*

Very interesting items indeed. Sources for these?
You would have to post this after I had closed all of my excess windows wouldn't you?


Well, this details his lies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Which, combined with what the newsies are reporting about the emails backs up number 2. As for the first, it's still somewhat speculation but that was the date and time written down in Coopers notes. That was the same day Novak's column came out. The biggest reason they may have talked after the column hit the wire was that Novak's column makes no mention of George Tenet's conference that occurred not three hours later about Wilson's claims.

Honestly Cooper is a non-issue at this point. All Rove knew was what a bunch of other washington insiders knew. The truly interesting figures are Miller and Novak. Miller won't reveal anything, which seems to suggest to me that she has another source besides Rove, especially given the BS she's been promoting about how having given her source confidentiality even if he allows her to speak she still refuses to. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. There's got to be something more to the picture, which I would bet is another source. As for Novak, what's going on with him? He had to have sources so why are the fed's going after Cooper instead?

Quote:
Don't forget, sitting in prison right now, protecting her source, is Judith Miller of the New York Times. She, along with Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak, also wrote about Valerie Plame. Novak has apparently cut some sort of sweetheart deal with the special prosecutor. Miller is refusing to name her source to the special prosecutor. So she's sitting in the hoosegow?

But why is she in jail? It's been disclosed that Rove signed a statement giving anyone permission to speak about any contact he had over the Plame affair. Matthew Cooper of Time cited that assurance when he finally rolled over and agreed to testify, avoiding jail. It was also made easier when his employer released his e-mail contacts with Rove. So there was no more source to protect.

Who is she protecting?
Do you even understand the concept of protecting the source? Now because of this action, the goverment will start pressing any agency that they find offends their actions rightly or wrong.


This is really the only part worth responding to. Two of three journalists involved, Cooper and Novak, have decided that they don't have a source to protect. Are they lesser reporters, now that they have turned?

In spite of Roves statement of permission, neither Judith Miller nor the New York Times is rolling over. Couldn't the Times release Miller's notes just as easily as Time did Cooper's? Of course. But they won't. And Judith Miller is sitting in prison. Why? Who are they protecting? It couldn't possibly be Rove. Because if it were, the Times would roll on him in a second. How could they resist the chance to pile on against their nemesis, George W. Bush?

Still a guess.

You need proof to dispell the claim.
I think it's really the other way around.
Show me:
1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
4. That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter.

Hey Whittier, Myrmidonisia, and Ravenshrike--Reality called. The divorce went through. :rolleyes:

For everyone making the dumbass argument that Plame wasn't covert, let me explain to you why you're wrong.

CIA made the referral, and Justice took the case. Considering that for there to be a crime, Plame had to be covert to begin with, you'd think that that would be the very first i to be dotted and t to be crossed. And yet the investigation continued.

Read this very carefully--if Plame wasn't covert, then there was no crime. Period, end of story, the investigation ends there. It happens all the time in criminal investigations--the crime has to be determined to have been committed in the first place, and if that can't be established, the investigation ends. But the investigation continues--ergo, a crime was committed, ergo, Plame was covert.

How much simpler do I have to lay it out for you? All the parsing by Toensing and other right-wing asshats out there doesn't get past that one simple, elegant point, that if there were no crime committed, then this investigation would have ended right about when it began.
I think we agree here. Violations of the law must, by necessity, be very specific. The law that Rove is being accused by the left of violating says that he must knowingly reveal the name of a current CIA undercover operative the identity of whom the CIA is actively trying to conceal. Can you fill in the blanks?

This is really the only part worth responding to. Two of three journalists involved, Cooper and Novak, have decided that they don't have a source to protect. Are they lesser reporters, now that they have turned?

In spite of Roves statement of permission, neither Judith Miller nor the New York Times is rolling over. Couldn't the Times release Miller's notes just as easily as Time did Cooper's? Of course. But they won't. And Judith Miller is sitting in prison. Why? Who are they protecting? It couldn't possibly be Rove. Because if it were, the Times would roll on him in a second. How could they resist the chance to pile on against their nemesis, George W. Bush?

Could it be that they are in fact standing up for a principle? That of freedom of the press? Nah, couldn't be.

It's been a while since I've read up on case law involving the press, but as I recall, the case to look at is Brandenburg v. Hayes. The resulting decision IIRC was that that there were certain circumstances in which a member of the press had to turn over their information, but it was only in the case of 1) an active criminal investigation, and 2) no other way of getting the information was available. There may and probably were a few other conditions, but those were the two biggies.

Now, clearly there are other ways of getting the information Judith Miller has: say, from the other two reporters who squirreled. If so, then Judith Miller is in the right here, and is in prison because, don't you know, its better for her to be in jail than for the government to lean on a reporter every time they need information. That kind of tactic, if made a regular part of the prosecutorial arsenal, would be bad for America; reporters couldn't get their information, whistle-blowers would be reported more often, and the American public would be less informed.

Could it be that they are in fact standing up for a principle? That of freedom of the press? Nah, couldn't be.

It's been a while since I've read up on case law involving the press, but as I recall, the case to look at is Brandenburg v. Hayes. The resulting decision IIRC was that that there were certain circumstances in which a member of the press had to turn over their information, but it was only in the case of 1) an active criminal investigation, and 2) no other way of getting the information was available. There may and probably were a few other conditions, but those were the two biggies.

Now, clearly there are other ways of getting the information Judith Miller has: say, from the other two reporters who squirreled. If so, then Judith Miller is in the right here, and is in prison because, don't you know, its better for her to be in jail than for the government to lean on a reporter every time they need information. That kind of tactic, if made a regular part of the prosecutorial arsenal, would be bad for America; reporters couldn't get their information, whistle-blowers would be reported more often, and the American public would be less informed.
Still doesn't make sense. It's not logical that she would ignore Roves signed statement of permission to discuss contacts in favor of going to prison. She isn't protecting him. That's clear.

I think it's really the other way around.
Show me:
1. That Rove specifically named Valerie Plame.
2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)
3. That Rove knew Valerie Plame was working undercover for the CIA.
4. That the CIA was actively trying, and that Karl Rove knew that the CIA was actively trying to protect the identity of Valerie Plame at the time Rove made his statement to the reporter.

Actually no it isn't.

Wilson said she was undercover. The goverment and you apologists have to dispell it with proof.

Fact remains: He exposed her. If you want to spout the hairsplitting claim, yes he didn't name her directly. He said "Wilson's wife" :rolleyes:

But he did expose a CIA agent, threatening national security, which is treason.



But he did it to expose a criminal organization in our government that was working to undermine the American way. Is that not the exact same reasoning you gave for why Rove shouldn't be put to death for committing treason?
He didn't do it to expose a criminal organization. He did it for revenge because he did not feel he was getting enough recognition at work. It had nothing to do with being noble, it had everything to do with being an immoral, vindictive, corrupt sob. He is no better than the fools he tattled on and actually he is worse than they are. He did for selfish reasons.

Three items of interest.

#1 Plame was not undercover and had not been classified as a "covert" agent for 9 years. This combined with the timing of Novak's story, which may have been released before Cooper called Rove(11:07am on July 11th.) Means that her identity had been released at that point and so even had she still been classified as covert it would have been permissible to talk about her as her "cover" was blown.

#2 All Rove told Cooper was that Wilson was a liar(which he was, to be detailed in item three), and that his wife was a CIA analyst and it was she, not VP Cheney, who sent him on the trip to Nigeria

#3 Wilson lied both about who sent him on his trip and about the content of his report, which at the time was classified so the White House couldn't specifically call him on it. He said that he had gathered no evidence that Saddam was trying to open secret trade talks when in fact the evidence he gathered was the exact opposite.

precisely.

He lied about what he found in Africa.

Fact remains: He exposed her. If you want to spout the hairsplitting claim, yes he didn't name her directly. He said "Wilson's wife" :rolleyes:
As a CIA agent. But unless he had specific knowledge that she was undercover, he has not commited a crime. Also, Bush never stated that he would fire anyone involved.


Another interesting tidbit. Plame's name was common knowledge prior to this entire kerfluffle.

http://prestoagitato.typepad.com/presto_agitato/2005/07/plame__valerie_.html

The storyline is that Karl Rove "outed" Valerie Plame as a CIA agent in order to "punish" Amb. Wilson for his op-ed in which he claimed that he'd proven the Niger/Iraq yellowcake connection to be false. (Although that's not what he told the CIA -- 23.43MB PDF).

Particularly sinister in Amb. Wilson's view was the fact that she was identified as "Valerie Plame" -- her maiden name! -- instead of as "Valerie Wilson". But it turns out that Amb. Wilson's "outrage" is just another of his many documented scams (see the link, above). Here is a web archive of Amb. Wilson's pre-op-ed online bio:

He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.

The archive is dated Feb. 8, 2003. Wilson first published his claims in July, 2003, although he was an anonymous source as early as May 6, 2003.

One other thing; the fact that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA was common knowledge in the Washington press corps. So what exactly is the story, here? I mean, other than the fact that so many people drank the "Bush Lied" kool-aid?


The date noted is the last time that archive was updated, and the information may in fact go as far back as 1998.

...One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq...
Well that's just stupid.
People made a claim that was doubtful at best, and they wanted to check whether it's true. You know nothing about their intention, but everything that is against Bush counts as anti-American and borderline-Terrorism today anyways, hey?

And no matter what their intention, revealing the identity of your secret agents is a crime nonetheless.

Hey Whittier, Myrmidonisia, and Ravenshrike--Reality called. The divorce went through. :rolleyes:

For everyone making the dumbass argument that Plame wasn't covert, let me explain to you why you're wrong.

CIA made the referral, and Justice took the case. Considering that for there to be a crime, Plame had to be covert to begin with, you'd think that that would be the very first i to be dotted and t to be crossed. And yet the investigation continued.

Read this very carefully--if Plame wasn't covert, then there was no crime. Period, end of story, the investigation ends there. It happens all the time in criminal investigations--the crime has to be determined to have been committed in the first place, and if that can't be established, the investigation ends. But the investigation continues--ergo, a crime was committed, ergo, Plame was covert.

How much simpler do I have to lay it out for you? All the parsing by Toensing and other right-wing asshats out there doesn't get past that one simple, elegant point, that if there were no crime committed, then this investigation would have ended right about when it began.

they have not said there was crime. The purpose of the investigation is to see if there was crime in the first place.
if you've been watching this, you should already know that.

#2 All Rove told Cooper was that Wilson was a liar(which he was, to be detailed in item three), and that his wife was a CIA analyst and it was she, not VP Cheney, who sent him on the trip to Nigeria.

Well, it didn't cover #1, so I guess I'll leave that alone. But in regards to #2 here...

"The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said."

Making a recommendation and authorizing a trip are two different things. Not simply a semantic difference, suggesting that Plame actually sent her husband on the trip indicates that it was a covert action on her part to undermine evidence. In truth, she merely suggested he go, leaving it up to proper channels. This changes the whole meaning.

That's hardly lying. Even by a good stretch of the imagination. She did not have the authority to send him, and he went, so her reccomendation may have influenced the decision...but that's about it.

precisely.

He lied about what he found in Africa.

Look in the margin of the Washington post. He DIDN'T lie about what he found. It was a typo.

_____Correction_____

In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.

That's hardly lying. Even by a good stretch of the imagination. She did not have the authority to send him, and he went, so her reccomendation may have influenced the decision...but that's about it.
Of course, that also leaves the question of what "offered up" meant. Given the type of report that could mean anywhere from casual mention to somewhat extensive lobbying for his presence there.

Still doesn't make sense. It's not logical that she would ignore Roves signed statement of permission to discuss contacts in favor of going to prison. She isn't protecting him. That's clear.


It isn't up to her anyway, it's the NYT who are ordering her to refrain from talking. And we all know just how fair and balanced the NYT is. :rolleyes:

Look in the margin of the Washington post. He DIDN'T lie about what he found. It was a typo.

_____Correction_____

In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.
I find this interesting, simply because I doubt the country's name came up only once in the report. That means that either he's lying again, he managed to accidentally make a typo everywhere he meant to type/write the word Iran and instead wrote Iraq, or he interchanged them in the report and no one thought to ask him to clarify which country he meant.

Of course, that also leaves the question of what "offered up" meant. Given the type of report that could mean anywhere from casual mention to somewhat extensive lobbying for his presence there.

That is definately a good question. Offered up does somewhat indicate something less than extensive lobbying, but anything's possible. The point is, SHE didn't send him. SHE had no authority to do so. So thus the assertion that she DID is bogus.

It isn't up to her anyway, it's the NYT who are ordering her to refrain from talking. And we all know just how fair and balanced the NYT is. :rolleyes:
Then it makes less sense. There is no way in hell that the the NYT is covering for Rove. Thus the leads us to the question of what they're hiding.

Me thinks it's either her Hubby or Tenet and his DNC cronies. Besides, this story is already dying. The left has lost this battle, I predict by next week this will be on the back burner. They are now going to focus on Bushs' two, possibly 3 SC nominations.

I find this interesting, simply because I doubt the country's name came up only once in the report. That means that either he's lying again, he managed to accidentally make a typo everywhere he meant to type/write the word Iran and instead wrote Iraq, or he interchanged them in the report and no one thought to ask him to clarify which country he meant.

What? No. The POST made the mistake, not Wilson. Wilson said "Iran" And the post wrote "Iraq" instead. Simple mistake. Methinks you protest too much. ;)

What? No. The POST made the mistake, not Wilson. Wilson said "Iran" And the post wrote "Iraq" instead. Simple mistake. Methinks you protest too much. ;)

Isn't that what editors are for. Oops, me thinks they have an agenda as well.

This topic is obviously partisan crap, whittier was in another topic arguing that whoever ousted the person is a traitor and treasonous bastard and makes a thread to defend the person and call them a hero when it turns out to be the republican propaganda master. Lets just close this topic, it is idiotic partisan tripe with all teh rightwing apologists declaring left wing conspiracy jsut because it turns out to be karl rove, who wants to bet they would be point, laughing and calling for heads (MULTIPLE HEADS) to roll if it turned out to be a democrat?

Isn't that what editors are for. Oops, me thinks they have an agenda as well.

Wait...so now the Washington Post has an anti-Rove agenda? Oh wow. Everyone's out to get everyone else these days...

It isn't up to her anyway, it's the NYT who are ordering her to refrain from talking. And we all know just how fair and balanced the NYT is. :rolleyes:
But doesn't the NYT have everything to gain by implicating Rove? Sure they do. This stalling of theirs and Miller's martyrdom don't make any sense. The Times should be piling on the Bush administration like every other reporter in the country.

It depends on the reasons he did it for. If that is the case, then Judith Miller is not a traitor but a sacrificial lamb for the right since, as you stated yourself, she is a conservative columnist. Though she should have just given up the name since the source already revealed himself.

The source didn't already reveal himself. Cooper had general and specific permission from Rowe to release the information. Judith Miller did not have the same permission given to her, which means the person who she is protecting is different from Rowe. If it had been Rowe she would have had the very same permission to reveal her source. She's sitting on her butt in jail because the NY Times is hinding something they dont want known.

As a side note: I'd like to make a correction.

The case law to study concerns Branzburg v. Hayes, not Brandenburg v. Hayes.

My bad.

Oh pelase not only do the apologists "waffle" to protect rove, but they are also starting democrat conspiracy theories on their puppets. BRILLIANT!

Ihatevacations']Oh pelase not only do the apologists "waffle" to protect rove, but they are also starting democrat conspiracy theories on their puppets. BRILLIANT!
I'd be willing to bet a grand on the fact that Miller had a source that was not Rove, who gave her information about Plame that could get the source in trouble. Care to take that bet?

This is really the only part worth responding to. Two of three journalists involved, Cooper and Novak, have decided that they don't have a source to protect. Are they lesser reporters, now that they have turned?

In spite of Roves statement of permission, neither Judith Miller nor the New York Times is rolling over. Couldn't the Times release Miller's notes just as easily as Time did Cooper's? Of course. But they won't. And Judith Miller is sitting in prison. Why? Who are they protecting? It couldn't possibly be Rove. Because if it were, the Times would roll on him in a second. How could they resist the chance to pile on against their nemesis, George W. Bush?

Ever think of the possibility that Judith Miller is afraid of being "Vincent Fostered?"

As long as we're speculating about potential motives, how about this little possibility?

The NYT has taken huge hits to its credibility in the last few years. HUGE hits. Its hurting badly, and sees this as a chance to stand up for "Journalism" in general and improve their standing.

Rather than protecting someone important in political office, maybe they're "protecting" their #1 interest? Themselves.

By taking a stand, they insinuate that they are willing to take a hit legally for the sake of journalistic integrity. I'm not sure if its working, but that could easily be their intent.

