NationStates Jolt Archive

Rove testimony. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html)

If this is proven, I can't imagine better traitors at the moment. And traitors end up executed. ;)

Hardly. If this turns out to be true, then Bush will hang Rove out to dry. He's outlived his usefulness. Bush doesn't need a campaign advisor anymore, and that's really what Rove does.

Hardly. If this turns out to be true, then Bush will hang Rove out to dry. He's outlived his usefulness. Bush doesn't need a campaign advisor anymore, and that's really what Rove does.Considering what they've been doing to others that made major screw ups, I wouldn't be surprised if Rove gets appointed Justice in the Supreme Court :p

If they really executed traitors, John Walker Lindh would be dead.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/walker/profile.html

If they really executed traitors, John Walker Lindh would be dead.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/people/shows/walker/profile.html
He wasn't convicted of treason. Neither will rove. Let's quit with the verbal hysterics, please.

I don't see the big deal about it. Media blowing things out of proportion as usual. And, moreover, I don't really understand what it going on.

He wasn't convicted of treason. Neither will rove. Let's quit with the verbal hysterics, please.

That's the problem... no one's *willing* to convict.

That's the problem... no one's *willing* to convict.
Why would they want to though? What is the point of convicting people for Treason if you have no one he's been helping against your country?

That's the problem... no one's *willing* to convict.
I don't think martyring him would have been the best of ideas. That and good luck proving aid and comfort (remember, two witnesses. A lot of circumstantial evidence and a confession, but do you have two witnesses for every act of battle that he fought against us?)

That's the problem... no one's *willing* to convict.
Inable =/= unwilling. Do you know what it takes to convict someone of treason?

I don't see the big deal about it. Media blowing things out of proportion as usual. And, moreover, I don't really understand what it going on.

That's beautiful.

"unwravel"...I like that...the "w" gives it a whole new feeling!

I don't see the big deal about it. Media blowing things out of proportion as usual. And, moreover, I don't really understand what it going on.
Something like this. The facts are in dispute, but the core is, Rove found out that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. He then allegedly released this fact to two reporters in order to discredit Plame's husband, who was highly critical of the efforts of the Bush adminstration to create a case for WMD in Iraq. This then leaked to Novak, who published a column outing plame.


Now, if the above is true, which so far appears to be so, but again, no one but the lawyers involved in the grand jury investigation know for sure, then rove has commited a crime in outing a CIA agent, which places people's lives at risk.

Something like this. The facts are in dispute, but the core is, Rove found out that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. He then allegedly released this fact to two reporters in order to discredit Plame's husband, who was highly critical of the efforts of the Bush adminstration to create a case for WMD in Iraq. This then leaked to Novak, who published a column outing plame.


Now, if the above is true, which so far appears to be so, but again, no one but the lawyers involved in the grand jury investigation know for sure, then rove has commited a crime in outing a CIA agent, which places people's lives at risk.

Mkay. That's pretty much what I understand it to be. None of my concern, I never really liked Rove in the first place, despite him being a political genius.

unwravel"...I like that...the "w" gives it a whole new feeling!

I can use the wording to say "Hey, I made a spelling error, which means everything I said is a joke" if things go bad :D

But seriously. If people can't tell from the ;) which I used after calling Rove a traitor that I was being facetious, then we have a lot of dumbasses on our hands.

Mkay. That's pretty much what I understand it to be. None of my concern, I never really liked Rove in the first place, despite him being a political genius.
That he is. I don't buy that he let himself get trapped in this, something's wrong here.

... something's wrong here.
Cheney did it! Cheney did it!!!
:eek:

Are we watching Bushgate unwravel?

We can only hope, right? :)

The white house knows something is up.

Just until recently, they were calling the whole scenario ridiculous, and now they're all refusing to even comment on the matter.

The white house knows something is up.

Just until recently, they were calling the whole scenario ridiculous, and now they're all refusing to even comment on the matter.

The investigation had been ongoing before they made the first set of statements.

The investigation had been ongoing before they made the first set of statements.

Ya, but till you have that reporter in your face asking the hard questions. you can just pretend it's not happening. They have to make statements now-- they fucked up and they know it. They just hope it won't hurt them too much. With the help of Republican talking points and Fox "news" and Rush, etc.. they might just get away with another lie.

Hey! It's not like the first one and if they do, it certainly won't be the last one. ;)

The white house knows something is up.

Just until recently, they were calling the whole scenario ridiculous, and now they're all refusing to even comment on the matter.
Either:

They know that they are fucked and they are trying not to purjure themselves ala "I did not have sex with that woman"

OR

They are seeing how far they can get the dems to dig their own grave.

Ya, but till you have that reporter in your face asking the hard questions. you can just pretend it's not happening. They have to make statements now-- they fucked up and they know it. They just hope it won't hurt them too much. With the help of Republican talking points and Fox "news" and Rush, etc.. they might just get away with another lie.

Hey! It's not like the first one and if they do, it certainly won't be the last one. ;)
Of course. That's how Richard Clarke didn't have as big an impact as he should've cuz he was "out to sell his book." That's how Bush won because Kerry was portrayed as weak and unpresidential on FOX. And that'll be how Rove will get off with no stain on his record even though he's pure evil. God knows how many other things the GOP allies have gotten the Republicans out of.

I don't see the big deal about it. Media blowing things out of proportion as usual.

Actually the media isn't being nearly noisy enough about it.

And, moreover, I don't really understand what it going on.

You see, that statement doesn't really help you...

Get over the hysteria please.

Bush's approval rating has held steady at about 50% (that's typical for the US these days). Apparently half of this country isn't buying into the hysteria.

Hysterical politics is rampant here. This is an international forum. Not a US only forum. If it was a US only forum, I'd expect less.

Bushgate? Nah. How about Novakgate? Novak should be tried before a judge, and sentenced to life. Remember it was Novak, not Bush or even Rove.

(oh here is rasmussenreports: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm - one of the few right about the 2004 election btw)

"They are seeing how far they can get the dems to dig their own grave. "

own grave? you mean the dems own grave?

Either:

They know that they are fucked and they are trying not to purjure themselves ala "I did not have sex with that woman"

OR

They are seeing how far they can get the dems to dig their own grave.
Rove is an absolute PR genius. I'm betting on the latter.

Rove is an absolute PR genius. I'm betting on the latter.
That will unfortunately be the case, probably.

Of course one thing doesn't add up here. Where would have Novak gotten such classified information in the first place? The Freedom of Information Act can only go so far.

I don't see the big deal about it. Media blowing things out of proportion as usual. And, moreover, I don't really understand what it going on.
I'm not surprised--the right-wing smear machine is in full effect, and they're doing a great job of throwing so much shit in the air that if you're already a partisan Republican, it's fairly easy for you to assume that there's nothing going on.

That doesn't excuse you, mind you--it's just an explanation. Educate yourself.

Mkay. That's pretty much what I understand it to be. None of my concern, I never really liked Rove in the first place, despite him being a political genius.
Rove's not so much a genius as he's a guy who's shameless in his strategy, which is to attack even if the facts are against you, lie about the facts and dare the media or your opposition to call you on them. Why he's in a world of crap right now is because a third player has been added to the equation--the justice department, complete with an attack dog special prosecutor who has the power of the grand jury and the ability to charge people with crimes including perjury and obstruction of justice. Suddenly, lying has far greater consequences, and Rove's strategy isn't working so well anymore.

Of course one thing doesn't add up here. Where would have Novak gotten such classified information in the first place? The Freedom of Information Act can only go so far.
How about from Rove?

How about from Rove?

And yet Rove claims he got it from Novak.

Which came first, the Chicken or the (Goose) Egg?

And yet Rove claims he got it from Novak.

Which came first, the Chicken or the (Goose) Egg?
Rove's full of shit :D

Novak:
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Inable =/= unwilling. Do you know what it takes to convict someone of treason?

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section3

...and Lindh was caught in an enemy compound, in a war zone, and confessed he was with the Taleban. He *signed* confession documents. There were MANY witnesses he was there... like most of the CNN watching world, nevermind the troops that found him there.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/18/lindh.statements/?related?related
The defense motion concludes: "All statements Mr. Lindh purportedly made after December 3, 2001, must be suppressed."

...true unable doesn't mean unwilling. But in this case, just like anytime a "youngster" does wrong, society lets them off easy. I also believe that the monsters from Columbine should have gotten the death penalty.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section3

...and Lindh was caught in an enemy compound, in a war zone, and confessed he was with the Taleban. He *signed* confession documents. There were MANY witnesses he was there... like most of the CNN watching world, nevermind the troops that found him there.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/18/lindh.statements/?related?related
The defense motion concludes: "All statements Mr. Lindh purportedly made after December 3, 2001, must be suppressed."

...true unable doesn't mean unwilling. But in this case, just like anytime a "youngster" does wrong, society lets them off easy. I also believe that the monsters from Columbine should have gotten the death penalty.
If that motion to supress involuntary statements went through, which it might have if it wasn't for the plea bargin, the government couldn't prove treason. No confession, no eyewitnesses to the acts of treason (being captured in a war zone, while highly suspicious, isn't exactly a crime, and certanly not treason)

Oh, and the youngster's at columbine were never charged with a crime. For good reason.

If that motion to supress involuntary statements went through, which it might have if it wasn't for the plea bargin, the government couldn't prove treason. No confession, no eyewitnesses to the acts of treason (being captured in a war zone, while highly suspicious, isn't exactly a crime, and certanly not treason)

Oh, and the youngster's at columbine were never charged with a crime. For good reason.

Or was unwilling to prove treason, as it'd give a huge black-eye in the press.

Sorry, wrong case. Too many school shootings these days. I meant Jonesboro, where the two kids will be freed when they turn 21.

Or was unwilling to prove treason, as it'd give a huge black-eye in the press.
I doubt they'd be able too. Besides, bad press to hang someone for treason.

Sorry, wrong case. Too many school shootings these days. I meant Jonesboro, where the two kids will be freed when they turn 21.
The boys were 13 and 11. What the hell are you going to do, kill a child?

The boys were 13 and 11. What the hell are you going to do, kill a child?

Welcome to Talibamerica.

A few heads will roll but all in all it's just another day at the office.

I doubt they'd be able too. Besides, bad press to hang someone for treason.

Exactly.

The boys were 13 and 11. What the hell are you going to do, kill a child?

They had no problem with killing, and they took the lives of citizens of the state. So, yes.

They had no problem with killing, and they took the lives of citizens of the state. So, yes.
11 year olds don't understand what they are doing fully.

Something like this. The facts are in dispute, but the core is, Rove found out that Plame was an undercover CIA agent. He then allegedly released this fact to two reporters in order to discredit Plame's husband, who was highly critical of the efforts of the Bush adminstration to create a case for WMD in Iraq. This then leaked to Novak, who published a column outing plame.


Now, if the above is true, which so far appears to be so, but again, no one but the lawyers involved in the grand jury investigation know for sure, then rove has commited a crime in outing a CIA agent, which places people's lives at risk.
But I heard that if you look closely at the dates her children were born on and where they were born, she couldn't possibly have served the amount of years out of country that you have to serve to be given covert status. I'm not saying I'm right, but that's just what I heard.

11 year olds don't understand what they are doing fully.
Then the parents and the 13 yr old should have gotten the punishment. The parents are just as much at fault as the kids are when it comes to letting their kids screw around with the wrong crowd. If 11 yr olds don't understand what they are doing, then the parents should definitely have a say in what their children do.

Anyways, this is off topic

But I heard that if you look closely at the dates her children were born on and where they were born, she couldn't possibly have served the amount of years out of country that you have to serve to be given covert status. I'm not saying I'm right, but that's just what I heard.
Here's my counter, as yet unchallenged in the various threads on this topic. If Plame wasn't covert, then 1) why did CIA refer the case to Justice in the first place and 2) why did Fitzgerald go beyond simple investigation and panel a grand jury? Seems to me that both of those sources are in a better position to know whether or not Plame was covert than, say, folks in the RNC who are making up bullshit talking points. But that's just me--you know, one of those folks in the reality-based community. We tend to let logic and evidence rule rather than blind partisanship.

Rove testimony. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html)

If this is proven, I can't imagine better traitors at the moment. And traitors end up executed. ;)


Really? I just thought they made workout videos.

Really? I just thought they made workout videos.
Way to show just how much you care about the country, B0zzy. Partisanship over security, I see. :rolleyes:

But I heard that if you look closely at the dates her children were born on and where they were born, she couldn't possibly have served the amount of years out of country that you have to serve to be given covert status. I'm not saying I'm right, but that's just what I heard.

Why is this so hard to understand!? Look, it's indiputable that she was a NOC agent. She travelled back and forth regularly. Of course she wouldn't be on assignment when she was 9 months pregnant, so I don't see what the birth dates and birthing location of her children prove.

Also, the name and address of her cover operation was blown by the story too. So, any agents using that same operation now have their cover blown.

Why is this so hard to understand!? Look, it's indiputable that she was a NOC agent. She travelled back and forth regularly. Of course she wouldn't be on assignment when she was 9 months pregnant, so I don't see what the birth dates and birthing location of her children prove.

Also, the name and address of her cover operation was blown by the story too. So, any agents using that same operation now have their cover blown.
Did I or did I not say, "I'm not saying that I'm right..."? That's something I heard, and I'm not totally aware of the whole story. I would like to thank you and The Nazz for not paying attention to what I said.

Really? I just thought they made workout videos.
No, they get pardoned and have talk radio shows.

Of course one thing doesn't add up here. Where would have Novak gotten such classified information in the first place? The Freedom of Information Act can only go so far.
Don't forget that Judith Miller is still sitting in jail despite the waivers that Libby and Rove have signed. I still think she's the real story, assuming what was leaked about the Grand Jury testimony is accurate.

All arguments about First Amendment freedoms considered, it's not logical for her to sit in jail if her sources have waived any confidentiality in their conversations. I don't know how it will play out, but it will be very interesting if she ever does divulge the name of the source she is protecting.

Did I or did I not say, "I'm not saying that I'm right..."? That's something I heard, and I'm not totally aware of the whole story. I would like to thank you and The Nazz for not paying attention to what I said.
Actually, I thought I was just being informative, gently correcting a misconception you had. Sorry if I came across a bit strong.

Here's my counter, as yet unchallenged in the various threads on this topic. If Plame wasn't covert, then 1) why did CIA refer the case to Justice in the first place and 2) why did Fitzgerald go beyond simple investigation and panel a grand jury? Seems to me that both of those sources are in a better position to know whether or not Plame was covert than, say, folks in the RNC who are making up bullshit talking points. But that's just me--you know, one of those folks in the reality-based community. We tend to let logic and evidence rule rather than blind partisanship.
This wouldn't be the first SP that used a grand jury to just go fishing. There's plenty we don't know. Maybe someone in the CIA was pissed about something and decided this would be a good way to get even. No one has ever officially confirmed or denied what Plame's status was during the period in question.