I'd be willing to bet a grand on the fact that Miller had a source that was not Rove, who gave her information about Plame that could get the source in trouble. Care to take that bet?

May or may not be true.

Miller has said her source has given her permission to talk, but that such permission -- given during an investigation of the source -- doesn't end her confidentiality concerns. So, much of your reasoning as to why it can't be Rove doesn't make much sense.

What we do know is that Rove was Michael Cooper's source.

Even Fox news is saying so:
Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162406,00.html)

Journalist Matt Cooper on Wednesday confirmed to a grand jury that White House aide Karl Rove was his source for a story about a CIA operative that has investigators deciding whether any laws were broken by the leak of the agent's identity.

There is a ton of misinformation being paraded around here. And lots of speculation on both sides.

I'm not willing to say that Karl Rove committed any crime until we have lots more details. In fact, I generally like to wait until their is a conviction.

However:

1. That Rove leaked confidential information is pretty clear.

2. That Rove has lied about it is pretty clear.

3. That the White House has either been lying about it or has been denying it because Rove kept them in the dark is pretty clear. Both Rove and the White House have been denying this story. It may well be that Rove kept the rest of the White House in the dark, because the White House's denials that Rove was the source of any of the stories have been far more categorical that Rove's. (Granted, Rove only gets interviewed when he wants. The White House doesn't really have that option.)

4. That Dubya said he wanted to find out who leaked that Plame was a CIA agent is very clear. He said that person should be prosecuted and has said that person would be fired.

5. All the talking points raised earlier about whether Rove technically violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or other laws don't change #1-#4.

6. This isn't the first time Rove has been caught peeing in the tent. Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

7. Rove appears to have committed, if not a crime, a despicable act, which he has gone to great lengths to cover up and lie about. Per Bush's statements, if Rove is the leak (and it appears rather certain), he should be fired.

There is a ton of misinformation being paraded around here. And lots of speculation on both sides.

I'm not willing to say that Karl Rove committed any crime until we have lots more details. In fact, I generally like to wait until their is a conviction.

However:

1. That Rove leaked confidential information is pretty clear.

2. That Rove has lied about it is pretty clear.

3. That the White House has either been lying about it or has been denying it because Rove kept them in the dark is pretty clear. Both Rove and the White House have been denying this story. It may well be that Rove kept the rest of the White House in the dark, because the White House's denials that Rove was the source of any of the stories have been far more categorical that Rove's. (Granted, Rove only gets interviewed when he wants. The White House doesn't really have that option.)

4. That Dubya said he wanted to find out who leaked that Plame was a CIA agent is very clear. He said that person should be prosecuted and has said that person would be fired.

5. All the talking points raised earlier about whether Rove technically violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the Espionage Act, or other laws don't change #1-#4.

6. This isn't the first time Rove has been caught peeing in the tent. Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.

7. Rove appears to have committed, if not a crime, a despicable act, which he has gone to great lengths to cover up and lie about. Per Bush's statements, if Rove is the leak (and it appears rather certain), he should be fired.
Spreading your own misinformation now are we?

#4 Patently untrue. His original quote was along the lines of if anyone had commited any crimes they would be prosecuted. The firing quote went like this:

Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
He never pledged to fire anyone found to have been involved period, he said legal action would be taken against those who broke the law. Biiiiiiiig difference. Again, as pointed out before, the fact that Plame was Wilson's wife was a matter of public record. All Rove did was mention that she worked for the CIA and had pushed for her husband to go on the trip. Unless Rove specifically knew of her prior undercover status then he did nothing wrong. Even if he knew given the time frame it's doubtful that he broke any laws.

As long as we're speculating about potential motives, how about this little possibility?

The NYT has taken huge hits to its credibility in the last few years. HUGE hits. Its hurting badly, and sees this as a chance to stand up for "Journalism" in general and improve their standing.

Rather than protecting someone important in political office, maybe they're "protecting" their #1 interest? Themselves.

By taking a stand, they insinuate that they are willing to take a hit legally for the sake of journalistic integrity. I'm not sure if its working, but that could easily be their intent.

It would be nice to think so, but most likely they have a different, embaressing source. The NYT has suffered serious declines in sales. What is better to build up circulation, then an outrageous story?

As a CIA agent. But unless he had specific knowledge that she was undercover, he has not commited a crime. Also, Bush never stated that he would fire anyone involved.

Another interesting tidbit. Plame's name was common knowledge prior to this entire kerfluffle.

http://prestoagitato.typepad.com/presto_agitato/2005/07/plame__valerie_.html

The date noted is the last time that archive was updated, and the information may in fact go as far back as 1998.

All I can say is there seems to be a great deal of "propagandizing" by both sides. We should not get caught up in the politics and review the case at hand.

Rove seems without question is the leak.

It would be one thing if she working in the typing pool and it's another if she worked in Foreign countries. Even is she was in the typing pool there is still confidential issues.

My problem is the fact he was even talking about it. You see when you are in such an organization, you don't even say you work for them. I was with the DoD awhile ago. I was told you say you work for the government and leave it at that.

The question of if she was undercover will probably not get answered. The agency will not admit it.

There can be ramifications for saying she was in the agency. As a couple people pointed out, some people could get killed for simply have interacted with her. Especially if she was in a country that tends to hate us.

The question of if he technically violated the identities act or the espionage act
does not exempt him from the fact that he has lied about his action(denying that he said it and then saying he only mentioned his wife and not her name). He leaked confidential information by the fact he mentioned her.

Now the question of the White House is in play? Did they know about it? If they did then that does not bode well for the shrub as it shows he will do anything to discredit anybody that offends him. Or was it simply they were kept in the dark? It's quite probable because if there is a problem, they probably don't want to know about how it's getting handled. Or they simply did not know.

More digging is needed to judge that one.

Don't forget the shrub said he wanted to find out who leaked that Plame was a CIA agent. He didn't come out and say this was BS and is defending a good friend as in the case of Gonzalez(sp?).

If Rove is guilty, he should be punished which at the very least he should be fired.

This should be the case for anybody that does this be they democrat or republican.

the NYT is hiding something...
why else would they let their reporter rot in jail?
she was given permission to reveal the source, but didn't....
NYT is screwed...

What we do know is that Rove was Michael Cooper's source.

Even Fox news is saying so:
Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162406,00.html)
Ah, so you are basing what Rove supposedly told Cooper about something he said on the courthouse steps, and not on his actual testimony. Again, unless Rove specifically told him of her prior undercover status then he has done nothing wrong, especially since Rove probably didn't know of her previous status. To him she was an annoying busybody CIA analyst who was working with her hubby to hurt Bush, which they were. If that's all Rove told Cooper, then Rove is certainly in the clear. Somehow I doubt Rove looked up a detailed dossier of the woman just so he could reveal it in a conversation which started on an entirely different topic and that Cooper steered toward the issue of Wilson's trip near the end.

they have not said there was crime. The purpose of the investigation is to see if there was crime in the first place.
if you've been watching this, you should already know that.
If I thought typing this slowly would help you understand it more easily, I would do so--who knows, it might, although I have my doubts.

The crux of the crime is whether or not Plame was covert. In order for her to be covert, she had to fit either of the designations described by Ms Toensing in her piece of a couple of days ago. That's easy enough to find out simply by asking CIA if she fit either of those descriptions. Obviously, she did, because if she didn't, then no crime was committed and this investigation would have ended two years ago. The Justice department would have come out and said "she wasn't covert, nothing to see here." The fact that this is still going on is proof that Plame was covert.

Now, before you try to give me any other bullshit, answer that.

<snip>
Now, before you try to give me any other bullshit, answer that.
oooohhhh pwnage!

If I thought typing this slowly would help you understand it more easily, I would do so--who knows, it might, although I have my doubts.

The crux of the crime is whether or not Plame was covert. In order for her to be covert, she had to fit either of the designations described by Ms Toensing in her piece of a couple of days ago. That's easy enough to find out simply by asking CIA if she fit either of those descriptions. Obviously, she did, because if she didn't, then no crime was committed and this investigation would have ended two years ago. The Justice department would have come out and said "she wasn't covert, nothing to see here." The fact that this is still going on is proof that Plame was covert.

Now, before you try to give me any other bullshit, answer that.
You are talking about two different things that are not inclusive.

1. The CIA is not going to say if she was undercover or not.

2. The fact the investigation is ongoing, does not prove she was undercover, what it does prove is the serious intent of the Justice Department to find the truth.


You are trying to say that A causes B when A has no effect on B. Whether she is undercover or not, the Justice Department would still continue the investigation as long as it takes to uncover the truth and determine if a crime was committed.
Hence, the continuation of the investigation in no way proves
A. that Rove is guilty
B. that Plame was undercover at the time

<snip>
I guess the government is always right. No matter what. Unless there is a Democrat in office, then all bets are off.

Cute.

You called the reporters to whom Rove exposed Plame (and who didn't even publish the story) traitors.

Even in the face of argument, you insisted they were guilty of treason.

You claimed that the reporters gave "aid to the enemies of the United States" by exposing a CIA agent.

You claimed the reporters deserved to be jailed so they would learn that one cannot "betray your nation or violate the rights of other people."

You said the leak "undermined the war on terror."

You said it was not a matter of partisan politics -- that the reporters will simply guilty of treason.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201248&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201306&postcount=6
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201420&postcount=18
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9212928&postcount=50

You also agreed that "whoever originally gave [the reporters] the name committed treason" and added, "They will get theirs ..."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9201320&postcount=8

But, now that it looks like the main villian -- the leaker -- is Karl Rove (aka Bush's Brain), the leaker is now a hero????!!!!!!! :rolleyes: :headbang:



1. Bullshit. This is almost completely made up of lies, hyperbole, half-truths, and ridiculous assertions.

I'd love to see you document these accusations with objective sources -- not right-wing screeds or editorials. Perhaps then I will go to the trouble of refuting this crap.

Otherwise, I'll stick with: "That just ain't so."

2. I'd also love to see you explain how political manuevering is a defense to the federal crime(s) involved here. Or how politics justifies exposing the identity of a CIA agent.

(Others in the past have thought for political reasons that particular CIA agents were undermining national security. That has not been taken as an excuse for exposing them.)

3. If all this is true, why has the White House for so long denied Rove's involvement and the President repeatedly said he wanted to find and fire the leaker? Hmm?

God, this is so Nixonian. First, the "modified, limited hangout." Now, the "we aren't admitting he did it, but if it did it was in the nation's interest" punditry.
:eek: :headbang:

And what's the moral of this story kiddies? Whittier is just a Flip Flopping Bushevik Apologist.

Now everyone, let's pretend I started this thread and just ignore it into oblivion.

Spreading your own misinformation now are we?

#4 Patently untrue. His original quote was along the lines of if anyone had commited any crimes they would be prosecuted. The firing quote went like this:


He never pledged to fire anyone found to have been involved period, he said legal action would be taken against those who broke the law. Biiiiiiiig difference. Again, as pointed out before, the fact that Plame was Wilson's wife was a matter of public record. All Rove did was mention that she worked for the CIA and had pushed for her husband to go on the trip. Unless Rove specifically knew of her prior undercover status then he did nothing wrong. Even if he knew given the time frame it's doubtful that he broke any laws.

Um, there are other quotes, but your own quote does quite nicely -- for me.

Q: Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

Dubya did not say -- as you misleadingly imply -- he would fire anyone "who broke the law."

He said he would fire "anybody who leaked the agent's name."

You aren't even really denying that Rove leaked that Plame was a CIA agent.

That was the leak in question.

(I am going to follow-up more on that.)

I'd be willing to bet a grand on the fact that Miller had a source that was not Rove, who gave her information about Plame that could get the source in trouble. Care to take that bet?

I am sure that is true.

If you recall the original stories by Novak and Cooper said that two senior White House officials had informed them that Plame was a CIA operative.

It seems fairly conclusive that one of the two sources was Rove.

But you are right that there is also another shoe to drop.

:eek:

Forgive me for the string of posts, but the apologists are working overtime and confusing some many issues it will take several points to clarify them.

As I have said, Rove's actions are serious and should lead to repercusions regardless of whether they were illegal.

But let us also get straight the relevant law here.

Intelligence Identities Protection Act (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html)

One of the relevant statutes is the IIPA (relevant portions only:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html) adds the following definitions (relevant ones only):

(1) The term “classified information” means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.

(3) The term “disclose” means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.

(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

(5) The term “intelligence agency” means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Thus, the essential elements of a violation of the IIPA are: The (1) authorized access to classified information,
(2) learning the identity of a covert agent,
(3) intentional disclosure of information identifying the agent to,
(4) an individual not authorized to receive classified information,
(5) knowledge that the information identifies a covert agent, and
(6) knowledge that the United States is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the agent’s role.

Assuming Ms. Plame is a covert agent:
1. Rove had access to classified information.
2. Rove obviously knew Ms. Plame's identity.
3 & 4. Rove appears to have intentionally disclosed information identifying Ms. Plame to an unauthorized individual
5. It is unclear/disputed if Rove knew Ms. Plame was a covert agent.
6. It is unclear/disputed if Rove knew the US was taking "affirmative measures" to conceal Plame's identity. (I'm not sure what counts as "affirmative measures.")

I'll come back to evidence that Ms. Plame satisfied the definition of "covert agent." But let us be clear on what needs to be shown:
1. "present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency" (We know that is true. (And we know Rove knew it)).
2. "whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information," (This appears undisputed.)
3. "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States" (emphasis added)

Another relevant statute is the Espionage Act (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793----000-.html):

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

This statute can be violated by, among other things:
(1) possession of
(2) information
(3) relating to the national defense
(4) which the person possessing it has reason to know could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation, and
(5) wilful communication of that information to
(6) a person not entitled to receive it.

This statute becomes interesting when applied to what we know/suspect are the facts. If Ms. Plame's identity as a CIA agent was "information relating to the national defense" (which seems almost a given), then Rove's intent/required knowledge is pretty simple "reason to know it could be used to damage the US or aid a foreign nation" and "wilful communication."

So, Rove's violation of the Espionage Act seems easier to prove than a violation of the IIPA:

1 & 2. Rove possessed information
3. arguably, if not obviously, the identity of a CIA agent is related to the national defense
4. arguably, if not obviously, Rove would have "reason to know" that the identity of a CIA agent "could be used to damage the US or aid a foreign nation"
5. the information was communicated -- wilfully (not by accident)
6. to an unauthorized person

It is my understanding their are other statutes at which the special prosecutor is looking.

I'll get more into the evidence in another post.

(And, as I said, I don't think the alpha and omega of this case is whether Rove violated a statute.)

-snippage for brevity becuase I don't have much to add -

I tell you what boys and girls, if I am ever in the dock for murder, I know who I want to defend me.

I tell you what boys and girls, if I am ever in the dock for murder, I know who I want to defend me.
No kidding.

You are talking about two different things that are not inclusive.

1. The CIA is not going to say if she was undercover or not.

2. The fact the investigation is ongoing, does not prove she was undercover, what it does prove is the serious intent of the Justice Department to find the truth.


You are trying to say that A causes B when A has no effect on B. Whether she is undercover or not, the Justice Department would still continue the investigation as long as it takes to uncover the truth and determine if a crime was committed.
Hence, the continuation of the investigation in no way proves
A. that Rove is guilty
B. that Plame was undercover at the time
Point 1--CIA admitted she had been covert when they made the referral to the Justice Department in the first place. If she wasn't covert, no crime had been committed and there was no reason to make the referral.

Point 2--Justice convened a Grand Jury to continue the investigation into who outed her, not to determine if a crime had been committed. If Plame hadn't been covert, Fitzgerald would never have convened the Grand Jury. Other charges will likely spring from that investigation, and it's possible that Fitzgerald will never prosecute anyone for the outing of Plame, but there is no logical question about the fact that Plame was a covert agent--without that basic fact being beyond dispute, none of the rest of this happens. None of it.

Point A--here you are correct. The continuing investigation does not prove Rove's guilt. Of course, I've never said it does, so I don't know where you're coming from with that objection. My whole point on this thread and elsewhere has been to shoot down the bullshit argument that no crime was committed to begin with because Plame might not have been covert. I happen to believe that Rove is guilty, but there's a long way from my belief to a jail cell.

Point B--if the continuing investigation proves anything at all, it proves that Plame was indeed undercover. The investigation would never have progressed to the grand jury stage if there were no evidence that a crime had been committed in the first place.

This was funny. Saying that Rove is a hero for exposing a CIA plot to kill American soldiers and 'destroy Bush' is something like saying that if Rove used his super-strength and x-ray vision to save a bus of children, he would also be a hero.