Maybe there was a real crime committed. Who knows? Stranger things have happened. We still don't have any idea who may have committed it, although circumstances make it look less and less likely that it came from Libby or Rove. Now we're back to Miller. Who is she protecting? I think that person is the key to this mess.

[edit]
After re-reading the opening paragraph in the linked article, I think Rove might be guilty of some crime. The article said in part "...that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources..."

I've dealt with a lot of classified material in my career(s). One of the most fundamental rules that I lived by was never to confirm something that I still thought was classified. The important thing isn't that someone knows the fact that is classified. Classified information is all over the place in open sources. There's a good reason that Aviation Week is nicknamed Aviation Leak. The important thing is that the information is confirmed by an authority.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Rove didn't know anything about Plame that he didn't hear first from a reporter. When he passed along the rumor, he would sure seem like an authority that should know. He's unwittingly confirmed that she was an agent. I doubt very much that ignorance of her status is any excuse for passing on the name.

Now, I don't think that quite qualifies as treason, but it certainly would violate provisions in any of the government forms I have signed over the years. I know I'd go to jail, or maybe pay a fine. One thing would be certain, I'd have lost the job I held at the time.

So let's sit back and see how this plays out. I don't think it will be the devastating blow that the Democrats hope for. But I don't think it will be the paper tiger that the Republicans hope for, either. I still can't figure how a smart guy like Rove would get into this predicament.

I doubt there are going to be any consequences at all. Since when has our esteemd leader cared about political opinion? Or political discretion, for that matter?

Did I or did I not say, "I'm not saying that I'm right..."? That's something I heard, and I'm not totally aware of the whole story. I would like to thank you and The Nazz for not paying attention to what I said.

I paid perfect attention. I responded directly to your birthdate query. The only reason I used the bolded and over-large text was because the becessity of having to repeat that fact several times already. Nothing personal.

Please (everyone reading this thread,) read the previous thread on Rove to catch up.

This wouldn't be the first SP that used a grand jury to just go fishing. There's plenty we don't know. Maybe someone in the CIA was pissed about something and decided this would be a good way to get even. No one has ever officially confirmed or denied what Plame's status was during the period in question.

Maybe there was a real crime committed. Who knows? Stranger things have happened. We still don't have any idea who may have committed it, although circumstances make it look less and less likely that it came from Libby or Rove. Now we're back to Miller. Who is she protecting? I think that person is the key to this mess.
There's got to be a crime in the first place in order to convene a grand jury. Now the grand jury may well return indictments on other stuff as a result, or it may decline to return an indictment against the people charged, but the fact that a crime was committed is never in doubt when a grand jury is convened.

As to Plame's status, whether or not she was covert is only relevant to one of the potential statutes--the IIPA, as Cat-Tribe has pointed out numerous times on other threads. But outing a CIA operative--and make no mistake, Plame was an undercover operative whose identity and cover were classified--is still a crime under the Espionage Act, and it's way easier to get a conviction under that statute than under the IIPA.

Furthermore, Rove's lawyer has already admitted to his client's involvement in the outing, and even if Rove is telling the truth when he claims only to have confirmed Cooper's question about Plame--and given Rove's track record for truth-telling, I highly doubt he's doing it now--he still violated the US Code on non-disclosure of classified material, which says that even if classified material has become public knowledge, if it's not declassified, the official may not disseminate it nor may he or she confirm the accuracy of it. Again, assuming Rove's telling the truth here, it was his responsibility to not only say "no comment," but to check with the CIA to find out what her status was before commenting on it, and warn them that she had potentially been blown. Suffice to say that Rove did nothing of the sort, even under the most generous reading of his actions.

Furthermore, Rove's lawyer has already admitted to his client's involvement in the outing, and even if Rove is telling the truth when he claims only to have confirmed Cooper's question about Plame--and given Rove's track record for truth-telling, I highly doubt he's doing it now--he still violated the US Code on non-disclosure of classified material, which says that even if classified material has become public knowledge, if it's not declassified, the official may not disseminate it nor may he or she confirm the accuracy of it. Again, assuming Rove's telling the truth here, it was his responsibility to not only say "no comment," but to check with the CIA to find out what her status was before commenting on it, and warn them that she had potentially been blown. Suffice to say that Rove did nothing of the sort, even under the most generous reading of his actions.
Read my edit. I wrote it before I read this.

Read my edit. I wrote it before I read this.
I see what you're saying, but the history of this administration is one of, to put not too fine a point on it, ratfucking the opposition whenever possible. Cooper's testimony before the grand jury, which he wrote about in Time this weekend, argues that not only did Rove know Plame's status, he leaked it deliberately, and so did Libby. The latest documentary evidence is this state department memo that was apparently on Air Force One during Bush's trip to Africa, which potentially implicates Ari Fleischer.

I'm at least glad to see that you've moderated your stance, and have admitted that Rove might be guilty of something. I don't think you're taking it seriously enough, mind you, and I think you're giving Rove credit that even his friends wouldn't give him as far as his penchant for scumbaggery, but I'm glad that you're willing to give at least a little.

While listening to the Al Franken show for a little while this afternoon, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell mention another piece of evidence for the notion that the Plame exposure was definitely criminal. He read a bit from the District Court Opinion issued in the case that the Supreme Court declined to hear that forced Miller and Cooper to decide between talking and going to jail. I'd read part of it before because of a debate on Daily Kos, and decided to give it another run.

You can find a link to the actual decision here. (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/sort_of_serious_stuff/matt_cooper_and_judith_miller_denied_2032.asp) It's a pdf file and it's over 80 pages long, so be ready for some reading if you decide to tackle it.

It should first be noted that the mere fact that these judges were ready to send reporters to jail, indeed, even that the special prosecutor has threatened Judith Miller with criminal contempt in the future if she doesn't testify, even while she's in jail, is proof that this is a serious matter. Judges don't dump the presumption of privilege lightly, and the Justice department has very strict guidelines on how prosecutors should act when trying to get information from reporters--basically, it's got to be the last resort, never the first.

So I'm going to excerpt a couple of things from the concurring decision by Judge Tatel to show just how seriously they're taking this crime investigation.The leak of Plame’s apparent employment, moreover, had marginal news value. To be sure, insofar as Plame’s CIA relationship may have helped explain her husband’s selection for the Niger trip, that information could bear on her husband’s credibility and thus contribute to public debate over the president’s “sixteen words.” Compared to the damage of undermining covert intelligence-gathering, however, this slight news value cannot, in my view, justify privileging the leaker’s identity. Shortly after, there follows eight pages which have been redacted, as they contain classified material. This is Judge Tatel's response following the redacted section:Indeed, Cooper’s own Time.com article illustrates this point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks, contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information—Plame’s covert status—lacked significant news value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires. Bolding mine.

But Tatel 's most compelling language is the final paragraph of the decision:Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.Now remember, this is a judge who has seen the classified material that Fitzgerald is using to make his case, things that have supposedly not been reported on in the public sphere, and Tatel considers it harmful to national security.

Anyone on the right convinced yet that this is more serious than the Bush administration and their right-wing talking-head allies are making it out to be?

While listening to the Al Franken show for a little while this afternoon, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell mention another piece of evidence for the notion that the Plame exposure was definitely criminal. He read a bit from the District Court Opinion issued in the case that the Supreme Court declined to hear that forced Miller and Cooper to decide between talking and going to jail. I'd read part of it before because of a debate on Daily Kos, and decided to give it another run.

You can find a link to the actual decision here. (http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/sort_of_serious_stuff/matt_cooper_and_judith_miller_denied_2032.asp) It's a pdf file and it's over 80 pages long, so be ready for some reading if you decide to tackle it.

It should first be noted that the mere fact that these judges were ready to send reporters to jail, indeed, even that the special prosecutor has threatened Judith Miller with criminal contempt in the future if she doesn't testify, even while she's in jail, is proof that this is a serious matter. Judges don't dump the presumption of privilege lightly, and the Justice department has very strict guidelines on how prosecutors should act when trying to get information from reporters--basically, it's got to be the last resort, never the first.

So I'm going to excerpt a couple of things from the concurring decision by Judge Tatel to show just how seriously they're taking this crime investigation. Shortly after, there follows eight pages which have been redacted, as they contain classified material. This is Judge Tatel's response following the redacted section:Bolding mine.

But Tatel 's most compelling language is the final paragraph of the decision:Now remember, this is a judge who has seen the classified material that Fitzgerald is using to make his case, things that have supposedly not been reported on in the public sphere, and Tatel considers it harmful to national security.

Anyone on the right convinced yet that this is more serious than the Bush administration and their right-wing talking-head allies are making it out to be?

The Bush administration has been getting more and more bold in unleashing it's attack dogs. As happens so often with unchecked power, it oversteps itself. Why do people have to be reminded that power corrupts?

It seems that Rove probably got carried away with his own hype. A victim of his own success in a way.

Rove's not so much a genius as he's a guy who's shameless in his strategy, which is to attack even if the facts are against you, lie about the facts and dare the media or your opposition to call you on them. Why he's in a world of crap right now is because a third player has been added to the equation--the justice department, complete with an attack dog special prosecutor who has the power of the grand jury and the ability to charge people with crimes including perjury and obstruction of justice. Suddenly, lying has far greater consequences, and Rove's strategy isn't working so well anymore.
Notice how you fail to note that the justice he is dealing with is a special prosecutor, appointed at democrats request, by Bush himself. You can say one of two things, but not both:
1. Bush has control over the special prosecutor, and thus Karl has nothing to fear; or
2. Bush has no control over the special prosecutor, because he knows Karl is innocent.

Most of you lefties will probably only believe statement 1, because you refuse to look at any facts beyond democracynow, democratic underground, or network news.

By the way, those of you claiming Bush is lying, Karl is lying, etc - where is your evidence? Have you examined the documents, notes, etc of the case? I hope not, since this is a legal investigation - such "outing" would probably be worthy of - you guessed it - another investigation.

The Bush administration has been getting more and more bold in unleashing it's attack dogs. As happens so often with unchecked power, it oversteps itself. Why do people have to be reminded that power corrupts?

It seems that Rove probably got carried away with his own hype. A victim of his own success in a way.

Do you realize that Time, The New York Times, and several other media organizations have protested against the contempt charges on Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, basing their argument on the fact that media should not have to release their sources if NO CRIMINAL ACT was involved?

Do you realize that Time, The New York Times, and several other media organizations have protested against the contempt charges on Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, basing their argument on the fact that media should not have to release their sources if NO CRIMINAL ACT was involved?

Oh and WHO said there was "NO CRIMINAL ACT" in this matter? The CIA and the Justice Department, or THE MEDIA that wants to guard its Source Confidentiality like it was a blank check entitlement?

Oh and WHO said there was "NO CRIMINAL ACT" in this matter? The CIA and the Justice Department, or THE MEDIA that wants to guard its Source Confidentiality like it was a blank check entitlement?
As I said in my previous statement - the media, in its legal briefs to protect its reporter's sources. You're not saying (gasp!) the media would lie in such a serious legal matter, are you? :rolleyes:

That he is. I don't buy that he let himself get trapped in this, something's wrong here.

Funniest thing about this whole story is that Rove did nothing illegal because Plame wasn't an undercover agent at the time and had not been for the 5 years preceding the Novak column. So tell me why this is still being talked about? Oh yeah, the media thought they smelled blood in the water and went after Rove using Joe Wilson and his wife's story and are now slowly realizing that Wilson is a liar. The Senate Intelligence Committee even showed that Wilson wasn't telling the full truth either because he was deliberately lying or was just incompetent. Mark Levin lays things out pretty well in his article on National Review linked here: http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507181123.asp

Basically the media finds itself in a tough position. They can't back out of the story because then they'd have a credibility problem. What I find the most revealing thing in this whole drama is they're leaving out the fact that the media itself in filing briefs in this very case to keep their reporters out of jail and to keep their sources secret filed their brief, 34 or 36 media organizations joined in this brief and their whole point was that no crime had been committed.

Show me why this story should continue (and it better be more than, it's Karl Rove! He handed Bush the White House!!) and we can continue to ignore the fact that London was bombed not even two weeks ago. Seriously people, get your priorities straight!!!

Don't forget that Judith Miller is still sitting in jail despite the waivers that Libby and Rove have signed. I still think she's the real story, assuming what was leaked about the Grand Jury testimony is accurate.

All arguments about First Amendment freedoms considered, it's not logical for her to sit in jail if her sources have waived any confidentiality in their conversations. I don't know how it will play out, but it will be very interesting if she ever does divulge the name of the source she is protecting.

Miller didn't commit a crime (that we know of, anyway), she's being held in prison in contempt of court for not revealing her source. A very fine distinction, but there is a difference nonetheless.

Rove testimony. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html)

If this is proven, I can't imagine better traitors at the moment. And traitors end up executed. ;)

Looks like it's destined to be just another Silly Season story. ^_^

http://fatsteve.blogspot.com/2005/07/updated-linkfest-plamewilson-spins-out.html

I wonder what they'll do for a teapot tempest after this one? :P

As I said in my previous statement - the media, in its legal briefs to protect its reporter's sources. You're not saying (gasp!) the media would lie in such a serious legal matter, are you? :rolleyes:

You mean the same "Liberal" Media that normally would grasp at any chance to bring down the Bush Administration? Oh wow... you'd think they'd have pressured Miller and Cooper themselves to get the news of the leak out!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Do you realize that Time, The New York Times, and several other media organizations have protested against the contempt charges on Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, basing their argument on the fact that media should not have to release their sources if NO CRIMINAL ACT was involved?The key word in your post is "if," and you know something, I'll even concecde that point. If there was no criminal act, then the media ought not to have to release their sources. In fact, Judge Tatel, who I quoted extensively on the last page, said the same thing in the concurring opinion in the Miller/Cooper contempt appeal.

So why is Miller in jail, and why did Cooper testify, or more importantly, why did Tatel (and the rest of the Court) rule against them and force them to choose between revealing sources and going to jail for contempt? Could it be because a criminal act was involved? That's certainly a logical assumption.

But it's more than an assumption. In the decision--which is 82 pages long--all three judges refer to the outing of Plame as a crime. They're certainly in a position to know, considering that the decision includes 8 pages of classified material redacted before it was released.

So now we have the written opinion of three judges versus the media's use of the word "if." You ever get the feeling you were just pwned?

The Bush administration has been getting more and more bold in unleashing it's attack dogs. As happens so often with unchecked power, it oversteps itself. Why do people have to be reminded that power corrupts?

It seems that Rove probably got carried away with his own hype. A victim of his own success in a way.

Then take it to the ballot box.