Criticizing the US is not treason, the entire notion of questioning authority is completely allowed by the founding fathers. Purging those people from their positions because of partisan politics is closer to un-American and McCarthyist.

If you want CIA acts that kill Americans, try the ones that sent us to Iraq in the first place.

Hold on a moment. Either I've missed something here, or someone is assuming facts not in evidence. So ... just to straighten me out, would someone somewhere please tell me who has said that Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA agent ... other, that is, than the media and her husband Joe Wilson? Look ... I know that the media says that Plame was an undercover CIA agent .. but this is the same media that wants Rove's head on a stake. The official line seems to be she had a desk job at the CIA at the time all of this happened. There were many people in Washington, including reporters, who knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat spying for the Soviets back in 1994. She was brought back to the states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and went in public. So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target. Dead end for the Democrats on that one.

I think this story is dying a natural death. My prediction is that it will end as soon as Bush nominates a justice to the Supreme Court without an indictment. If the Democrats were only as worried about overspending and winning in Iraq as they are about getting a trophy to hang on their wall, this would be a better governed country.

[edit]
That's wrong. The story will die out, but Joe Wilson will be indicted and convicted. So far, he's the only one that has demonstrably and possibly broken the law

Point 1--CIA admitted she had been covert when they made the referral to the Justice Department in the first place. If she wasn't covert, no crime had been committed and there was no reason to make the referral.

Point 2--Justice convened a Grand Jury to continue the investigation into who outed her, not to determine if a crime had been committed. If Plame hadn't been covert, Fitzgerald would never have convened the Grand Jury. Other charges will likely spring from that investigation, and it's possible that Fitzgerald will never prosecute anyone for the outing of Plame, but there is no logical question about the fact that Plame was a covert agent--without that basic fact being beyond dispute, none of the rest of this happens. None of it.

Point A--here you are correct. The continuing investigation does not prove Rove's guilt. Of course, I've never said it does, so I don't know where you're coming from with that objection. My whole point on this thread and elsewhere has been to shoot down the bullshit argument that no crime was committed to begin with because Plame might not have been covert. I happen to believe that Rove is guilty, but there's a long way from my belief to a jail cell.

Point B--if the continuing investigation proves anything at all, it proves that Plame was indeed undercover. The investigation would never have progressed to the grand jury stage if there were no evidence that a crime had been committed in the first place.
B. You are assuming that it means she was undercover when it means no such thing.

Scapegoats, great for protecting the real criminals in power :rolleyes:

The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq.

Or, in less biased words, find out the truth. The truth which the President conveniently ignored when making the case for war.

Or, in less biased words, find out the truth. The truth which the President conveniently ignored when making the case for war.
Liberals don't know what truth is. Proof, all the corrupt shit and all the cover ups that happened during the Democrat Clinton Administration. A man who sold nuclear weapons technology to the Red Chinese while he was in office cause he didn't give a damn about his own country's national security interests. That was a major factor in the democrats losing so many public offices in the first place. The dems care about nothing but getting rich quick.

They could have gotten his sorry ass for treason if they hadn't gone off a f ing tangent about sexual relationships. The fact they didn't and they went for the sex instead just proves how stupid most people are.

Liberals don't know what truth is. Proof, all the corrupt shit and all the cover ups that happened during the Democrat Clinton Administration. A man who sold nuclear weapons technology to the Red Chinese while he was in office cause he didn't give a damn about his own country's national security interests. That was a major factor in the democrats losing so many public offices in the first place. The dems care about nothing but getting rich quick.

They could have gotten his sorry ass for treason if they hadn't gone off a f ing tangent about sexual relationships. The fact they didn't and they went for the sex instead just proves how stupid most people are.
In all honesty, you already look like a partisan idiot, why do you insist on continueing to prove that point?

Ihatevacations']In all honesty, you already look like a partisan idiot, why do you insist on continueing to prove that point?
When one digs themselves into a hole; one has has two options: keeping digging or trying to find a way out.

Whit has decided to keep digging. Maybe he'll dig his way to china, you never know lol

Hold on a moment. Either I've missed something here, or someone is assuming facts not in evidence. So ... just to straighten me out, would someone somewhere please tell me who has said that Valerie Plame was a undercover CIA agent ... other, that is, than the media and her husband Joe Wilson? Look ... I know that the media says that Plame was an undercover CIA agent .. but this is the same media that wants Rove's head on a stake. The official line seems to be she had a desk job at the CIA at the time all of this happened. There were many people in Washington, including reporters, who knew that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

One key provision of the law Rove is alleged to have broken states that to be a covert agent, a person must have been doing work in the field sometime in the last 5 years. It turns out Valerie Plame may have already been outed over a decade ago....by Aldrich Ames, the turncoat spying for the Soviets back in 1994. She was brought back to the states and given a desk job at the CIA. Apparently she also came and went in public. So even if Rove had named her, he wouldn't have broken the law. But the special prosecutor says Rove isn't the target. Dead end for the Democrats on that one.

I think this story is dying a natural death. My prediction is that it will end as soon as Bush nominates a justice to the Supreme Court without an indictment. If the Democrats were only as worried about overspending and winning in Iraq as they are about getting a trophy to hang on their wall, this would be a better governed country.

[edit]
That's wrong. The story will die out, but Joe Wilson will be indicted and convicted. So far, he's the only one that has demonstrably and possibly broken the law
i know we are all very used to the government wasting time, effort and money but do you really think that there would have BEEN an investigation if she werent undercover?

do you think the whitehouse would have pushed the investigation if no crime had been committed? an investigation that can only hurt them in the end?

we are just not in the business of spending years investigating crimes that are obviously NOT crimes. well ok except for bill clinton and martha stewart but those were at least authorized by people who were not going to suffer from the results of the investigations.

this isnt just "dirty politics". this is a very serious allegation that if proven is far more serious than blow jobs in the whitehouse or wanting to bug the other party's headquarters.

When one digs themselves into a hole; one has has two options: keeping digging or trying to find a way out.

Whit has decided to keep digging. Maybe he'll dig his way to china, you never know lol
Hope he brings me back something

i know we are all very used to the government wasting time, effort and money but do you really think that there would have BEEN an investigation if she werent undercover?

do you think the whitehouse would have pushed the investigation if no crime had been committed? an investigation that can only hurt them in the end?

we are just not in the business of spending years investigating crimes that are obviously NOT crimes. well ok except for bill clinton and martha stewart but those were at least authorized by people who were not going to suffer from the results of the investigations.

this isnt just "dirty politics". this is a very serious allegation that if proven is far more serious than blow jobs in the whitehouse or wanting to bug the other party's headquarters.
I can't give you a reason for the investigation. What I've said is that it appears the facts don't support an indictment of Karl Rove. Most of this story has been kept alive by partisan politicans and their willing accomplices in the media. As far as I can tell, Joe Wilson and the media are the only ones claiming that Plame was undercover and they both have axes to grind.

Anyhow, the parts I've been waiting for have arrived, so I'm off to do something more productive than beat a dead horse.

Most of this story has been kept alive by partisan politicans
Oh the irony. This much irony should be illegal

As far as I can tell, Joe Wilson and the media are the only ones claiming that Plame was undercover and they both have axes to grind.
AGH IRONY KILLING ME!

Why would there be a federal investigation if she didn't qualify as covert or if exposing her interferred with her work on WMDs?

Violations of the law must, by necessity, be very specific. The law that Rove is being accused by the left of violating says that he must knowingly reveal the name of a current CIA undercover operative

1) I didn't realize that the "left" were running the Justice department, here I thought the right controlled everything. So, it's just a left-wing conspiracy? LOL, funny. (bold added by me)

2) He did name her. Did he say "Valerie Plame" may be not, but he DID say Joe Wilson's wife. I'm sure it wasn't too hard to figure out who Joe Wilson's wife was. So in fact he very much did name her.

2) He did name her. Did he say "Valerie Plame" may be not, but he DID say Joe Wilson's wife. I'm sure it wasn't too hard to figure out who Joe Wilson's wife was. So in fact he very much did name her.
Yeah, seeing as how polygamy is illegal, I don't think anyone can get him off on not specifically saying "valerie plame"

1) I didn't realize that the "left" were running the Justice department, here I thought the right controlled everything. So, it's just a left-wing conspiracy? LOL, funny. (bold added by me)

2) He did name her. Did he say "Valerie Plame" may be not, but he DID say Joe Wilson's wife. I'm sure it wasn't too hard to figure out who Joe Wilson's wife was. So in fact he very much did name her.
I didn't realize the justice department had accused anyone of a crime. No indictment, no crime, or at least not enough evidence for one. The only accusations I see are from disgruntled politicians and reporters.

Ihatevacations']Oh the irony. This much irony should be illegal


AGH IRONY KILLING ME!

Why would there be a federal investigation if she didn't qualify as covert or if exposing her interferred with her work on WMDs?
Like I said earlier, an indictment will certainly tell if the investigation ever amounted to anything more than monkeyfishing. I don't think there will ever be one.

Wait, Rove was questioned by a grand jury and told he was not the target...That would be good enough in most cases, wouldn't it?

I didn't realize the justice department had accused anyone of a crime. No indictment, no crime, or at least not enough evidence for one. The only accusations I see are from disgruntled politicians and reporters.

No, I'm sure the Justice department convenes Grand Juries all the time when they don't believe a crime has been committed. As for an indictment, well we don't know if one will be filed or not. That is yet to be seen. While I will admit that the corruption in the Bush administration is so high that it is possible that Rove will get away with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because it's not like it's over.

He said he would fire "anybody who leaked the agent's name."

Actually, given the question, which was if he would stand by his earlier pledge to fire anyone was in fact non answerable by Bush as such. He had never pledged to fire anyone who leaked that agent's name. That was attributed to him by one Harry Reid of the Dems, who seems to dearly love to misquote people. Ergo given the way it was sprung on him and how it is inconsistent with what he actually previously said, his answer to it makes little sense.

This is why such an act is defined as TREASON. And if it is proved (and I think it will be) that Karl Rove committed TREASON, then I have one more thought... Treason is one of those crimes defined in the constitution as a capital crime. And I think if KKKarl Rove is guilty of TREASON, then he should get the DEATH PENALTY. And the same for Rummy, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney, Bush, and whoever else knew...and was behind, the outing of Ms. Plame.
I'd love nothing more than to see this entire criminal Administration put to death for it's crimes against humanity. And I'm an American.
If no one hears from me again, assume they sent me to Gitmo. I wouldn't put it past them. I'm merely stating my absolute disgust and hatred for our current government...still my right to do that as an American citizen, but, then again, do I still HAVE rights, anymore? Especially if I exercise those rights in a way that the Bushies don't like?
When the fuck did we become such a goddam banana republic? What the fuck happened to my country...how, and when? I want my fucking country back!! Please, please, please, please, neo-cons...all of you...as filthy, dirty, rotten as you are...full clemency for you all if you just please LEAVE...NOW!!! and give us back our country!

Excuse the long quote, but that honestly made me laugh. :rolleyes:

Actually, given the question, which was if he would stand by his earlier pledge to fire anyone was in fact non answerable by Bush as such. He had never pledged to fire anyone who leaked that agent's name. That was attributed to him by one Harry Reid of the Dems, who seems to dearly love to misquote people. Ergo given the way it was sprung on him and how it is inconsistent with what he actually previously said, his answer to it makes little sense.
haha. It took me two seconds to disprove this. But wasn't this said already? Or do I have to repeat it?

June 10, 2004
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

July 11, 2005
Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html

The transcript mentioned for September 29th, 2003 has somehow disappeared or "forgotten" to be put up. The White House puts up virtually every document/speech by Bush and Scott McClellan, but somehow, the one where McClellan said if anyone in the White House was connected they would be fired, somehow didn't make it on the site. Hmm....

Actually, given the question, which was if he would stand by his earlier pledge to fire anyone was in fact non answerable by Bush as such. He had never pledged to fire anyone who leaked that agent's name. That was attributed to him by one Harry Reid of the Dems, who seems to dearly love to misquote people. Ergo given the way it was sprung on him and how it is inconsistent with what he actually previously said, his answer to it makes little sense.

:D

So, now, the quote you used is misleading and inaccurate?

It involves a "non-answerable" question and words put into Bush's mouth by Harry Reid?

LOL.

Beyond Achtung's rebuttal and other quotes I could cite, why -- pray tell -- did Bush simply agree that he stood by that pledge to fire the leaker if that was not his pledge? Are you saying he is so dumb or inarticulate that he couldn't say, "I never pledged that. I stand by my pledge to ....."?

:headbang:

haha. It took me two seconds to disprove this. But wasn't this said already? Or do I have to repeat it?

June 10, 2004


July 11, 2005


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html

The transcript mentioned for September 29th, 2003 has somehow disappeared or "forgotten" to be put up. The White House puts up virtually every document/speech by Bush and Scott McClellan, but somehow, the one where McClellan said if anyone in the White House was connected they would be fired, somehow didn't make it on the site. Hmm....
Y'know, in case you haven't been following the conversation I'd already put the first quote up. You cannot find a single instance prior to that quote where Bush pledged to fire anyone, period. That myth, as stated, was started by one Harry Reid when he spouted the following.

The White House promised that if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow-through on this pledge.

-- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Flamingo Hotel & Casino), June 11th, 2005

What the president actually said was this If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

-- George Walker Bush (president-entire country), September 30th, 2003

Now, Scott may have said anyone responsible would be fired, but he was not in a position to make such promises without the backing of the president, which given what he said a day later, Scott did not fully have.

Now, Scott may have said anyone responsible would be fired, but he was not in a position to make such promises without the backing of the president, which given what he said a day later, Scott did not fully have.

Well, not sure if you know how the government works, but the President's press secretary doesn't make any statements that are not approved by the President and his advisors.. watch "The West Wing" sometime, it might give you a little lesson in how the government works, since it would appear you didn't pay attention in school to your civics classes.

Liberals don't know what truth is. Proof, all the corrupt shit and all the cover ups that happened during the Democrat Clinton Administration. A man who sold nuclear weapons technology to the Red Chinese while he was in office cause he didn't give a damn about his own country's national security interests. That was a major factor in the democrats losing so many public offices in the first place. The dems care about nothing but getting rich quick.

They could have gotten his sorry ass for treason if they hadn't gone off a f ing tangent about sexual relationships. The fact they didn't and they went for the sex instead just proves how stupid most people are.

Sorry, what has this to do with the fact that the President knowingly lied to the american public when he presented the case for war, or the case against Rove? It seems to me when you are losing an argument you always revert to changing the subject to pathetic anti-democrat rants.

Can you please explain how "The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq"? The purpose of the mission was to find out the truth. Why would finding out the truth discredit Bush's case for war, unless the case for war was a lie?

Y'know, in case you haven't been following the conversation I'd already put the first quote up. You cannot find a single instance prior to that quote where Bush pledged to fire anyone, period. That myth, as stated, was started by one Harry Reid when he spouted the following.
I know someone said it earlier, Ijust didn't feel like going back and finding all these quotes...that's why I said, "didn't someone say this?" But to the point, maybe you should look at the dates. Harry Reid said that on June 11, 2005 Bush said he'd fire anyone connected on June 10, 2004. How could he have started a myth after the fact? Something isn't adding up here right.

I already established that a lot of false standards are being used regarding whether Rove violated the law.

I am not saying that I know based on current facts he is guilty.

I am trying to rebut some false assertions. Again, let us start with the law.

Under the IIPA, the relevant question (beyond Rove's knowledge) is whether Ms. Plame was a "covert agent." Under the Espionage Act, the question is merely whether Ms. Plame's identity was classified information. No one seems to dispute the latter

Ms. Plame was a "covert agent" if she met the following in July, 2003:
(1) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(2) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(3) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

1. We know she was a CIA agent.
2. We know her identity was classified.
3. The only question is whether she had served outside the US between July 1998 and July 2003.

It is not a defense if her identity or work for the CIA was "known" or she had previously been "exposed" by Aldrich Ames or anyone other than the official US government. I already laid out the statute. There is no such exception. There is a specific statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000422----000-.html) laying out defenses and exceptions that provides:

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply
(A) in the case of a person who acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, or
(B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.

(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.

(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

1. So, unless the United States government itself publicly "acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States" of Valerie Plame, it does not matter who else may have known or exposed her status.

2. Note, under the IIPA, the reporters who received and/or disseminated Ms. Plame's identity did not commit an offense of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, etc.

I know someone said it earlier, Ijust didn't feel like going back and finding all these quotes...that's why I said, "didn't someone say this?" But to the point, maybe you should look at the dates. Harry Reid said that on June 11, 2005 Bush said he'd fire anyone connected on June 10, 2004. How could he have started a myth after the fact? Something isn't adding up here right.There is no evidence that Bush made a pledge to fire anyone involved in the case. Find me the original quote, not the secondary one where he had supposedly already pledged that. I certainly can't.