I personally vote Democrat for Joe Lieberman, as I think he does a good job for Connecticut in the Senate.
I typically split my vote otherwise, depending on the race and candidate, except for our Town Council: there I always vote Republican, because the Board of Education weilds WAY too much power when the Democrats are running the town.
No way a town with 28,000 people needs a $40 million new high school. Especially when the old high school is less than 30 years old and already had two updates... :mad:

Miller didn't commit a crime (that we know of, anyway), she's being held in prison in contempt of court for not revealing her source. A very fine distinction, but there is a difference nonetheless.
You missed my point, I think. Miller is protecting a source. If we approach it logically, it can't be Libby or Rove because they have waived any confidentiality in the matter. Thus it can't be to uphold the principle of confidentiality of sources, either.

Who is she protecting? Probably the original leaker. Remember, all Rove seems to have done is confirm facts that were already in the hands of reporters and declassified shortly afterwards. Still a crime, but hardly national tragedy. Probably not even punishable by Washington standards. That's the tragedy -- that politicians are held to a different standard when it comes to classified material than the rest of us that use it every day.

Do you realize that Time, The New York Times, and several other media organizations have protested against the contempt charges on Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, basing their argument on the fact that media should not have to release their sources if NO CRIMINAL ACT was involved?

Really? Perhaps you might want to look at this:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112170178721288385-uh1ILw_RG4bAJGgqjdsNHxrYSNE_20050818,00.html?mod=blogs

If Plame were covert, why would the CIA ask the JD to check it out? Why are they imprisoning reporters for protecting their sources when no crime occured?

And the argument from "the media" is that they are honor bound (having nothing to do with criminality,) to protect their sources EVEN IF a crime occured.

No response to this most recent article, eh?

If I'm not mistaken the reporter that was put in jail, was by a judge. The judiciary is an independent entity.

You missed my point, I think. Miller is protecting a source. If we approach it logically, it can't be Libby or Rove because they have waived any confidentiality in the matter. Thus it can't be to uphold the principle of confidentiality of sources, either.

Who is she protecting? Probably the original leaker. Remember, all Rove seems to have done is confirm facts that were already in the hands of reporters and declassified shortly afterwards. Still a crime, but hardly national tragedy. Probably not even punishable by Washington standards. That's the tragedy -- that politicians are held to a different standard when it comes to classified material than the rest of us that use it every day.Something I didn't realize until I read the decision I posted earlier is that the source can't waive the privilege--only the reporter can do that. It has to do with the question of whether or not the source is being coerced when he or she waives the privilege, and I can see that. I mean, what good are Fifth Amendment protections if your boss tells you "sign this waiver or you'll be presumed guilty?" Much as I dislike Karl Rove, I wouldn't want his rights against self-incrimination trampled on.

So what that really means is that Miller is in jail by choice--she's asserting a privilege she doesn't have, according to the courts, and so is in jail for contempt. You cna't infer anything about the criminality of her source's actions from that, because the two aren't related.

Something I didn't realize until I read the decision I posted earlier is that the source can't waive the privilege--only the reporter can do that. It has to do with the question of whether or not the source is being coerced when he or she waives the privilege, and I can see that. I mean, what good are Fifth Amendment protections if your boss tells you "sign this waiver or you'll be presumed guilty?" Much as I dislike Karl Rove, I wouldn't want his rights against self-incrimination trampled on.

So what that really means is that Miller is in jail by choice--she's asserting a privilege she doesn't have, according to the courts, and so is in jail for contempt. You cna't infer anything about the criminality of her source's actions from that, because the two aren't related.
I was looking for the section that you referred to and I was wondering if you could hum a few bars so I could find it a little easier. Just the page would be fine. Eighty pages is a lot of decision, isn't it?

"unwravel"...I like that...the "w" gives it a whole new feeling!
The "dubya"?

*shudders*

"Nuclear .... wessels".

As I said in my previous statement - the media, in its legal briefs to protect its reporter's sources. You're not saying (gasp!) the media would lie in such a serious legal matter, are you? :rolleyes:
*ahem*

For thought .....

Shield Law Called a Public Service
· Senators are told that secret sources benefit an informed society. But some lawmakers think the proposed measure is too sweeping.

By Johanna Neuman, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Advocates for a federal law that would shield journalists from having to disclose confidential sources told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday that the lack of such protection was impinging on the public's right to information.

But the panel's Republican chairman said journalists should not hold their breath. And some unexpected opposition came from Democrats who said they found the proposed law too sweeping.
The bill would compel the naming of a source by a journalist only when the identity of that source was necessary to prevent imminent and actual harm to national security.

"The absence of federal legislation has created extraordinary chaos, limiting the public's access to important information that is so necessary in a democratic society," said Norman Pearlstine, editor in chief of Time Inc., who recently turned over confidential documents to the special prosecutor investigating the leak that revealed the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent.

The Justice Department has gone on record opposing the proposed shield law. In written testimony, Deputy Atty. Gen. James B. Comey questioned the proposed legislation's definition of a journalist, which he suggested was so broad it would protect corporate affiliates and even publishers of sales catalogs.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was concerned about giving reporters a privilege so "extraordinarily broad" that national security could be compromised.

Citing California's shield law — 31 states and the District of Columbia have enacted protections for journalists — Feinstein advocated a narrower approach than the one proposed by the bill's sponsors, balancing the public good served by source confidentiality and the need to prosecute illegal behavior.

And Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) wondered if such a law should not be further restricted to require reporters to divulge the names of criminals who may contact them.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) acknowledged after Wednesday's hearing that chances of congressional action this year were unlikely because of more pressing business facing the Senate.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Senate International Relations Committee and one of the bill's co-sponsors, said the jailing of New York Times reporter Judith Miller for refusing to disclose her source in the Plame case had hurt the U.S. internationally.

"Global public opinion is always on the lookout to advertise perceived American double standards," he said. "This is evident in the ironic international response" to Miller's jailing. Quoting the Guardian newspaper in London as saying "the American Constitution no longer protects the unfettered freedom of the press," Lugar said that with reporters in jail in China, Cuba and Myanmar, "that is not good company for the United States of America."

Washington lawyer Lee Levine, who represents the Los Angeles Times and Associated Press in the U.S. government's investigation of a leak about Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist who was targeted as a spy, suggested that in crafting a law to protect both journalists and their sources, problems of definition abound.

"One person's whistle-blower," he said, "is another person's slander-monger."

University of Chicago Law School professor Geoffrey Stone said that for 180 years, prosecutors did not subpoena journalists out of respect for the 1st Amendment. In 1972, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled in Branzburg vs. Hayes that journalists had no constitutional protection from disclosing sources. In the last two years, he said, journalists have been subpoenaed in record numbers, a development he called "a serious anomaly."

William Safire, former columnist for the New York Times, urged Congress to follow the lead of the states in enacting protection for journalists. With his onetime colleague, Miller, in jail, Safire said he was "constrained to speak gently, as if concerned about treatment of a hostage," out of fear that prosecutors might retaliate against her.

Funniest thing about this whole story is that Rove did nothing illegal because Plame wasn't an undercover agent at the time and had not been for the 5 years preceding the Novak column. So tell me why this is still being talked about? Oh yeah, the media thought they smelled blood in the water and went after Rove using Joe Wilson and his wife's story and are now slowly realizing that Wilson is a liar. The Senate Intelligence Committee even showed that Wilson wasn't telling the full truth either because he was deliberately lying or was just incompetent. Mark Levin lays things out pretty well in his article on National Review linked here: http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507181123.asp

Basically the media finds itself in a tough position. They can't back out of the story because then they'd have a credibility problem. What I find the most revealing thing in this whole drama is they're leaving out the fact that the media itself in filing briefs in this very case to keep their reporters out of jail and to keep their sources secret filed their brief, 34 or 36 media organizations joined in this brief and their whole point was that no crime had been committed.