No, I'm sure the Justice department convenes Grand Juries all the time when they don't believe a crime has been committed. As for an indictment, well we don't know if one will be filed or not. That is yet to be seen. While I will admit that the corruption in the Bush administration is so high that it is possible that Rove will get away with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because it's not like it's over.

Prove that there is a mess of corruption in this administration!

It is not a defense if her identity or work for the CIA was "known" or she had previously been "exposed" by Aldrich Ames or anyone other than the official US government. I already laid out the statute. There is no such exception. There is a specific statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000422----000-.html) laying out defenses and exceptions that provides:

Since we are persisting in trying a man that is not a target of a Grand Jury investigation, I'll beat the horse some more, too.

My point in using the Ames example wasn't so much that he had exposed her, but that in doing so, he had made her useless as a covert agent. That being done, the U.S. had brought her home and given her a desk job in the United States fully ten (10) years ago. I know you can do the math Cat, but for those who can't, that's five more years than the statue requires.

No, I'm sure the Justice department convenes Grand Juries all the time when they don't believe a crime has been committed. As for an indictment, well we don't know if one will be filed or not. That is yet to be seen. While I will admit that the corruption in the Bush administration is so high that it is possible that Rove will get away with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because it's not like it's over.
Actually Federal Grand Juries do convene all the time. I sat on one for 18 months and every couple months or so, I'd trot down to the federal building for another 10 days, or so. We heard any and all cases that the federal prosecutors wanted to bring to us. There is such a thing as a special grand jury, but I don't recall seeing that description when the Rove testimony was mentioned. Plus -- the prosecutor told him he was not a target of the investigation. Isn't that clear?

I'll say one more thing about the administration. GWB does a lot of things wrong, but this isn't one of them. If this were a corrupt administration, everyone would be claiming executive privilege and letting the courts sort it out. Corrupt administration stall for time and obstruct every chance they get. Let's not confuse the idea of a bad administration with the idea that it's a corrupt one, too.

Boston Globe - Apparent CIA front didn't offer much cover (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/10/10/apparent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/) (this entire article details Ms. Plame's undercover identity):

Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative once listed as her employer Brewster Jennings & Associates. A company by that name has a listed address but no visible presence at the 21-story office tower.

Plame's exposure as an intelligence operative has become a major controversy in Washington. Former intelligence officials confirmed Plame's cover was an invention and that she used other false identities and affiliations when working overseas. "All it was was a telephone and a post office box," said one former intelligence official who asked not to be identified. "When she was abroad she had a more viable cover."

....

The collapse of Plame's cover could compromise any other operatives who claimed to work for Brewster Jennings.

Bush welcomes probe of CIA leak (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/) (Bush himself calls Ms. Plame's identity classified -- and the CIA says she was a covert agent):
President Bush said Tuesday he welcomes a Justice Department investigation into who revealed the classified identity of a CIA operative. ... "I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things."

... Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer.

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

PBS Newshour - IN THE SHADOWS (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html) (Larry Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State Department):

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.

...

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.
...

You do not -- it is not up to the journalists to decide which officer they are going to out. We saw this in the '70s with Marchetti and others and Philip Agee who outed officers and they were killed. I don't want to wait until we get a body count. The principle's established: Do not divulge the names of these people. In my own career trainee class I did not know Joe's wife last name; we went by our first initials.

TERENCE SMITH: You were in the same class with her?

LARRY JOHNSON: I was in the same class with her. I was Larry J. In fact, when I first saw her last name I didn't recognize her until one of other my classmates who's out now called me up and said, hey. To realize this is a terrific woman, she's a woman of great integrity and other people that don't know her were trying to suggest that she is the one that initiated that. That is such nonsense. This is a woman who is very solid, very low key and not about show boating.

Robert Novak's original story (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030714.shtml) exposed Ms. Plame as a "Central Intelligence] Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." (emphasis added).

Novak later published (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml) these carefully worded statements: "At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. ... While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency."

The Big Lie About Valerie Plame By Larry Johnson (http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340): "Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak."

"Double Exposure", Vanity Fair, January 2004 (http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_plame.php):

... Plame was an undercover officer. In fact, she had noc status, that is nonofficial cover. Nocs are not ordinarily deskbound intelligence analysts who work inside C.I.A. headquarters. Mostly they operate abroad, frequently using fake job descriptions and sometimes fake names. According to a former senior C.I.A. officer, to blend in they often have to work two jobs: that of their "cover" and that involving their C.I.A duties, which usually consists of handlying foreign agents in the field, bu can also involve recruiting them. nocs have no diplomatic protection and so are vulnerable to hostile regimes that can imprison or execute them without official repercussions. A noc's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of the vulnerability a noc's identity is considered within the C.I.A. to be, as former C.I.A. analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, "the holiest of holies."

.. When tv commentator Chris Matthews asked Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie if he thought such a leak made by government officials was "worse than Watergate," Gillespie replied, "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real-world implications of it."

Tuesday, July 22, 2003 by the Long Island, NY Newsday : Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-04.htm):

Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

...
When it gets to the point of an administration official acting to do career damage, and possibly actually endanger someone, that's mean, that's petty, it's irresponsible, and it ought to be sanctioned," said Frank Anderson, former CIA Near East Division chief.

A current intelligence official said that blowing the cover of an undercover officer could affect the officer's future assignments and put them and everyone they dealt with overseas in the past at risk.

...
A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

more to come ....

There is no evidence that Bush made a pledge to fire anyone involved in the case. Find me the original quote, not the secondary one where he had supposedly already pledged that. I certainly can't.
If he really didn't say it, don't you think he'd say "look, I never said that."
He did it with this quote and he was wrong about it:
"Uhh -- Gosh, I -- don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those, uhh, exaggerations."
-- To quote Dubya (3/13/2002): "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him." Third Presidential Debate, Tempe, Arizona, Oct. 13, 2004

Since we are persisting in trying a man that is not a target of a Grand Jury investigation, I'll beat the horse some more, too.

You seem to place an awful lot of import on that. Let me correct you.

1. You are relying primarily on Rove's self-proclamations that he is not a target.

2. You either do not understand what a "target" of Grand Jury Investigation is or you are being disingenuous. There is a critical difference between a "target" and a "subject." It is likely true that the Special Prosecutor has not informed Rove that he is a "target" of the investigation. Rove is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation -- his lawyer refuses to deny it.

A target is defined by the DOJ Manual as "a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him/her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." The Manual defines a subject of an investigation as "a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation."

A prosecutor would not, and they do not, identify someone as a "target" until they are ready to indict that person.

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/collar/

All individuals coming into the orbit of the prosecutor and grand jury fall into one of three categories: witness, subject or target. A target is someone who stands a 50% or more chance of being criminally charged. As a practical matter, once an individual has been branded a target, the prosecutor has decided that the individual is guilty. The prosecutor is simply looking for strong enough evidence to indict. A witness is not under any suspicion, as yet, but simply has information of interest to a grand jury. A subject is somewhere in-between a target and a witness. He has engaged in conduct that may look suspicious or unethical, but the prosecutor is not certain that a provable crime has been committed and wants to do more investigating in order to be sure.

Clicky (http://www.lawyers.com/ask_a_lawyer/q_and_a_archive/view_archive/index.php?QID=19-FEB-01&site=537), clicky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050705/cm_huffpost/003683/nc:742), Clicky (http://www.tjtaxlaw.com/tjnews01.htm),

My point in using the Ames example wasn't so much that he had exposed her, but that in doing so, he had made her useless as a covert agent. That being done, the U.S. had brought her home and given her a desk job in the United States fully ten (10) years ago. I know you can do the math Cat, but for those who can't, that's five more years than the statue requires.

Again, this is only relevant to whether Rove violated the IIPA, and not to violations of other statutes like the Espionage Act.

Please provide evidence that Ms. Plame "was brought home and given a desk job" in 1994 or 1995. That is flatly wrong according to what I have seen.

The critical period is July 1998 to July 2003. My sources (I have posted some and will post more) say that Ms. Plame was a covert agent in July 2005. I have seen several reports that put her on missions overseas in 1997-1998, but I will fully admit I haven't seen anything that specifically puts her on missions overseas after July 1998 -- but that may well be because the information is classified! (Just because Ms. Plame's cover is blown does not mean details of her overseas missions would become public.)

If you have categorical evidence that Ms. Plame was never on an overseas mission after July 1998, please provide it.

Otherwise, you are speculating -- and denying the available evidence.

Nine pages, and the only one being even halfway reasonable is Cat-Tribe.
Look folks-Karl Rove's usefulness is expended, Bush can't run for the oval orifice for a third trip around the merry-go-round. With the Plame thing, he's radioactive as a Political Consultant. The whole issue is a dead horse until Indictments are handed out as far as Rover is concerned.
The bigger question is: Who's the second Source the reporter is protecting? See, we all know Karl's a scumbag-he was a scumbag in '92 and he's a scumbag now.

But.

There were supposedly two White-House staff involved.

I want that second name.

Nine pages, and the only one being even halfway reasonable is Cat-Tribe.
Look folks-Karl Rove's usefulness is expended, Bush can't run for the oval orifice for a third trip around the merry-go-round. With the Plame thing, he's radioactive as a Political Consultant. The whole issue is a dead horse until Indictments are handed out as far as Rover is concerned.
The bigger question is: Who's the second Source the reporter is protecting? See, we all know Karl's a scumbag-he was a scumbag in '92 and he's a scumbag now.

But.

There were supposedly two White-House staff involved.

I want that second name.
Damn straight

Ihatevacations']Damn straight

Okay, now I'm intensely disturbed by this. When you're agreeing with something I've said, it's time to get worried. :eek:

I haven't really weighed in on this, being a foreigner and all, but this seems like a real political hot-potato for you Americans. My only hope is that the American people demand greater accountability and transparency from an administration that's as murky as swamp-water, and seemingly accountable to no one at all.

Sorry for the cut and past but the Post likes you to login.

Note: the points raised. Espeically the crime comments and the traitor comment.



Rove Isn't the Real Outrage

By Richard Cohen

Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A25

If I were a nicer person, I would have some sympathy for Karl Rove. After all, in a town where many of the people, if they're honest about their job titles, would put down "character assassin," Rove merely tried to impugn the bona fides of a Bush administration critic, the former diplomat Joseph Wilson IV. This is what Rove is supposed to do and what he has done for so long. It was only last month, after all, that Rove impugned the sanity and patriotism of all liberals by saying that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 produced in them the desire to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." This was to political rhetoric what the spitball is to pitching.

So I am not predisposed to feel Rove's pain, assuming he has any feeling at all. But I do have to concede that he probably did not set out to expose a CIA operative, the by-now overexposed Valerie Wilson (nee Plame), a specialist in weapons of mass destruction. It was Plame, administration sources told columnist Robert D. Novak and others, who chose her husband to go to Africa to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Niger. He went and later said that he found nothing, but George W. Bush said otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. It was supposed to be additional evidence that Iraq had, in the memorable word uttered by Vice President Cheney, "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons program. That, of course, is the real smoking gun in this matter -- the crime, if there is one at all, in what should now be called Karlgate. (It encompasses so much -- the outing of Plame, the jailing of reporter Judith Miller, the moral collapse of the press, the preening of Wilson -- that it sorely needs a moniker.) The inspired exaggeration of the case against Iraq, the hype about weapons of mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in comparison. It was to protect those lies, those exaggerations, that incredible train wreck of incompetence, ideologically induced optimism and, of course, contempt for the quaint working of the democratic process, that everything else stems from. Wilson was both armed and dangerous. He claimed the truth.

The truth about that truth was contained in a Post story about the leaks. It quoted "a senior administration official" who said that the outing of Plame was "meant purely and simply for revenge." It also said that two -- not one -- "top White House officials" had called "at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife." This response might be reprehensible, but it was routine for the town and, particularly, the vindictive Bush White House. What it was not, though, was a crime. The law prohibiting the outing of a CIA agent is so restrictive that it has been applied only once and does not seem to fit this case. I find it hard to believe that Rove or anyone at the White House specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent. Rove is a political opportunist, not a traitor.

Washington loves farce the way Vienna loves the waltz. It once extravagantly inflated a sex act into the impeachment of a president, and it has now reduced the momentous debacle of the Iraq war into a question of what Rove or someone else said to a reporter on the phone. Soon, the question will turn on whether Rove or others actually cited Plame by name and whether the president's oath to fire anyone who identified Plame as a CIA operative applies to someone who just mentioned her job title. It will all depend on what "is" is or, to put it another way, whether Bush will concede that he inhaled.

None of this matters -- not really. The persistent criminalization of politics does no one any good. This is a parody of Clausewitz. He said war is the continuation of politics by other means. Now, we have special prosecutors as the continuation of politics by other means. The New York Times called for one and now, as a result, its own reporter is in jail.

Washington is electrified with the abundant energy of buzz from a scandal -- speculation about Rove, about Bush, about Cheney's aide, Scooter Libby. Who leaked? Who may have lied? How did Novak slip the noose? But the real scandal is the ongoing mess in Iraq, the murder just the other day of innocent children (is there any other kind?) and the false notion that, somehow, taking out Hussein would make us all safer. London gives the lie to that.

Okay, now I'm intensely disturbed by this. When you're agreeing with something I've said, it's time to get worried. :eek:
Just because I am an argumentative bastard doesn't mean I won't agree with people if they say something worth agreeing with

The critical period is July 1998 to July 2003. My sources (I have posted some and will post more) say that Ms. Plame was a covert agent in July 2005. I have seen several reports that put her on missions overseas in 1997-1998, but I will fully admit I haven't seen anything that specifically puts her on missions overseas after July 1998 -- but that may well be because the information is classified! (Just because Ms. Plame's cover is blown does not mean details of her overseas missions would become public.)

If you have categorical evidence that Ms. Plame was never on an overseas mission after July 1998, please provide it.

Otherwise, you are speculating -- and denying the available evidence.
I am absolutely speculating that she would not be a covert agent after having her name turned over to the KGB. Her undercover activities were likely only cocktail party talk after Ames turned traitor. My objection is to the dogmatic use of speculative evidence to the contrary. Joe Wilson isn't a credible source, he's lied already. Larry Johnson's interview doesn't have a real credible feel to it either, in any case, his worst blow is

... she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons.

but doesn't bother to confirm that she was undercover well after he resigned from the CIA in 1989, several years before the Ames episode.

Then last, there is the "senior intelligence official" that states "If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report". That doesn't satisfy the timeline requirement. I suspect that crimes reports can be filed without restriction. Maybe her job description isn't 'analyst', but that doesn't mean she has left the country in the last five years, either.

Maybe this is better than my supposing an agent is useless when found out, but not by a lot.

None of the treason defenders/arguers that Plame wasn't covert on this thread have yet to answer my simple question about this whole issue. I'll try again.

When CIA first gave this case to Justice, the very first thing that would have been done would have been for Justice to make sure that a crime was committed, i.e. discover whether Plame was, in fact, covert when Novak outed her. That should have taken all of five minutes--look at the statute, look at Plame's status. Does the statute apply? If yes, let's find out who done it. If no, we have a press conference, tell the world Plame wasn't actually covert, and we all go home.

So here's the question--If Plame wasn't covert, then what the fuck has Fitzgerald been investigating all this time?

And a couple of loose ends to clear up.

In re: why didn't the NY Times sell out Miller the way Time sold out Cooper? Part of it is likely due to the fact that the NY Times, for whatever reason, wasn't facing financial penalties if Miller didn't talk. Time was, and they offered Cooper's emails as a way to get out of them. Fitzgerald told them that wasn't good enough, and Time caved. Put similar pressure on the NY Times and let's see how long they hold up.

In re: Rove is not the target. True enough, but he is now considered a subject, according to Rove's own lawyer (source: The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp) of all places). Just so's you know, a subject is one level below a target in defense lawyer lingo, which means he's under investigation and may well be indicted, perhaps for a related crime (perjury, violation of the Espionage Act, obstruction of justice, lying to a federal investigator, etc).

Excellent!

Here's my thought...

Outing of a covert operative would make that operative's job all the more dangerous, and would compromise the safety of all with whom the operative had had contact, thus imperiling our efforts to gain covert intelligence.

This is why such an act is defined as TREASON. And if it is proved (and I think it will be) that Karl Rove committed TREASON, then I have one more thought...

Treason is one of those crimes defined in the constitution as a capital crime. And I think if KKKarl Rove is guilty of TREASON, then he should get the DEATH PENALTY. And the same for Rummy, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney, Bush, and whoever else knew...and was behind, the outing of Ms. Plame.

I'd love nothing more than to see this entire criminal Administration put to death for it's crimes against humanity. And I'm an American.

If no one hears from me again, assume they sent me to Gitmo. I wouldn't put it past them. I'm merely stating my absolute disgust and hatred for our current government...still my right to do that as an American citizen, but, then again, do I still HAVE rights, anymore? Especially if I exercise those rights in a way that the Bushies don't like?

When the fuck did we become such a goddam banana republic? What the fuck happened to my country...how, and when? I want my fucking country back!! Please, please, please, please, neo-cons...all of you...as filthy, dirty, rotten as you are...full clemency for you all if you just please LEAVE...NOW!!! and give us back our country!

dont forget.. if ud ont like the way things are going, just get your party elected...

.... hope ur not a democrat :p

<.< >.> (Bursts out laughing)

no.

When CIA first gave this case to Justice, the very first thing that would have been done would have been for Justice to make sure that a crime was committed, i.e. discover whether Plame was, in fact, covert when Novak outed her. That should have taken all of five minutes--look at the statute, look at Plame's status. Does the statute apply? If yes, let's find out who done it. If no, we have a press conference, tell the world Plame wasn't actually covert, and we all go home.

So here's the question--If Plame wasn't covert, then what the fuck has Fitzgerald been investigating all this time?

And a couple of loose ends to clear up.

because... to constitute a crime goes just beyond this one little case of if she is a covert operative or not.. but, did he have security cleareance... did he name her in the interview, was it his intention to put her in danger.. This is just a little more complicated then determining her status.

In re: why didn't the NY Times sell out Miller the way Time sold out Cooper? Part of it is likely due to the fact that the NY Times, for whatever reason, wasn't facing financial penalties if Miller didn't talk. Time was, and they offered Cooper's emails as a way to get out of them. Fitzgerald told them that wasn't good enough, and Time caved. Put similar pressure on the NY Times and let's see how long they hold up.

let me just clarifiy this also... it is likey NY times did not receive simliar pressure for miller because SHE DIDNT PUBLISH AN ARTICLE ON THIS STORY!!!! ... she only RESEARCHED it. Some bit of fact all of you have failed to recognize.. are you just not knowledgable on this story ? or are you so blood thirsty for someones head that you just intentionally ignore the facts!

No. It doesn't. You said yourself that giving up a secret that jeopardizes national security is treason. You're going back on your own words. Luckily, people can see that.

Hear! Hear!

Treason is Treason.

And I ask you all this: isn't this far more dangerous to our country than a man lying about having consensual sex in the White House?!

Hear! Hear!

Treason is Treason.

And I ask you all this: isn't this far more dangerous to our country than a man lying about having consensual sex in the White House?!

no actually... the identiy of one covert operative (who is not even known to have had "covert" status at the time of the incident) is hardly on the level of the president purgering himself effectivly spitting in the face of our judicial system. Why not just tell everyone to purger themselves when its personally convient

because... to constitute a crime goes just beyond this one little case of if she is a covert operative or not.. but, did he have security cleareance... did he name her in the interview, was it his intention to put her in danger.. This is just a little more complicated then determining her status.

No no--I'm not talking about the "whodunit" facet of the investigation. I'm talking about the earliest part of it, the very question of whether or not a crime was committed.

The most bogus of all the Rove defenses has been that Plame was potentially not even covert. That's ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not Rove outed her, the fact that she was covert is to my mind, unquestioned, simply because if she wasn't covert, then outing her wasn't illegal to begin with, and all this investigation wouldn't have even begun.

Again--I'm not saying Rove is guilty, although my gut tells me it's likely. What I am saying is that Plame was covert, and any argument to the contrary based on the actions of the government to this point is not only ludicrous, it's intellectually dishonest.

no actually... the identiy of one covert operative (who is not even known to have had "covert" status at the time of the incident) is hardly on the level of the president purgering himself effectivly spitting in the face of our judicial system. Why not just tell everyone to purger themselves when its personally convient
And this is exaclty why our nation is screwed. YOu can kill people on tv, but if some ones nipple slips out HEADS WILL ROLL

Something else to remember about all this. When Novak outed Plame, he outed more than just her--in his second column on the subject, he mentioned the name of the company where she was ostensibly employed, a company that didn't actually exist, but was just a front for Plame and other noc-agents. Novak blew every agent who had ever used that company for cover, and who knows how many people that is.

Realize just how serious this is. Plame worked in the wmd proliferationarea, an area that is currently considered to be the most sensitive and worrisome area around. Whoever leaked this name damaged our work not only in that area, but in whatever areas other agents who used that cover were working on. The damage may cover a wide range of areas or it may have crippled us in this one--I don't know, I'm not a CIA insider--but it has damaged our intelligence gathering ability.

And all for a political dirty trick.

The vigor with which many on this thread are defending this action worries me. This ought not be a partisan issue. Republicans as well as Democrats ought to be beating on the President's door demanding to know who the hell did something so stupid. If a Democratic president had done this, I'd be doing it, that's for damn sure. Why? Because I'm an American first, and a partisan second.

So what are you first--partisan or American?

I've come back to this thread a number of times and probably haven't read each post, but if Eutrusca has come in here, I haven't seen it. He certainly hasn't bee defending Rove the way that Ravenshrike, Myrmidonisia and others have been, and I suspect I know why.

It's because while Eutrusca may be partisan, he also knows political bullshit when he smells it, and this smells like a feedlot outside a slaughterhouse. Even though I often disagree with him, and vehemently at times, I believe Eutrusca is American first and partisan second.

I wonder about the rest of you.

Ihatevacations']And this is exaclty why our nation is screwed. YOu can kill people on tv, but if some ones nipple slips out HEADS WILL ROLL

im not saying violence on tv is acceptable either... infact its nothing less the reprehensible.... so because we arn't focusing on this at the moment we should throw all national morality into the grinder and accept lude and uncalled for nudity on our tv screens as well ?

later published (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml) these carefully worded statements: "At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. ... While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency."

This is complete bullshitting on his part then, seeing as I pointed out before the fact that she was his wife was public knowledge, as well as her maiden name. Here's why once again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030208060730/http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html


He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.


Already public knowledge prior to him even becoming a source.

im not saying violence on tv is acceptable either... infact its nothing less the reprehensible.... so because we arn't focusing on this at the moment we should throw all national morality into the grinder and accept lude and uncalled for nudity on our tv screens as well ?
You missed the ponit, the point was that violence is accepted but sex is feared like the plague. You said lieing about having sex was mroe dangerous than exposing a covert op that endangered our national security, your priorities are not in order

This is complete bullshitting on his part then, seeing as I pointed out before the fact that she was his wife was public knowledge, as well as her maiden name. Here's why once again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030208060730/http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html





Already public knowledge prior to him even becoming a source.
Read this very carefully--naming Valerie Plame as Joseph Wilson's wife is not a crime. Naming her as a CIA agent when she has noc status is. Can you see the difference? I knew that you could.

Ihatevacations']You missed the ponit, the point was that violence is accepted but sex is feared like the plague. You said lieing about having sex was mroe dangerous than exposing a covert op that endangered our national security, your priorities are not in order

no.. the problem is not jsut the fact that he lied.. but that he lied in federal court under oath.. what kind of message does that send when the president lies to a judge infront of the nation so blatently.. The fact that he suffered no consequence is only more damming.. i could careless who he slept with or what he did in the white house side of his job.

no.. the problem is not jsut the fact that he lied.. but that he lied in federal court under oath.. what kind of message does that send when the president lies to a judge infront of the nation so blatently.. The fact that he suffered no consequence is only more damming.. i could careless who he slept with or what he did in the white house side of his job.
whether he had sex or not is irrelevant, it didn't need to be investigated, what people do behind closed doors is not everyone's business, even if that person is the president.

no.. the problem is not jsut the fact that he lied.. but that he lied in federal court under oath.. what kind of message does that send when the president lies to a judge infront of the nation so blatently.. The fact that he suffered no consequence is only more damming.. i could careless who he slept with or what he did in the white house side of his job.
wow, you could care less?

Read this very carefully--naming Valerie Plame as Joseph Wilson's wife is not a crime. Naming her as a CIA agent when she has noc status is. Can you see the difference? I knew that you could.
*sighs* The CIA contact said that he did not want Novak to release the name of Wilson's wife in the article, her maiden name that is, nothing was said about not noting that it was Wilson's wife who had pushed for him going on the trip. However, that's useless as any spy agencies out there looking for her maiden name could easily have found it out because the idiot put it in his own bio.

*sighs* The CIA contact said that he did not want Novak to release the name of Wilson's wife in the article, her maiden name that is, nothing was said about not noting that it was Wilson's wife who had pushed for him going on the trip. However, that's useless as any spy agencies out there looking for her maiden name could easily have found it out because the idiot put it in his own bio.
And why didn't the CIA contact want Novak to release her name or the fact that she was married to Wilson? Because she was a covert operative! The CIA contact didn't want any link made between Wilson's wife and the agency--period. Jesus Christ--how dense can one person be?

This is complete bullshitting on his part then, seeing as I pointed out before the fact that she was his wife was public knowledge, as well as her maiden name. Here's why once again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030208060730/http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html

Already public knowledge prior to him even becoming a source.


Ahm Okay where are you going with this?

It says she is his wife so what does that justify her getting labeled as an agency employee?

*sighs* The CIA contact said that he did not want Novak to release the name of Wilson's wife in the article, her maiden name that is, nothing was said about not noting that it was Wilson's wife who had pushed for him going on the trip. However, that's useless as any spy agencies out there looking for her maiden name could easily have found it out because the idiot put it in his own bio.


Ahh ok. Keep digging.

Ihatevacations']whether he had sex or not is irrelevant, it didn't need to be investigated, what people do behind closed doors is not everyone's business, even if that person is the president.

yes... him having sex is irrelevant... and its quite possible that investiagation wasn't needed at all.. what is not irrelevant is that he lied to a federal court and was not punished for it. So should we all lie to courts now if we dont want the truth comming out ?

This is complete bullshitting on his part then, seeing as I pointed out before the fact that she was his wife was public knowledge, as well as her maiden name. Here's why once again:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030208060730/http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html

Already public knowledge prior to him even becoming a source.

You are the one bullshitting here.

First of all, -- of all my sources -- only one even arguably relies on Wilson or Plame regarding her status as a covert agent.

Second, it was neither Ms. Plame's name nor that she was Wilson's wife that is the dangerous and potentially illegal leak. It is her identity as someone with relationship with a United States intelligence agency that is the issue. That was not revealed by Wilson or Plame prior to Novak's column.

The White House spokesman speaks for the President -- and does so in a way that scrupulously tries to avoid saying anything the White House does not agree with.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan -- October 7, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html)

Q Scott, in October of 2001, the President hit the roof over a classified leak of information from Congress. Yet, on this particular leak that you're dealing with now, he was silent from the 14th of July until 10 days ago. Why did he choose to hit the roof over one leak of classified information, but say nothing about another?

...

Q Well, it was followed in the last instance, too, but he saw fit to hit the roof about it, to shrink the circle of people who were -- had access to classified information. And in this particular case, the leak of the CIA agent's name, equally as sensitive information as was leaked out of the Senate Intelligence Committee in October, the President says nothing about it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, I disagree with that.

Q Some people are saying that the President is showing a double standard here. Is he or isn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree with that. The President has made it very clear that the leaking of classified information is a serious matter, and he takes it very seriously. That's why he is saying that we need to get to the bottom of this, and the sooner, the better.

Q But he waits two months to --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he has always said that. Keep in mind, that when this --

Q On this one he waited two months to say that.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay, are you through?

Q Maybe.

MR. McCLELLAN: Okay. Now I'll go. Let me remind you, that when this was initially reported, it was still not clear that there had been leaking of classified information at that point.

Q When was that clear?

MR. McCLELLAN: But the process was looked at. Then the CIA looked at this and they reported it to the Department of Justice. And the process worked. The process was followed. Now we are focused on doing everything we can to help the career Justice officials get to the bottom of this. The President -- no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President of the United States. And the sooner the better.

The above makes it clear that the President is concerned about the leak of Plame's identity as an agent, which the CIA confirmed was classified information. I would add that, in addition to the above, the reporters repeatedly refer to the leaked information as classified information. Although I didn't find another good quote of McClennan saying that himself, he never disputes (and seems to agree) that the leaked information was classified. Read through the briefing yourself.

And -- on the issue of whether Bush would fire the leaker (emphasis added):

MR. McCLELLAN: No, no. Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants. And what he wants is to get to the bottom of this matter, the sooner the better. That's why we are doing everything we can to assist the Justice Department investigators in their investigation, and we will continue to do that.

...

MR. McCLELLAN: No one wants to get to the bottom of this matter more than the President of the United States. If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business.

...

Q Well, obviously, his wife was outted, and was outted as part of an effort --
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, who did that?

Q Senior administration officials. And I want to know if the head of this administration thinks not leaking -- just leaking classified information, but using Ambassador Wilson's wife against --

....

Q You're expressing a lot of disapproval against people who may be making those claims now, but you're expressing no disapproval at the possibility that someone in the White House may have done the same thing back in July. If there is a person in this White House who engaged in innuendo against someone who is a legitimate critic of the administration, does that person also deserve your disapproval?

MR. McCLELLAN: If someone sought to punish someone for speaking out against the administration, that is wrong, and we would not condone that activity. No one in this White House would condone that activity. I've made that -- I made that clear last week. But that's --

Q But engaging in innuendo --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it's absurd to suggest that the White House would be engaged in that kind of activity. That is not the way this White House operates.

(Note: the above also condemns the type of "heroic" action that Whittier tried to paint Rove as having taken.)

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan -- October 1, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html)

Q Scott, when did the President first find out that someone in his administration had outed an undercover CIA official? What was his reaction? What did he do about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, one, there's an allegation that that has happened, at this point.

Q It was an undercover official who has now been exposed; that's fact, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I'm sorry -- an allegation that a senior administration official did that, that's what I'm referring to.

Terry, there is a process in place that was followed. The CIA has a process to look at classified information if it is leaked, and they followed a process and that process has moved forward. And the Department of Justice is looking into it. I don't know the specific time period, but the process was followed, and the President expects the process to be followed, and that process was followed, and that what the President expects, because leaking classified information is a very serious matter.

....

Q You said the issue here was whether someone leaked classified information. As I understand the applicable laws here, isn't the real issue whether someone knowingly leaked classified information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, yes, you may -- I may stand corrected on that, you'll have to look at the law. I'm not going to play a lawyer from here. But the leaking of -- I'll go back to what I have said and what the President has said, and what he has always said, that the leaking of classified information is a serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest extent. And the Department of Justice is doing that now.

....

Q Yes. I'm asking if there's any concern now about that -- an effort that appears to be, if it was not an intentional leak of classified information, it was, one could argue, an attempt to belittle his credentials by saying he got the job because of his wife. And I'm just saying, is there a concern about that, as well as the classified?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone any such activity and, you know, I have not seen any information brought to our attention to suggest that.

....

MR. McCLELLAN: The real issue here is that this President thinks the leaking of classified information is a very serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. And the President does not condone the kind of activity you talked about.

Q He does not condone the -- people pointing reporters toward classified information that's been released; he would not condone that either? Is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President doesn't condone the activity that you're suggesting, absolutely he does not.

There is lots, lots more, but I came across these briefings and thought I'd post them first.

Anyone catch the daily show scrutiny of the press conference?

*clip*
John Stewart: *whisper* "We secretly replaced the White House press floor with REAL reporters."

No, I'm sure the Justice department convenes Grand Juries all the time when they don't believe a crime has been committed. As for an indictment, well we don't know if one will be filed or not. That is yet to be seen. While I will admit that the corruption in the Bush administration is so high that it is possible that Rove will get away with it. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, because it's not like it's over.
The purpose of the Grand Jury is to determine if a crime has been committed. If they find that one was committed, they issue indictments.

I don't know how it works in Canada but that is how it works in the US.

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.
Sounds like SOMEONE needs some special attention .... :rolleyes:

*lathers up hands, gets out the popcorn and the turkey baster ....*

The White House spokesman speaks for the President -- and does so in a way that scrupulously tries to avoid saying anything the White House does not agree with.

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan -- October 7, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html)



The above makes it clear that the President is concerned about the leak of Plame's identity as an agent, which the CIA confirmed was classified information. I would add that, in addition to the above, the reporters repeatedly refer to the leaked information as classified information. Although I didn't find another good quote of McClennan saying that himself, he never disputes (and seems to agree) that the leaked information was classified. Read through the briefing yourself.