Show me why this story should continue (and it better be more than, it's Karl Rove! He handed Bush the White House!!) and we can continue to ignore the fact that London was bombed not even two weeks ago. Seriously people, get your priorities straight!!!

*ahem*


Thanks to the more intrepid posters on this forum .....

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; Page A01


A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.

Wilson has said his wife's identity was revealed to retaliate against him for accusing the Bush administration of "twisting" intelligence to justify the Iraq war. In a July 6 opinion piece in the New York Times and in an interview with The Washington Post, he cited a secret mission he conducted in February 2002 for the CIA, when he determined there was no evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium for a nuclear weapons program in the African nation of Niger.

White House officials discussed Wilson's wife's CIA connection in telling at least two reporters that she helped arrange his trip, according to one of the reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, and a lawyer familiar with the case.

Prosecutors have shown interest in the memo, especially when they were questioning White House officials during the early days of the investigation, people familiar with the probe said.

Karl Rove, President Bush's deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame's name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband's mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove's account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when "people in the special prosecutor's office" showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.

"He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said.

Several other administration officials were on the trip to Africa, including senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and others. Bartlett's attorney has refused to discuss the case, citing requests by the special counsel. Fleischer could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Rove and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as people who discussed Wilson's wife with Cooper. Prosecutors are trying to determine the origin of their knowledge of Plame, including whether it was from the INR memo or from conversations with reporters.

The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson's wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.

The material in the memo about Wilson's wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson's intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR's opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

The description of Wilson's wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered "a footnote" in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.

It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson's trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.

On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson's statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.

Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.
...........

What priorities would those be now? Explain it to us.

What priorities would those be now? Explain it to us.

Well, seeing as how there was another set of bombings in London, I'd think people would be more concerned about people who are trying to kill us instead of a CIA agent who was NOT covert at the time her name was released. Joe Wilson even has said so publicly... "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity"

If that isn't clear enough for you, I could take the White House approach "We will not publicly comment on an ongoing investigation.. and stop reminding me that I commented on it a while ago! *mutters something about facts*" But seriously, there's so much misinformation going on on both sides that I'm just waiting for the whole thing to finish up. It's obvious the media thinks they smell blood and are going to keep the WH on their toes, but I don'd think Rove should or will be fired for simply confirming for Novak what he had heard from other reporters. Point is this is all just politics. It isn't a matter of national security as many of the Rove-haters like to say it is. The woman wasn't a covert agent and she was able to speak to a few friends to get her husband a job to Niger. If anyone brought this whole thing to a roar, it was Joe Wilson.

Well, seeing as how there was another set of bombings in London, I'd think people would be more concerned about people who are trying to kill us instead of a CIA agent who was NOT covert at the time her name was released. Joe Wilson even has said so publicly... "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity"

If that isn't clear enough for you, I could take the White House approach "We will not publicly comment on an ongoing investigation.. and stop reminding me that I commented on it a while ago! *mutters something about facts*" But seriously, there's so much misinformation going on on both sides that I'm just waiting for the whole thing to finish up. It's obvious the media thinks they smell blood and are going to keep the WH on their toes, but I don'd think Rove should or will be fired for simply confirming for Novak what he had heard from other reporters. Point is this is all just politics. It isn't a matter of national security as many of the Rove-haters like to say it is. The woman wasn't a covert agent and she was able to speak to a few friends to get her husband a job to Niger. If anyone brought this whole thing to a roar, it was Joe Wilson.
Somewhat kinda pathetic there, trying to change the topic.

Attacks on Britain are not our responsibility, nor our priority. People are obviously concerned about other people trying to kill them but one of the great parts of being mature is that you HAVE TO DEAL WITH MORE THAN ONE THING AT A TIME. That's the way it is.
Joe Wilson said so publicly? Post it. Give the source, otherwise hoof it. Maybe you should bother reading the posts.

I don't think you're really educated on the topic, come to think of it, so i'll just half-smile through your post and try not to take it too personally that other people might agree with you or anyone who doesn't do their research.
And i responded to your theory of getting priorities straight. The only way yours appear to be are in the interests of either another country or a cabal interested in the disassembly of a once great theory of a nation. :(

The suffix -gate makes my blood boil. What ever happened to good old "The ____ Scandal?" Back on topic, I personally doubt anything will come of The Plame Scandal (see how nice it sounds?) I worry that it will backfire and make the Democrats look like they are hounding the administration for no reason.

The suffix -gate makes my blood boil. What ever happened to good old "The ____ Scandal?" Back on topic, I personally doubt anything will come of The Plame Scandal (see how nice it sounds?) I worry that it will backfire and make the Democrats look like they are hounding the administration for no reason.
If you think that, then you havne't been paying close enough attention.

Look at it this way--right now, it seems to an awful lot of people that Rove, Libby and now perhaps Ari Fleischer are in some deep shit over this, for perjury and obstruction if nothing else. And that's with the prosecutor's office keeping their mouths shut to the press. The leaks that arae coming out are all coming from Rove's lawyer, Luskin. Think about that--the leaks are coming out in hopes of making this look less damning, and yet Rove et al are still looking bad as a result. What's going to happen when Fitzgerald gets the indictments and then his case becomes public? It's gonna really get ugly then, my friend.

snippy...CIA agent who was NOT covert at the time her name was released. Joe Wilson even has said so publicly... "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." snippy

You misunderstood completely what Wilson said there. As he said in follow-up interviews, Wilson meant that Novak's column destroyed comletely his wife's career as a covert agent.

Novak's column also compromised Mrs. Wilson's fellow agents who used the same cover business, fellow agents who had contact with Mrs. Wilson overseas and foreign operatives who gave information to Mrs Wilson and her connected fellow agents.

How come not a single person from the Rove apologist camp has responded directly to that last bit? It seems that the only way they can downplay the importance of this story is to completely ignore what is said there.

Also, sources at the CIA have confirmed Plame's covert status.

Finally, I fail to see how this is a Democratic plot against the Whitehouse. Let's see, who was it that asked for this investigation in the first place? Let me think for a moment. Oh yeah, the CIA itself. Damn that Porter Goss for being a partisan Democrat.

The suffix -gate makes my blood boil. What ever happened to good old "The ____ Scandal?" Back on topic, I personally doubt anything will come of The Plame Scandal (see how nice it sounds?) I worry that it will backfire and make the Democrats look like they are hounding the administration for no reason.

Democrats? Democrats?

If you don't know enought to know that this is a CIA/Justice Dept investigation, why are you even posting?

Well, everyone knows that Karl Rove is Satan personified. :rolleyes: Unrelated note, Straughn: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/

The 1982 Intelligence Identification Protection Act requires that a person "knowingly reveals the identity of a cover agent." She has not been an "agent" for over five years.
There have been instances cited where the husband has introduced his wife as a CIA agent at dinner parties.

This whole situation is nothing more than a Liberal witch hunt.

Well, everyone knows that Karl Rove is Satan personified. :rolleyes: Unrelated note, Straughn: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/

Karl Rove says Karl Rove is innocent! Okay folks, pack up the investigation. :rolleyes:

The 1982 Intelligence Identification Protection Act requires that a person "knowingly reveals the identity of a cover agent." She has not been an "agent" for over five years.
There have been instances cited where the husband has introduced his wife as a CIA agent at dinner parties.