And -- on the issue of whether Bush would fire the leaker (emphasis added):



(Note: the above also condemns the type of "heroic" action that Whittier tried to paint Rove as having taken.)

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan -- October 1, 2003 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031001-6.html)



There is lots, lots more, but I came across these briefings and thought I'd post them first.
And again, i find myself bowing to Cat-Tribe.
You rock.
*bows*

Well, not sure if you know how the government works, but the President's press secretary doesn't make any statements that are not approved by the President and his advisors.. watch "The West Wing" sometime, it might give you a little lesson in how the government works, since it would appear you didn't pay attention in school to your civics classes.
LMAO. You get all your information on how the Presidency works from a fictional tv program?

LMAO. You get all your information on how the Presidency works from a fictional tv program?
Isn't that how all Americans get their information these days?

LMAO. You get all your information on how the Presidency works from a fictional tv program?
A press secretary is a paid mouth piece, he stands in front of the non-screened reporters and and parrots teh bs the administration wants him to repeat. For proof, watch press conferences with Scott McClellan

LMAO. You get all your information on how the Presidency works from a fictional tv program?


Pssst hey Whitt. Ahh buddy that was an insult she tossed your way. Re-read it......

Isn't that how all Americans get their information these days?


:eek: Are you saying TV isn't real?

I already established that a lot of false standards are being used regarding whether Rove violated the law.

I am not saying that I know based on current facts he is guilty.

I am trying to rebut some false assertions. Again, let us start with the law.

Under the IIPA, the relevant question (beyond Rove's knowledge) is whether Ms. Plame was a "covert agent." Under the Espionage Act, the question is merely whether Ms. Plame's identity was classified information. No one seems to dispute the latter

Ms. Plame was a "covert agent" if she met the following in July, 2003:
(1) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(2) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(3) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States

1. We know she was a CIA agent.
2. We know her identity was classified.
3. The only question is whether she had served outside the US between July 1998 and July 2003.

It is not a defense if her identity or work for the CIA was "known" or she had previously been "exposed" by Aldrich Ames or anyone other than the official US government. I already laid out the statute. There is no such exception. There is a specific statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000422----000-.html) laying out defenses and exceptions that provides:

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply
(A) in the case of a person who acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, or
(B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.

(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.

(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

1. So, unless the United States government itself publicly "acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States" of Valerie Plame, it does not matter who else may have known or exposed her status.

2. Note, under the IIPA, the reporters who received and/or disseminated Ms. Plame's identity did not commit an offense of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, etc.

Ha. That's pretty contradictory.
If the identity of an agent is already exposed, someone else bringing it up in conversation whether on a forum or in the press cannot be guilty of revealing her identity. Otherwise, if that is the case, then everyone participating in this discussion would be guilty of a crime.
Now that's just plain silly by all counts.

No no--I'm not talking about the "whodunit" facet of the investigation. I'm talking about the earliest part of it, the very question of whether or not a crime was committed.

The most bogus of all the Rove defenses has been that Plame was potentially not even covert. That's ridiculous. Regardless of whether or not Rove outed her, the fact that she was covert is to my mind, unquestioned, simply because if she wasn't covert, then outing her wasn't illegal to begin with, and all this investigation wouldn't have even begun.

Again--I'm not saying Rove is guilty, although my gut tells me it's likely. What I am saying is that Plame was covert, and any argument to the contrary based on the actions of the government to this point is not only ludicrous, it's intellectually dishonest.
It has not yet been established that a crime was committed. That is for the grand jury to decide.
Justice only refers stuff to grand juries if it has reasonable evidence to indicate that one MAY have been committed. It does not refer to a grand jury if one was CERTAINLY committed.
Now where you are, referal grand jury might mean a crime was committed, but in the US it does not work like that. If there was a crime, indictments will be handed out and not just to the person who actually outed an undercover CIA agent, but also to those who tried to cover for them. Which in this case, if it turns out to be the second contact, would include Miller (obstruction of justice).

The drafter of the law says the law wasnt even broken even if he said anything because the law states the person has to be undercover currently or 5 years in the past....her last undercover job was 1992. well outside the law.

ill try to find that article.

It has not yet been established that a crime was committed. That is for the grand jury to decide.
Justice only refers stuff to grand juries if it has reasonable evidence to indicate that one MAY have been committed. It does not refer to a grand jury if one was CERTAINLY committed.
Now where you are, referal grand jury might mean a crime was committed, but in the US it does not work like that. If there was a crime, indictments will be handed out and not just to the person who actually outed an undercover CIA agent, but also to those who tried to cover for them. Which in this case, if it turns out to be the second contact, would include Miller (obstruction of justice).
You have never answered the question I posed, and until you do I will continue to ask it.

If Plame was not covert to begin with, then no crime was committed. It doesn't take a grand jury investigation to figure out whether or not Plame was covert--the special prosecutor looks at the statute and determines whether or not Plame's situation fit it. If it does, an investigation begins. If it doesn't, then the investigation stops. How fucking hard is that to understand?

An investigation followed and a grand jury was convened. The grand jury may find that there is not enough evidence to charge the persons accused of committing the crime with an offense, but there is no doubt that an offense was committed. Can your right-wing mind grasp that concept?

I'll say it again--the purpose of the grand jury investigation is not to determine whether or not a crime was committed, but to determine if there is enough evidence to charge a person or persons with committing the crime.

Not that I expect you to drop this retarded argument--you've demonstrated a willingness to hold ludicrous and contradictory positions in the past and I see no reason for you to stop any time soon.

The drafter of the law says the law wasnt even broken even if he said anything because the law states the person has to be undercover currently or 5 years in the past....her last undercover job was 1992. well outside the law.

ill try to find that article.
Don't bother--we've all read it and the author makes suppositions that are unfounded based on the current status of the case. Her name is Victoria Toensing, and she was a lawyer in the Reagan White House when she did her work on the law--I know what I'm talking about on this one.

:eek: Are you saying TV isn't real?
If TV isn't real, then what is?

Ha. That's pretty contradictory.
If the identity of an agent is already exposed, someone else bringing it up in conversation whether on a forum or in the press cannot be guilty of revealing her identity. Otherwise, if that is the case, then everyone participating in this discussion would be guilty of a crime.
Now that's just plain silly by all counts.

Speaking of being plain silly ....

I've laid out the statute, with links. My analysis is accurate, and your strawman version doesn't refute it.

If you looked back to when I quoted the IIPA (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html) at length, the guilty discloser must have had "authorized access to classified information." Mr. Rove and/or the leakers undoubtedly have such access. Those in the press and on this forum do not.

Ha.

Rove is a pigsucking chickenkhawk and should be shot for treason.


With all due respect, before or *after* the execution of Sandy "I stuff classified documents in my pants!" Berger? :rolleyes:

With all due respect, before or *after* the execution of Sandy "I stuff classified documents in my pants!" Berger? :rolleyes:

Sandy Berger didn't pass out those documents to Novak and every other reporter in Capitol Hill either.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The drafter of the law says the law wasnt even broken even if he said anything because the law states the person has to be undercover currently or 5 years in the past....her last undercover job was 1992. well outside the law.

ill try to find that article.

Don't bother.

Victoria Toensing is a rabid partisan. She is a close personal friend (and long-time political ally) of Robert Novak. (Perhaps that is why she goes to lengths to argue that he didn't violate the IIPA. Duh. No one says he did.) Ms. Toensing and her husband have long worked for Congressional Republicans, the Republican Party, etc. In addition to routinely serving as defense counsel for prominent Republicans, Ms. Toensing also helped spearhead many of the the attacks on the Clinton Administration, including the impeachment.

She overstates her role in creating the IIPA. She also knows (or damn well should know) that whatever her role was in writing the statute is completely irrelevant. It says what it says. Any lawyer walking into a court and saying, "I helped write statute Y, so I know it means X" would be laughed out of court. Ms. Toensing's opinion piece is based on false premises.

Ms. Toensing is also less than candid about the statute. I have laid out the relevant portion of the statute, including the definition of "covert agent," several times. Ms. Toensing is deliberately deceptive in her statement of that the law requires the covert agent to be on "permanent assignment in a foreign country." That is not what the statute requires. The IIPA statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html) merely requires that the agent "is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States."

We do not know for certain when and where Ms. Plame served overseas. Any such service within the last 5 years would be classified.

Ms. Toensing does not, as you claim, assert that Ms. Plame has not served overseas since 1992. She asserts -- without any evidence -- that Ms. Plame had been working a "desk job" "for some time when the July 2003 column was published." Even assuming this is true, it is meaningless. Unless the "for some time" extends beyond 5 years, Ms. Plame could still be a "covert agent" under the IIPA.

I've laid out ample evidence that Ms. Plame was a covert agent. I will post more.

Finally, as Ms. Toensing well knows, the IIPA is only one of several statutes that may have been violated here. Focusing on it alone is a red herring.

Sandy Berger didn't pass out those documents to Novak and every other reporter in Capitol Hill either.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

True. That brings up the question of just *who* he was stealing those documents for, *who* he was passing those documents to and on *whose* behalf he was destroying them, don't you think? Was he doing it because his loyalty was to his party rather than to his country or was he doing it on behalf of someone a little bit worse than that? For America's sake we'd better hope it was the former. But either way he is guilty as sin and deserves the 20 years without parole he'd get if it were someone who wasn't as politically connected as he was at best. The gallows or the Electric chair at worst. It interests me that Democrats would leap to his behalf without wondering whether it was necessarily on their behalf that he broke the law. Are they that conditioned to regarding lawbreaking on behalf of their party as OK or are they merely that unthinking? o_O

MSNBC reports (http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01) that CIA lawyers answered a series of 11 questions from the Justice Department "affirming that the woman's identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do so and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak."

David Corn in the Nation, July 16, 2003 (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823):
....a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material....a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.

The White House email (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/whouse/gonzalez93003-1email.html) notifying staffers of the Justice Department investigation characterized it as "an investigation into possible unauthorized disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee."

Newsday, July 21, 2003 (http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/columnistnames.html):
Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.

....A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

Washington Post, September 29, 2003 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14909-2003Sep28.html):
She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, September 30, 2003 (http://truthout.org/docs_03/093003A.shtml):
I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration’s first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction.

Mel Goodman, former CIA analyst, Washington Post online Q&A, October 1, 2003 (http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_politics_goodman100103.htm):
....I've worked in Washington for the past 38 years, including 24 years at the CIA...and I know Ambassador Wilson....and I did not know that his wife was an agency employee. Let's face it....this was targetted information as part of a political vendetta....a pure act of revenge.

CNN reporter David Ensor (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/index.html) reports that his sources at the CIA say Plame is an employee of the operations side of the agency. "This is a person who did run agents," Ensor said. "This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information."

Jim Marcinkowski, former CIA case officer, LA Times, Ocotber 1, 2003 (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-marcin2oct02,1,7265663.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):
The exposure of Valerie Plame — who I have reason to believe operated undercover — apparently by a senior administration official, is nothing less than a despicable act for which someone should be held accountable. This case is especially upsetting to me because she was my agency classmate as well as my friend.

New York Times, October 2, 2003 (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/politics/02AGEN.html):
Valerie Plame was among the small subset of Central Intelligence Agency officers who could not disguise their profession by telling friends that they worked for the United States government.

That cover story, standard for American operatives who pretend to be diplomats or other federal employees, was not an option for Ms. Plame, people who knew her said on Wednesday. As a covert operative who specialized in nonconventional weapons and sometimes worked abroad, she passed herself off as a private energy expert, what the agency calls nonofficial cover.

New York Daily News, October 2, 2003 (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/122875p-110377c.html):
Two former senior intelligence officials confirmed that Valerie Plame, 40, is an operations officer in the spy agency's directorate of operations - the clandestine service.

Plame "ran intelligence operations overseas," said Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA counterterrorism operations chief.

Her specialty in the agency's nonproliferation center was biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and "recruiting agents, sending them to areas where they could access information about proliferation matters, weapons of mass destruction," Cannistraro said.

In case you are counting, four separate ex-CIA employees are now shown to be on the record saying Plame was undercover and ran a network of informants, and a fifth who knew Wilson and had 24 years at the Agency says he didn't know Plame worked there — which means her status was hardly common knowledge.

I'm still just getting started here people. I can counter the apologist spin machine for as long as it runs.

Apparently Rove was told by someone in the media... :rolleyes:

So he did nothing wrong...

Apparently Rove was told by someone in the media... :rolleyes:

So he did nothing wrong...

Sure. That's the ticket.

:rolleyes:

I'm just wondering.. who here jumped to conclusions too quickly? Don't worry.. it is good to admit to your faults.

I'm just wondering.. who here jumped to conclusions too quickly? Don't worry.. it is good to admit to your faults.

That is hardly a rebuttal worthy of being called a valid point. Try again when you have something stronger. And perhaps more valid.

I'm just wondering.. who here jumped to conclusions too quickly? Don't worry.. it is good to admit to your faults.


Um.

Apparently the CIA, the White House, the DOJ, and the Special Prosecutor have "jumped to conclusions" similar to mine about the story being a serious leak of classified information.

Glad you could straighten us all out.

That is hardly a rebuttal worthy of being called a valid point. Try again when you have something stronger. And perhaps more valid.

Eh, it was a question. I'm just asking how you guys, who thought Rove was guilty, feel right now? You need guys need to rework your arguments. As far as I'm concerned I'm seeing a bunch of rhetoric tossed around here and not really much in the way of substance. My questions are very valid.

(With apologies to The Byrds)

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

Rove didn’t know, (Yes he did)
She wasn’t convert, (Yes she was)
It’s Wilson’s fault, (No it isn’t)
They both wanted to attack the President

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

The law wasn’t broken (Yes, it was)
No one else cares, (Yes, they do)
It was nothing more than an email
And he never mentioned her name

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

It’s all politics, (No, it’s crime)
The law is different, (No, it’s clear)
It’s just a tempest in a teapot
And I’m sure that it’s all Clinton’s fault

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

A spin to cover, a spin to confuse
A spin to distort, a spin to distract
A spin to hide, a spin to apologize
A time of Truth, I swear it's not too late

(With apologies to The Byrds)

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

Rove didn’t know, (Yes he did)
She wasn’t convert, (Yes she was)
It’s Wilson’s fault, (No it isn’t)
They both wanted to attack the President

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

The law wasn’t broken (Yes, it was)
No one else cares, (Yes, they do)
It was nothing more than an email
And he never mentioned her name

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

It’s all politics, (No, it’s crime)
The law is different, (No, it’s clear)
It’s just a tempest in a teapot
And I’m sure that it’s all Clinton’s fault

To everything - spin, spin, spin
There is a reason - spin, spin, spin
And an excuse for every law that was broken

A spin to cover, a spin to confuse
A spin to distort, a spin to distract
A spin to hide, a spin to apologize
A time of Truth, I swear it's not too late

This is contributing how? Care to back up any of that?

True. That brings up the question of just *who* he was stealing those documents for, *who* he was passing those documents to and on *whose* behalf he was destroying them, don't you think? Was he doing it because his loyalty was to his party rather than to his country or was he doing it on behalf of someone a little bit worse than that? For America's sake we'd better hope it was the former. But either way he is guilty as sin and deserves the 20 years without parole he'd get if it were someone who wasn't as politically connected as he was at best. The gallows or the Electric chair at worst.

The exact nature of the classified documents ought to be the main factor in how serious the charges are and how severe the sentences get. If those classified documents weren't national security oriented imposing a death penalty for them is absurd.

It interests me that Democrats would leap to his behalf without wondering whether it was necessarily on their behalf that he broke the law. Are they that conditioned to regarding lawbreaking on behalf of their party as OK or are they merely that unthinking? o_O

Is it much more interesting than how Republicans leapt to Karl Rove's defense without wondering whether it was necessarily on their behalf, first denying that he was involved in the scandal then switching tactics to marginalizing Valerie Plame's importance as an active undercover CIA agent when news broke out about Rove's actual role rather than bringing up both on the initial onset?

This is contributing how? Care to back up any of that?
Haven't been reading the thread have we?

Haven't been reading the thread have we?

I'm having trouble sifting through what is valid.. I can't find anything...

Well the fact is Rove never broke the law because the information was already public. Sorry.

I'm having trouble sifting through what is valid.. I can't find anything...

Well the fact is Rove never broke the law because the information was already public. Sorry.
May one suggest then that you back and re-read the excellent posts of Cat-Tribe, who has taken much time and effort to post and prove that said information was NOT public?

May one suggest then that you back and re-read the excellent posts of Cat-Tribe, who has taken much time and effort to post and prove that said information was NOT public?

Apparently prosecutors have already found that Rove committed no wrong doing in the past. Who should I trust? someone on some forum with an agenda, or some prosecutors?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBJCL00.html

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

There are far too many anti-Bush/anti-Rove people on here for anything to resemble the facts.

Eh, it was a question. I'm just asking how you guys, who thought Rove was guilty, feel right now? You need guys need to rework your arguments. As far as I'm concerned I'm seeing a bunch of rhetoric tossed around here and not really much in the way of substance. My questions are very valid.

Ah, I see, I thought you were posting directly in relation to Cat-Tribes latest post, making it look like a very poor rebuttal if at all.

Uh huh, whatever you guys say.. you can continue believeing in what you want.. sure.. great... we shall see what the investigation produces. Don't cry my shoulder.

Apparently prosecutors have already found that Rove committed no wrong doing in the past. Who should I trust? someone on some forum with an agenda, or some prosecutors?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBJCL00.html

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

There are far too many anti-Bush/anti-Rove people on here for anything to resemble the facts.
Sorry, trying to answer a question you want instead of what was asked does not count as a valid responce. Whether or not Rove committed a crime (and it should be noted that your quote comes from his lawyer) will be up to the Grand Jury and the court system. However, your statement was that the information, that Plame's ID as a CIA covert operative was already publically known is and has been proven false. That information and rebuttle Cat-Tribe laid out quite well. Wishing REALLY hard does not make it so, nor does Novak's knowledge count as 'public' as even your article admits that this was well before Novak's story went to press.

However, your statement was that the information, that Plame's ID as a CIA covert operative was already publically known is and has been proven false. That information and rebuttle Cat-Tribe laid out quite well. Wishing REALLY hard does not make it so, nor does Novak's knowledge count as 'public' as even your article admits that this was well before Novak's story went to press.

Typical anti-Bush rhetoric. You need to start proving it. Cat-Tribe provides a bunch of media sources. I'll wait for an official investigation, rather then some dribble from some liberal media sources. Wishing that Rove commited a crime doesn't make it so.

Eh, it was a question. I'm just asking how you guys, who thought Rove was guilty, feel right now? You need guys need to rework your arguments. As far as I'm concerned I'm seeing a bunch of rhetoric tossed around here and not really much in the way of substance. My questions are very valid.

What questions?

You made one ridiculous assertion without evidence. Period.

Typical anti-Bush rhetoric. You need to start proving it. Cat-Tribe provides a bunch of media sources. I'll wait for an official investigation, rather then some dribble from some liberal media sources. Wishing that Rove commited a crime doesn't make it so.
The wind up... the pitch... AND THERE IT IS FOLKS! The old 'Liberal Media Sources!' Yes sports fans, he discounts all quotes from CIA and offical sources enclosed within due to them coming from NEWSPAPERS! The classic play ladies and gentlemen, it's the old classic.

I'm having trouble sifting through what is valid.. I can't find anything...

Meh.

In case your problem is not wilfull blindness, I suggest posts: 25, 37, 41, 74, 75, 81, 86, 88, 91, 100, 111, 117, 122, 124, 129, 132, 140, 144, 149, 153, 154, and 175.

Well the fact is Rove never broke the law because the information was already public. Sorry.

Care to prove this "fact."

Regardless, it isn't technically a defense. See post #117.

Apparently prosecutors have already found that Rove committed no wrong doing in the past. Who should I trust? someone on some forum with an agenda, or some prosecutors?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBJCL00.html

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

There are far too many anti-Bush/anti-Rove people on here for anything to resemble the facts.

Um. Not having yet been told you are the target of the Grand July investigation is not the same as the "prosecutors have already found that [one] committed no wrong doing in the past."

You clearly haven't read the thread. I explained this in post #124. Clicky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9251706&postcount=124)

I'd rather wait for the results of an investigation, rather then some talk from someone on a forum, but thanks.

Typical anti-Bush rhetoric. You need to start proving it. Cat-Tribe provides a bunch of media sources. I'll wait for an official investigation, rather then some dribble from some liberal media sources. Wishing that Rove commited a crime doesn't make it so.

ROTFLASTC

Um. What about the quotes from President Bush, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, the White House memo, the CIA memo, etc?

You can close your eyes, cover your hears, and chant "I can't hear you, I can't hear you," if you wish. But don't try to convince us that is someone an informed position.

You can close your eyes, cover your hears, and chant "I can't hear you, I can't hear you," if you wish. But don't try to convince us that is someone an informed position.

Yeah and uh huh... I'd much rather wait for a conclusion rather then picking some articles to post. :rolleyes: You need to get your ideas right. This forum disgusts me, so I'll go back to playing the game instead of debating with some people who think they know everything.

I'd rather wait for the results of an investigation, rather then some talk from someone on a forum, but thanks.

Then don't come on the forum and join a thread on the subject.

Don't post ridiculous assertions you aren't willing to defend.

Don't make false claims .... wait for the results of the investigation.

Hypocrite.

(And, for the record, I was very clear that I am not assuming Rove is guilty. We don't have the facts. I have and will aggressive rebut apologist spin, however.)

Don't post ridiculous assertions you aren't willing to defend.

Don't make false claims .... wait for the results of the investigation.

Hypocrite.

(And, for the record, I was very clear that I am not assuming Rove is guilty. We don't have the facts. I have and will aggressive rebut apologist spin, however.)

You are the hypocrite. I'm just waiting for the results of an investigation. Furthermore, I'm not making false claims. It seems you have been full of those.

You are the hypocrite. I'm just waiting for the results of an investigation. Furthermore, I'm not making false claims. It seems you have been full of those.

Didn't you just say you'd shut up and go back to playing the game?

Additionally, didn't you also claim just a little while back that Plame's status as an agent was publicly known? By the media no less? One which has no proof to back it up.

I may not know everything, but I do know a contradictory statement when I see it. Which is being what hypocritical is all about isn't it?

Mesatecala is a troll and/or stupid, people. He just wants attention, so don't give him any. No matter how tempting his one sentence discourse is, just ignore him.

As a CIA agent. But unless he had specific knowledge that she was undercover, he has not commited a crime. Also, Bush never stated that he would fire anyone involved.


Another interesting tidbit. Plame's name was common knowledge prior to this entire kerfluffle.

http://prestoagitato.typepad.com/presto_agitato/2005/07/plame__valerie_.html




The date noted is the last time that archive was updated, and the information may in fact go as far back as 1998.

Well, I've been away for a while. It's fun to see Whittier is still up to his old tricks. Nothing much has changed. ;)

There's nothing much I can add to what The Cat Tribe has posted, but I'd like to respond to this assertion, since it hasn't been given enough attention.

First, Mrs Wilson's name is a matter of public record. The Wilson's neighbors know they are married. The schools where their children went know their marital status. There is a marriage license. I'm sure their real estate agent, their grocer, their friends, their family, waiters, lawyers, financial advisers, etc., know exactly who is married to whom.

Therefore, revealing the name of his wife on his website is not blowing her cover, because that part of her existence is not covert.

Identifying her job with the CIA and revealing the location of her (and others! ) cover job is!

Nazz makes an excellent point too. Think long and hard about it, even if it hurts. The investigation is about 2 years old. Do you honestly think that the CIA (who obviously wouldn't know if their own employee was covert :rolleyes: ) would still be pursuing an investigation with the Justice Department? It's not as if these events *poof* happened a week ago.

Don't you think it would have been definitively determined if she was covert or not in the whole time this has been going on? Would it take this long to find that answer? Really? Why would the investigation keep going on if there was no covert identity? 2 years. 2 years, and the CIA never thought to ask itself if she was covert or not?

If they can't answer that question, in 2 years why the hell do they have the job of intelligence gathering? We went to war on their intelligence when they can't even answer if someone working for them was covert or not?

Don't bother.

Victoria Toensing is a rabid partisan. She is a close personal friend (and long-time political ally) of Robert Novak. (Perhaps that is why she goes to lengths to argue that he didn't violate the IIPA. Duh. No one says he did.) Ms. Toensing and her husband have long worked for Congressional Republicans, the Republican Party, etc. In addition to routinely serving as defense counsel for prominent Republicans, Ms. Toensing also helped spearhead many of the the attacks on the Clinton Administration, including the impeachment.
I've laid out ample evidence that Ms. Plame was a covert agent. I will post more.

Finally, as Ms. Toensing well knows, the IIPA is only one of several statutes that may have been violated here. Focusing on it alone is a red herring.

First, I'm glad to see that someone sort of corroborates my logical assumption that Plame would have served no purpose as a covert agent, once Aldrich Ames gave her name to the KGB. But that's not the point of this reply.

I've tried to go back through your sources Cat-Tribe and I've only found that former CIA officials are willing to be named. One is Larry Johnson. He stated that he left the CIA in 1989, so I'm not sure what his relevance is. Likewise for the rest of the officials, if they resigned/retired before 1998, we don't know how they could have an accurate opinion on the matter, either. After all, they aren't supposed to confirm classified information, even if they no longer hold a clearance. I don't mind reading about unnamed sources in a newspaper because the information they provide is news. I'm not sure it qualifies as proof, however.

So that begs the question, what value is an unnamed source in supporting a claim? We certainly don't know how partisan they are, how they voted in the last election, or who they sided with in the Clinton impeachment. Given the track record of the media lately, we don't even know if they exist. All-in-all, I'd give a lot more crediblity to someone like Toesing, if the statements could be verified, or if they make sense. And she does kind of support my theory, so I'm happier that way.

Anyhow, back to the ex-CIA guys. Once you are cleared and have access to classified information, you are always required to treat it as such. I have signed plenty of forms that said, in essence, 'keep what you know secret and don't ever tell anyone'. We aren't the declassification authority for classified information. So how can these guys talk about Plame's status as a spy without violating some sort of law? It seems like they are violating one of the statues that Rove is accused of, every time they talk to the press. Sorry that this was kind of rambling, but there does seem to be a giant double standard at work, even in the DOJ.

I think we're on the downhill side of both the effort to implicate Rove and the course of this thread.

In todays WSJ, I read an article that seems to put a slant on the story that there is another source that leaked the info first. Sorry I had to type it in, rather than link it, but it was from a print paper.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story. The conversation eventually turned to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq war policy and the intelligence it used to justify the war, the source said.

The person said Rove testified that Novak told him he had learned and planned to report in a weekend column that Wilson's wife, Plame, had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims of alleged nuclear material sales to Iraq.

Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.



I've used an unnamed source. Take it for what it's worth. Still, I think the fire in this story is dying rapidly.

Oops, it's appears that Vietnam Vet John Kerry (who also plays a US Senator) outed an actual covert agent:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/14/225202.shtml

Thursday, July 14, 2005 10:48 p.m. EDT
John Kerry Outed Undercover CIA Agent

Sen. John Kerry, who called for Karl Rove to be fired over allegations that he revealed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame, outed a genuine undercover CIA agent just this past April - even after the Agency asked that his identity be kept secret.

Kerry blew the cover of CIA secret operative Fulton Armstrong during confirmation hearings for U.N. ambassador nominee John Bolton.

Questioning Bolton, Kerry asked: "Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position?" - according to a transcript excerpted by the New York Times.
"The answer is yes," the top Democrat continued.

In his response to Kerry, Mr. Bolton did his best to maintain the agent's confidentiality, reverting to the Armstrong's pseudonym.

"As I said," he told Kerry, "I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that."

Two years earlier, Armstrong had been identified in news reports on his dispute with other officials over intelligence involving Cuba. But he was operating in a different capacity and his identity wasn't secret at the time.

"When the Bolton nomination resurrected the old accounts, however, the C.I.A. asked news organizations to withhold his name," the Times said.

Apparently the CIA directive wasn't good enough for Sen. Kerry - who outed Armstrong anyway and later defended the move by saying his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, had also mentioned the name.

And besides, said Kerry, the secret agent's name "had already been in the press."

From the NYT April 13, 2005:

Loose Lips Let Slip Agent's Name At Hearing

Ah, the old Right-Wing switcheroo. Any time something gets hot, shift the blame elsewhere.

Rove reveals treasonous information? But Kerry did this and Clinton did that! Big Halliburton, do you not see that a (supposed) criminal act has nothing to do with another (supposed) criminal act? The sins of one do not excuse the sins of another.

I suppose you subjected the Kerry story to the same level of cynicism you used for the Rove/Plame story, right? Because if you did, then I can't help but think you stumbled across this nuggett of information:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007

Even the darling of the right, Michelle Malkin, has debunked this story.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002056.htm

All you are doing is changing the subject, and a poor job at that.

why don't people reason in an adult manner anymore?


Please read Cat Tribe's brilliant posts. If you can't understand them, shut up.

Someone misses the irony at the end of my last post in 3...2...1.

Ah, the old Right-Wing switcheroo. Any time something gets hot, shift the blame elsewhere.

Rove reveals treasonous information? But Kerry did this and Clinton did that! Big Halliburton, do you not see that a (supposed) criminal act has nothing to do with another (supposed) criminal act? The sins of one do not excuse the sins of another.

I suppose you subjected the Kerry story to the same level of cynicism you used for the Rove/Plame story, right? Because if you did, then I can't help but think you stumbled across this nuggett of information:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007

Even the darling of the right, Michelle Malkin, has debunked this story.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002056.htm

All you are doing is changing the subject, and a poor job at that.

why don't people reason in an adult manner anymore?


Please read Cat Tribe's brilliant posts. If you can't understand them, shut up.
I didn't really consider that post a change of subject as much as it was a sidebar to the main discussion. Malkin points out that what Rove is accused of doing by the Democratic party, and so far, no one else, is not a unique event. That doesn't mean it should ever happen; I certainly wouldn't want to be named by anyone, were I to start spying.

Fact is, though, we don't screen public officials enough before giving them access to classified information. Otherwise, they would probably all fail the DIS investigation and no work would be done at the policy level. So now we have a bunch of ambitious twits that have the ability to leak very sensitive information without much fear of reprisal. That's not a very good combination.

Typical anti-Bush rhetoric. You need to start proving it. Cat-Tribe provides a bunch of media sources. I'll wait for an official investigation, rather then some dribble from some liberal media sources. Wishing that Rove commited a crime doesn't make it so.

Actually, no one has mentioned Bush in several pages. How could it be "anti-Bush rhetoric" if it isn't about Bush?


I didn't really consider that post a change of subject as much as it was a sidebar to the main discussion. Malkin points out that what Rove is accused of doing by the Democratic party, and so far, no one else, is not a unique event. That doesn't mean it should ever happen; I certainly wouldn't want to be named by anyone, were I to start spying.

Fact is, though, we don't screen public officials enough before giving them access to classified information. Otherwise, they would probably all fail the DIS investigation and no work would be done at the policy level. So now we have a bunch of ambitious twits that have the ability to leak very sensitive information without much fear of reprisal. That's not a very good combination.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion, except perhaps as an attempt to call the Democrats hypocrites (an ad hominem fallacy).

Also, bringing up past officials that got away with the same or similar crimes (even though they were never indicted on the matter) also has no bearing on the current case as this case could very well be the one that ends the corruption.

Even then, it's been a while since anyone even mentioned Rove, the whole thread for several pages now has been one side saying no crime was commited and the other side proving them wrong.

Actually, no one has mentioned Bush in several pages. How could it be "anti-Bush rhetoric" if it isn't about Bush?



It has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion, except perhaps as an attempt to call the Democrats hypocrites (an ad hominem fallacy).

Also, bringing up past officials that got away with the same or similar crimes (even though they were never indicted on the matter) also has no bearing on the current case as this case could very well be the one that ends the corruption.

Even then, it's been a while since anyone even mentioned Rove, the whole thread for several pages now has been one side saying no crime was commited and the other side proving them wrong.


Yeah, it should be a thread of it's own, fine. Didn't add much to the discussion, anyway.

But...this should end it (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm) .
Unless I'm missing something, Joe Wilson has disproved his own accusation that someone in the Bush administration violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, USA Today reports:


The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington--the "outing" of a CIA officer--may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

This meant that Plame would have been stationed in the U.S. for six years before Bob Novak published his column citing her two years ago today. As USA Today notes:

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say.

All the Democrats who are braying for Karl Rove's head can't be very confident that he's committed a crime. If they were, they would wait for an indictment, which would be a genuine embarrassment to the administration.

Please read Cat Tribe's brilliant posts. If you can't understand them, shut up.

Brilliant posts? Ok. Pretty much everything they are arguing has been debunked. This story is just about dead and I'm glad to see these baseless accusations are dead in the water. Go Rove!!

BTW, Brilliant retort.

Brilliant posts? Ok. Pretty much everything they are arguing has been debunked. This story is just about dead and I'm glad to see these baseless accusations are dead in the water. Go Rove!!