This whole situation is nothing more than a Liberal witch hunt.

Do you guys even read before posting?

A.) the IIPA isn't the only statute that may apply.

B.) Plame isn't the only agent whose identity has been compromised by this (other names have not surfaced for obvious reasons.) Also, none of the statutes that may apply indicate that a person's exact name has to be given out. Finally, there is clear evidence (State Dept memo,) that the government was still working to protect her identity up until the Novak column came out. All of you are saying that she hasn't been out of the country for five years...perhaps the missions that took her out of the country were top secret and still are? We know for a fact that her "desk job" was merely a cover.

C.) Since when are the CIA and the Justice Dept merely parts of the liberal political machine? How come Republicans in the CIA are saying that she was still covert and that her uncovering is a severe breach of national security?

Karl Rove says Karl Rove is innocent! Okay folks, pack up the investigation. :rolleyes:

No, don't pack up the investigation. Take it full-on. The Left seems to forget a cornerstone of our justice system -- innocent until proven guilty -- when it comes to a political opponent. Investigate it and find the truth; don't assume it. If he's broken the law, punish him accordingly.

No, don't pack up the investigation. Take it full-on. The Left seems to forget a cornerstone of our justice system -- innocent until proven guilty -- when it comes to a political opponent. Investigate it and find the truth; don't assume it. If he's broken the law, punish him accordingly.
Not in Texas

Not in Texas

The hieght of response. Oh and I refer you to this little article:


Corrections
Posted Friday, Feb. 11, 2005, at 7:59 AM PT

A Feb. 10 "Architecture" article by Witold Rybczynski mistakenly stated that that Columbia, Md., and Reston, Va., were planned 20 years ago. They were planned 40 years ago.

A "Bushism of the Day" item posted on Feb. 10 reported that President Bush said on Sept. 23, 2004, "Listen, the other day I was asked about the National Intelligence Estimate, which is a National Intelligence Estimate." Though this is the version reported in several transcripts, an audiotape of the speech makes clear that Bush's more coherent actual words were, "Listen, the other day I was asked about the NIE, which is a National Intelligence Estimate."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2113388/

But I doubt that you care that you're using a false quote. Anything to deride the opposition, 'eh?

No, don't pack up the investigation. Take it full-on. The Left seems to forget a cornerstone of our justice system -- innocent until proven guilty -- when it comes to a political opponent. Investigate it and find the truth; don't assume it. If he's broken the law, punish him accordingly.
Let it. We can assume all we want over here, we aren't the judge/jury involved.

Just yesterday I tuned into C-SPAN to watch a Congressional hearing on the incident. Made clear was that the CIA was using Plame as an undercover agent at the time of the Novak column leak, which amounts to an actual crime by the people, or person, who committed it. I fail to agree with the comments by many Republicans that she was not undercover. Even if that were true (which the Central Intelligence Agency itself says not so), why would Rove give out her identity for any constructive purpose? What possible explanation does the Administration have?

"No comment." Oh, and Bush stating that he would get rid of the people involved if they worked in his administration.

At least the CIA is having the Department of Justice conduct criminal investigations into this. I don't feel it is politically motivated to find whoever did this, I think it was politically motivated by Republicans to square off with Ambassador Plame for his comments.

"Nuclear .... wessels".

Now is not the time, Chekhov :D

The hieght of response. Oh and I refer you to this little article: First of all, I was half serious with that post.


But I doubt that you care that you're using a false quote. Anything to deride the opposition, 'eh?
Second, I refer you to here (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.phtml), so you can here the stupid shit he says, which by far overrides that one "misquote" you found. My favorite can be found here (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.phtml?year=2002), it's the fourth one up from the bottom. I'm going to look into the "misquote" later, and I apologize in advance and I will put a different one if it is found out that you are indeed right and the quote was misrepresented.

Democrats? Democrats?

If you don't know enought to know that this is a CIA/Justice Dept investigation, why are you even posting?

The people clamoring for Rove's ousting and naming him as the leaker at the moment are Democrats. (I'm a Democrat too, I'm not some lunatic right-winger paranoid of the "liberal media.") The fact is, if there is a scandal made of this affair without evidence to back it up, the Democrats will be blamed and cast as obstructionists because they are the minority party in congress and don't hold the White House.

First of all, I was half serious with that post.

Duly noted.


Second, I refer you to here (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.phtml), so you can here the stupid shit he says, which by far overrides that one "misquote" you found. My favorite can be found here (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.phtml?year=2002), it's the fourth one up from the bottom. I'm going to look into the "misquote" later, and I apologize in advance and I will put a different one if it is found out that you are indeed right and the quote was misrepresented.

I'm aware of that site. I'm not even a big fan of President Bush nor am I a Republican, but I find it quite sad that the biggest thing the Left holds against him is his lack of oratory skills. So it's clearly not his forté; big deal. I know a very intelligent person who can't speak in front of a crowd to save their life. Does that make me think any less of them? Definitely not. Not everyone is Patrick Henry.

I'm aware of that site. I'm not even a big fan of President Bush nor am I a Republican, but I find it quite sad that the biggest thing the Left holds against him is his lack of oratory skills. So it's clearly not his forté; big deal. I know a very intelligent person who can't speak in front of a crowd to save their life. Does that make me think any less of them? Definitely not. Not everyone is Patrick Henry.
Sounds to me like you belong in the "conflicted camp." How about you write them a nice little hate mail so I have something new to laugh at. Let me reiterate my point here, the reason why the left is exploiting Bush's immense oratoray skills :rolleyes: is not because we're trying to show that he's stupid, anyone with half a brain can figure that out (how ironic), but because never in the past has a President been so poor at communication skills and says stuff that blends Presidency/God and continuously forgets historical facts and does stupid things the way Bush does. I'm sorry you can't enjoy dubyaspeak, but the point isn't really to prove he's stupid, the point is to prove he's the lowest quality President we've ever had.

And you were right about that quote btw, and I emailed the webmaster at dubyaspeak, who will in turn take it off of the site.

EDIT: since I have to leave in a minute, I refer you to here (http://www.dubyaspeak.com/incidents.shtml) if you think actions speak louder than words.

Sounds to me like you belong in the "conflicted camp."

In what way?

How about you write them a nice little hate mail so I have something new to laugh at.

Or not, as I don't write 'hate mail' to anyone. That's beneath me.

Let me reiterate my point here, the reason why the left is exploiting Bush's immense oratoray skills :rolleyes: is not because we're trying to show that he's stupid, anyone with half a brain can figure that out (how ironic), but because never in the past has a President been so poor at communication skills and says stuff that blends Presidency/God and continuously forgets historical facts and does stupid things the way Bush does.

That's all you have, isn't it? You can't defeat the man or his positions, so you have to go after the way he speaks and accuse him of being stupid? Not that didn't expect your side to take the low road once again...

I'm sorry you can't enjoy dubyaspeak, but the point isn't really to prove he's stupid, the point is to prove he's the lowest quality President we've ever had.

I can think of several who were far worse than you deem George W. Bush to be.


And you were right about that quote btw, and I emailed the webmaster at dubyaspeak, who will in turn take it off of the site.

Good. There's enough misinformation out there as it is.

THis is just speculation, but I just heard it opined that the reason Bush did not nominate Gonzales to the SCOTUS was because of his possible connection to the Rove/Plame affair.

In what way?
The fact you implied you don't like Dubya nor Dubyaspeak.

Or not, as I don't write 'hate mail' to anyone. That's beneath me. Well, there hasn't been much new in the way of hate mail there...I was hoping you could help us out.