BTW, Brilliant retort.

What has been debunked, exactly?

What has been debunked, exactly?


Everything my man!

What has been debunked, exactly?
I think Joe Wilson has pretty much undone any prosecution under the IIPA. I haven't seen anyone write about possible violations of the Espionage Act, so I'm not sure the prosecutor is considering this. I think it's still in play, however.

Everything my man!

Where?

If he is found to have exposed Plame, he had good reasons for it and as such will most likely not go to jail for it.

One of the things we know is that it was not the Vice President who told Joe Wilson to go to Nigeria, but Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. The purpose of the mission was to do everything necessary to discredit Bush's case for war in Iraq. Both Wilson and Plame were bitterly opposed to any war with Iraq.
Valerie Plame's ouster was due to her own arrogance about her place in the American government. She was the one that ordered him to go, she was the one who authorized it.
In fact, Mr. Wilson knew it was his wife and not the VP that had authorized the trip. So the question is, what authority did she have to authorize something that was not ok'd by the VP?
And now new stuff is coming up about Wilson and Plame being extremely bitter over Bush's election in 2000.
At the end of the investigation it may turn out that those two made an attempt to destroy the President of the United States and their attempt backfired. Especially in Plame's case.
Now instead of accepting responsibility they are calling for the imprisonment of people who interfered with their plot, and again, their attempts could be backfiring.
And if that is the case, then it is Mrs. Plame and Mr. Wilson who belongs in prison for jeopardizing the national security of the United States and for costing the lives of many American troops.


You are utterly insane, and Karl Rove is an evil open sor on this country.

Even you cannot be so delusional as to think that any undercover agent within the C.I.A ever wants to have their cover blown, at any time.

Furthermore, your stubborn refusal to admit that Rove may just have commited a crime, and the suggestion that this is an attempt to destroying any traces of credibility George Bush may have had, is also delusional.

If this had been the Clinton Administration you would be howling for heads to roll and you know it.

Hippocrasy at its finest.

Even then, it's been a while since anyone even mentioned Rove, the whole thread for several pages now has been one side saying no crime was commited and the other side proving them wrong.

And what the Apologists have yet to point out is that back when Valerie Plame was exposed, nobody bothered to suggest that the act may have not been a crime until Karl Rove was publically named as the Leak.

NATIONAL HERO? He has broken the law. Judith was not breaking any laws by not disclosing her source.

And what the Apologists have yet to point out is that back when Valerie Plame was exposed, nobody bothered to suggest that the act may have not been a crime until Karl Rove was publically named as the Leak.


Umm thats just not true.

The media has been all over this before.

Blowing the cover of a CIA agent is a crime, and the headhunt has been going on since the story broke, almost two years ago.
Especially when the leak could only have come from a high ranking US official, its been a matter of public interest.

Its just not surpising thats its Rove, who has the morals of a snake.

And what the Apologists have yet to point out is that back when Valerie Plame was exposed, nobody bothered to suggest that the act may have not been a crime until Karl Rove was publically named as the Leak.

Edit: nevermind... read it wrong the first time.

Umm thats just not true.

The media has been all over this before.

Blowing the cover of a CIA agent is a crime, and the headhunt has been going on since the story broke, almost two years ago.
Especially when the leak could only have come from a high ranking US official, its been a matter of public interest.

Its just not surpising thats its Rove, who has the morals of a snake.

What I meant was that the Branch Rove-dians only started howling the "Exposing Valerie Plame was not a crime" rhetoric when their Messiah was publically named as the Leak. Before then they were more than happy to call for the head of the then-still unknown Leak along with everyone else.

Its just not surpising thats its Rove, who has the morals of a snake.
He doesn't have morals of a snake! Morals of Satan or Hitler is more accurate.

What I meant was that the Branch Rove-dians only started howling the "Exposing Valerie Plame was not a crime" rhetoric when their Messiah was publically named as the Leak. Before then they were more than happy to call for the head of the then-still unknown Leak along with everyone else.


Oh..beg pardon then.

He doesn't have morals of a snake! Morals of Satan or Hitler is more accurate.


Hitler?

No..only Hitler had the morals of Hitler.

Satan?

Satan has refused to comment, on your comment.
He wished to not associate his name with Rove's.

Hitler?

No..only Hitler had the morals of Hitler.

Satan?

Satan has refused to comment, on your comment.
He wished to not associate his name with Rove's.
...for fear his reputation be stained with evil by Rove! :D

And what the Apologists have yet to point out is that back when Valerie Plame was exposed, nobody bothered to suggest that the act may have not been a crime until Karl Rove was publically named as the Leak.
Doesn't anyone read anymore?
Linked in from my post below, an article in the USA Today pretty much ends any chance at prosecuting anyone under the IIPA act.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9257459&postcount=212

...for fear his reputation be stained with evil by Rove! :D


Lets put it this way....

Satan has never gone on a smear campaign against another demon from Hell.

One thats even on his own side.

Rove has.

Lets put it this way....

Satan has never gone on a smear campaign against another demon from Hell.

One thats even on his own side.

Rove has.
who might you be talking about?

Doesn't anyone read anymore?
Linked in from my post below, an article in the USA Today pretty much ends any chance at prosecuting anyone under the IIPA act.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9257459&postcount=212


I think your mistaken.

If it were simply a matter of years, there would be no debate, as there wuld have been no crime actually committed.

The debate is about other factors.

According to the law created, you must have done it :
a) intentionally.
b) You must have actually known the agent was undercover at some point.
c) You must have actually revealed that persons identity.

The only questions regarding Roves guilt, is wether he did it intentionally, and how much he knew at the time he leaked her identity.

However, Rove is also a liar...and so is Bush.....Bush wont let Rove come to justice, although, he has probably commited an act of treason.

Doesn't anyone read anymore?
Linked in from my post below, an article in the USA Today pretty much ends any chance at prosecuting anyone under the IIPA act.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9257459&postcount=212


And yet the investigation continues. If that is so damning why continue it?

Still we have not heard who the second "chatty" person was yet. I wonder who it is.

who might you be talking about?


John Mcain.

In the first election, when Bush was trying to win the Republican primary, Rove was responsible for a series of "Push Polls" in various states.

They went like this:

"Exscuse me Sir/Maam :

"If you knew, for a fact, that John McCain had fathered an illegitamate black baby, would you be more, or less likely to vote for him?"

You see the evil?

This kind of vile, smearing, and against a fellow Republican too.

Im just wondering if anyone read Newsday or the new Time articles which basically fall sternly in Roves corner, one reporting that Rove discouraged the reporter from printing a false article based on a false premise and the second showing he was the recipent of information pertaining to the idenity of the CIA agent and pass that on to Novak who subsequently published it...

That of course would exonerate him of all wrong doings as he would have had to exploit his top secrete security clearance to obtain the information, knowing its implications her status and then passing it on for the explicit purpose to exposing her. All of which according to these two recent articles did not happen... >.> I wonder now if people (Democrats) will begin to wait for the investigation to end before continuing to call for heads to roll on an issue they obiviously have no hard facts on

Im just wondering if anyone read Newsday or the new Time articles which basically fall sternly in Roves corner, one reporting that Rove discouraged the reporter from printing a false article based on a false premise and the second showing he was the recipent of information pertaining to the idenity of the CIA agent and pass that on to Novak who subsequently published it...

That of course would exonerate him of all wrong doings as he would have had to exploit his top secrete security clearance to obtain the information, knowing its implications her status and then passing it on for the explicit purpose to exposing her. All of which according to these two recent articles did not happen... >.> I wonder now if people (Democrats) will begin to wait for the investigation to end before continuing to call for heads to roll on an issue they obiviously have no hard facts on

Well it seems there was denial that rove said anything. Then it was said he didn't mention her name. Now we are hearing he discouraged it.

The Post said 6 Washington Journalists were called with this information so somebody was trying to do something.

I don't give the claim of discouraging much credibility since it came from one of Roves underlings.

Has any of the involved journalists said the same thing?

John Mcain.

In the first election, when Bush was trying to win the Republican primary, Rove was responsible for a series of "Push Polls" in various states.

They went like this:

"Exscuse me Sir/Maam :

"If you knew, for a fact, that John McCain had fathered an illegitamate black baby, would you be more, or less likely to vote for him?"

You see the evil?

This kind of vile, smearing, and against a fellow Republican too.
ah yes, how could I forget? Mine own Senator! He's "gay," and "didn't serve honorably in Vietnam."

Im just wondering if anyone read Newsday or the new Time articles which basically fall sternly in Roves corner, one reporting that Rove discouraged the reporter from printing a false article based on a false premise and the second showing he was the recipent of information pertaining to the idenity of the CIA agent and pass that on to Novak who subsequently published it...

That of course would exonerate him of all wrong doings as he would have had to exploit his top secrete security clearance to obtain the information, knowing its implications her status and then passing it on for the explicit purpose to exposing her. All of which according to these two recent articles did not happen... >.> I wonder now if people (Democrats) will begin to wait for the investigation to end before continuing to call for heads to roll on an issue they obiviously have no hard facts on

Really?

Then why the silence on the issue from the White House?
Why the investigation?

If Rove has nothing to hide..why the silence?

ah yes, how could I forget? Mine own Senator! He's "gay," and "didn't serve honorably in Vietnam."


You got it.

John Mcain.

In the first election, when Bush was trying to win the Republican primary, Rove was responsible for a series of "Push Polls" in various states.

They went like this:

"Exscuse me Sir/Maam :

"If you knew, for a fact, that John McCain had fathered an illegitamate black baby, would you be more, or less likely to vote for him?"

You see the evil?

This kind of vile, smearing, and against a fellow Republican too.

There's only one other person I know who's more skilled and capable of such duplicitous, unscrupulous and downright shameless political backstabbing on a national scale...

... and Nigel Hawthorne's been dead for years.

There's only one other person I know who's more skilled and capable of such duplicitous, unscrupulous and downright shameless political backstabbing on a national scale...

... and Nigel Hawthorne's been dead for years.

Heh..yes he has.

Do you know what Bush's nickname for Rove is?

"Turd Blossom"

Because he makes shit smell like roses.

He gave Bush two elections after all.

I wish I were making this up.

Doesn't anyone read anymore?
Linked in from my post below, an article in the USA Today pretty much ends any chance at prosecuting anyone under the IIPA act.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9257459&postcount=212
I think I'll let Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury he's convened come to that conclusion, thank you very much. I will say it again--if Plame wasn't covert, then Fitzgerald would never have convened the grand jury. Look at the timeline--Fitzgerald was named as the special prosecutor months after CIA made the referral to justice--plenty of time for Justice to determine whether or not Plame's outing fit the definition under IIPA or perhaps the Espionage Act. If there had been no crime committed, there would have been no grand jury. Period.

Doesn't anyone read anymore?
Linked in from my post below, an article in the USA Today pretty much ends any chance at prosecuting anyone under the IIPA act.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9257459&postcount=212

Don't you read anymore? There's also the espionage act (covered in great detail by Cat-Tribes.)

There's also the Jonathan Randel leak prosecution precedent, detailed here:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html*

*a good article written by Nixon's former White House lawyer

Of course, he'll be called a partisan Democrat-Socialist by the delusional right :rolleyes:

Really?

Then why the silence on the issue from the White House?
Why the investigation?

If Rove has nothing to hide..why the silence?

because there is an investigation underway... obviously the fact that a named CIA agent was outed is worth an investigation... And its been the White house's position to wait for those results...

Why are democrats screaming for blood before any facts have actually been substanciated... We should fire him just because he's been accused of something ? or not even so, just being implicated ! ... Id rather stick with the ladder...

because there is an investigation underway... obviously the fact that a named CIA agent was outed is worth an investigation... And its been the White house's position to wait for those results...

Why are democrats screaming for blood before any facts have actually been substanciated... We should fire him just because he's been accused of something ? or not even so, just being implicated ! ... Id rather stick with the ladder...
Oh pelase, don't give me partisan bullshit, if the rightwing found out a democrat, even a conservative pro-republican one, had leaked teh information they would all be writing letters to the editor of eveyr paper in teh country and on forums and their nazi blogs about how the evil liberals are trying to destroy this nation and frame the bush adminsitration by outing valerie plame as a cia op and sharpening their machetes while pledging for heads to roll. Rove is a snake, that has been proven when he was fired form whatever hte fuck he was doing in 1992 for something or other I don't recall teh details on because I havn't look it up, you think he wouldn't do something like this?

Ihatevacations']Oh pelase, don't give me partisan bullshit, if the rightwing found out a democrat, even a conservative pro-republican one, had leaked teh information they would all be writing letters to the editor of eveyr paper in teh country and on forums and their nazi blogs about how the evil liberals are trying to destroy this nation and frame the bush adminsitration by outing valerie plame as a cia op and sharpening their machetes while pledging for heads to roll. Rove is a snake, that has been proven when he was fired form whatever hte fuck he was doing in 1992 for something or other I don't recall teh details on because I havn't look it up, you think he wouldn't do something like this?
He was hired in 1974 by Geroge H.W. Bush to help create the political network for the Bush family. Karl was always evil, rejected as a child and called "turd blossom" as an adult.

Ihatevacations']Oh pelase, don't give me partisan bullshit, if the rightwing found out a democrat, even a conservative pro-republican one, had leaked teh information they would all be writing letters to the editor of eveyr paper in teh country and on forums and their nazi blogs about how the evil liberals are trying to destroy this nation and frame the bush adminsitration by outing valerie plame as a cia op and sharpening their machetes while pledging for heads to roll. Rove is a snake, that has been proven when he was fired form whatever hte fuck he was doing in 1992 for something or other I don't recall teh details on because I havn't look it up, you think he wouldn't do something like this?
Damn Right! Facts just don't matter when it involves partisan politics.

Damn Right! Facts just don't matter when it involves partisan politics.
due to the nature of your other replies in this thread, I will jsut go with "go away" as a reply

I think Myrmidonisia was being sarcastic...

And wow, I am not wading through this viper's nest...so let me just plunk down my two cents. Karl Rove is good at what he does. He is VERY good at what he does. What he does, however...is a poisonous taint lodged between the genetalia and buttcrack of humanity.

I think Myrmidonisia was being sarcastic...

And wow, I am not wading through this viper's nest...so let me just plunk down my two cents. Karl Rove is good at what he does. He is VERY good at what he does. What he does, however...is a poisonous taint lodged between the genetalia and buttcrack of humanity.
Oh my, James Carville and Karl Rove -- twins separated at birth!

Oh my, James Carville and Karl Rove -- twins separated at birth!

Classic Republican subject change #2.

What makes me laugh is that Rove-apologists apparently believe that the CIA, the Justice Dept, the special prosecutor and a Grand Jury have all been investigating this for 2 years without ever answering the most basic question (and the question that has to be asked before anything else can occur.) That question being: Was Valery Plame covert or not? I bet they can see the CIA officials who asked that the leak be investigated sitting around in hippy clothes, toking on a joint.

CIA Official #1: Dude, that sucks!

CIA Official #2: Huh? What sucks?

#1: That Plame chick had her cover blown

#2: Was she even covert?

#1 How would I know?

#2: (breathing out a resinous cloud of smoke,) I dunno. I mean her file is, like, just downstairs.

#1: Dude, you're totally right!

#2: So go get it!

#1: No, you go get it!

#2: Shut up!

#1: No, you shut up!

#2: Wait, I have an idea! Why don't we...send a dozen anchovie pizzas over to those pricks at the Justice Dept.?

#1: Sweet!

(the 2 CIA officials leave the office, skipping hand-in-hand. On the way, they bid a fond adieu to their receptionist, Elvis Presley)

[meanwhile, at the Justice League...er...Justice Dept.]

Fitzgerald: So. Is she covert?

Assistant: Who?

Fitzgerald: Plame. Valerie Plame.

Assistant: Oh. I dunno. The CIA didn't say. Hey! I just rhymed!

Fitzgerald: Well, if she wasn't covert, then there's no crime, so we better answer this before we do anything else. Right?

Assistant: Yes sir.

[2 years pass]

Fitzgerald: So?

Assistant: Hmmm?

Fitzgerald: Is she or isn't she?

Assistant: Well, according to this book I just read, Hillary definitely is gay. Oh, and Bigfoot voted for Nader.

Fitzgerald: No! Is Plame covert or not?

Assistant: Who? Oh Plame. Right. Right! Uh. I dunno.

Fitzgerald: What?

Assistant: I forgot.

Fitzgerald: So we've wasted the taxpayers millions without ever determining if a crime actually happened? I mean, this would be different if a blow-job was involved...

Assistant: Sorry sir.

Fitzgerald: No problem. These things happen.

Assistant: (pointing) Hey, isn't that Elvis?