That's all you have, isn't it? You can't defeat the man or his positions, so you have to go after the way he speaks and accuse him of being stupid? Not that didn't expect your side to take the low road once again...Not really. I could get into long essays stating my beliefs and facts backing them up, but somehow I don't think you'd listen or take it seriously.

I can think of several who were far worse than you deem George W. Bush to be.Good for you.

*hands Colerica a cookie*

Good. There's enough misinformation out there as it is.So true. Most of it can be found here (http://www.foxnews.com/).

I see my humble and civilized apology was greeted by further attacks. How typical.

Are there really people who believe that Plame was not a covert agent at the time of the leak?

Are there really people who believe that Plame was not a covert agent at the time of the leak?

They're the same ones who believe WMD's were found in Iraq.

They're the same ones who believe WMD's were found in Iraq.
I see, I see. So, the same people who wanted to arrest Moore et al. for treason but Rove is innocent til proven guilty. Understood.

I see, I see. So, the same people who wanted to arrest Moore et al. for treason but Rove is innocent til proven guilty. Understood.

Yup. The same people who say Clinton is a traitor for selling secrets to the Chinese without a single shred of proof are suddenly "let's wait and see," when there's, at the very least, a lot of circumstantial evidence against Rove.

The fact you implied you don't like Dubya nor Dubyaspeak.

I could care less about Dubyaspeak. George W. Bush, however, is the President of the United States and garners a shred of my respect simply for holding that position. However, he is by no means my favorite President.


Well, there hasn't been much new in the way of hate mail there...I was hoping you could help us out.

Sorry I won't be of any use for you in that regard.


Not really. I could get into long essays stating my beliefs and facts backing them up, but somehow I don't think you'd listen or take it seriously.


Be careful; I wouldn't want you to break a leg jumping to such conclusions.


Good for you.

*hands Colerica a cookie*

Thank you. *eats cookie*


So true. Most of it can be found here (http://www.foxnews.com/).

No, I was really thinking more like here (http://www.democracticunderground.com) or here (http://www.moveon.org) or the lovely blind hatred of here (http://www.forsakethetroops.info).


I see my humble and civilized apology was greeted by further attacks. How typical.

I've met your humble and civilized apology with respect shown to you and civility. If you can point out something to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Yup. The same people who say Clinton is a traitor for selling secrets to the Chinese without a single shred of proof are suddenly "let's wait and see," when there's, at the very least, a lot of circumstantial evidence against Rove.

Does circumstantial evidence hold up to par with the law and allow for the conviction of someone? All I care to see is that Karl Rove is treated by the law in the same fashion that anyone else is -- is regarded as innocent until proven guilty and is given fair treatment. If he's found to have done something illegal, than by all means, punish him. Until then, however, he is innocent until he can be proven guilty by the law.

I see, I see. So, the same people who wanted to arrest Moore et al. for treason but Rove is innocent til proven guilty. Understood.

Are you saying that Karl Rove doesn't deserve to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty?

I could care less about Dubyaspeak. George W. Bush, however, is the President of the United States and garners a shred of my respect simply for holding that position. However, he is by no means my favorite President.



Sorry I won't be of any use for you in that regard.



Be careful; I wouldn't want you to break a leg jumping to such conclusions.



Thank you. *eats cookie*



No, I was really thinking more like here (http://www.democracticunderground.com) or here (http://www.moveon.org) or the lovely blind hatred of here (http://www.forsakethetroops.info).



I've met your humble and civilized apology with respect shown to you and civility. If you can point out something to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Linking to extreme examples does not in any way refute a reasonable argument, unless you can prove the specific opinion held is comparable to the sites linked.

Also, I love they hysteria caused by Moveon.org all dating back to a single hitler/bush ad that was submitted as part of a competition and never specifically endorsed by Moveon.org.

Are you saying that Karl Rove doesn't deserve to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty?

He wasn't even inferring that. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives who wanted to lynch Moore when no law had been broken yet quote the law when Rove's innocence is clearly in doubt.

Twisting his words does not strengthen your argument.

He wasn't even inferring that. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of conservatives who wanted to lynch Moore when no law had been broken yet quote the law when Rove's innocence is clearly in doubt.

Twisting his words does not strengthen your argument.

I did not twist his words. If you've inferred that, that is your own problem. All I asked was a simple question and it was not directed at you.

No, I was really thinking more like here (http://www.democracticunderground.com) or here (http://www.moveon.org) or the lovely blind hatred of here (http://www.forsakethetroops.info).
the latter is indeed a shame. But let's not turn this into a flame war. Besides, there's many, many more worse conservative websites I can pull up for you.

like this one (http://www.liberals-suck.com/)
or this one. (http://www.ihateliberals.com/)
or worst of all, this one (http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi).
And another (http://www.conservative.org/) for good measure.

I've met your humble and civilized apology with respect shown to you and civility. If you can point out something to the contrary, I'd like to see it.
Wow, I shudder to think how you treat people you have no respect for.

That's all you have, isn't it? You can't defeat the man or his positions, so you have to go after the way he speaks and accuse him of being stupid? Not that didn't expect your side to take the low road once again...

Good. There's enough misinformation out there as it is. A simple "thank you" couldn't suffice could it? You had to be arrogant and act like you were expecting me to go over and above. Here I try to be nice and all you give in return is a smarmy "Good."

the latter is indeed a shame.

Thank you for showing your sanity. :)

Besides, there's many, many more worse conservative websites I can pull up for you.

If you say so.


like this one (http://www.liberals-suck.com/)
or this one. (http://www.ihateliberals.com/)

Never seen either.


or worst of all, this one (http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi).

I despise Ann Coulter.


And another (http://www.conservative.org/) for good measure.

Never seen that, as well. We are to, however, recognize that this all in the view of the beholder. You may present a site that I have no problem and vice-versa; there's no way around that.


Wow, I shudder to think how you treat people you have no respect for.


I have shown you great respect. I do not consider you an enemy or an idiot. :p


A simple "thank you" couldn't suffice could it? You had to be arrogant and act like you were expecting me to go over and above.

My response(s) were not intended to be taken as arrogant. If you'd like me to be arrogant, however, I can comply with your request. ;) I meant you harm and have treated you kindly.


Here I try to be nice and all you give in return is a smarmy "Good."

I found that sufficient. If you took it as something esle, that may be your own doing.

My response(s) were not intended to be taken as arrogant. If you'd like me to be arrogant, however, I can comply with your request. ;) I meant you harm and have treated you kindly.

I found that sufficient. If you took it as something esle, that may be your own doing.
I guess so. :p

It's funny Colerica. I see you arguing against the liberal viewpoint not by discussing the actual ideas and intentions of "liberalism," but by generally disparaging liberals as young, indigent or ignorant (I am none of the above, I believe.)

Would you appreciate it if I said that conservatives are only conservatives because:

1.) They are old and senile. Too set in their ways to accept new information.

2.) Their lack of education diminishes their critical thinking faculties, allowing them to be lead by fallacious arguments an propaganda.

3.) The educated among them are often a part of an "old boys network" that prizes money and political power more than the well-being of their fellow man, their culture and their society.

4.) They are happy with allowing market pressures regulate business unless a nipple or a really big political contributor is involved. Corporate welfare is okay, but personal welfare isn't

5.) They are borderline (or worse) rascists or religious fanatics, and conservativism is their last refuge.

Now I am not saying this is true, I am merely pointing out that attacking the person rather than their ideas is no way to conduct a civilized discussion.

And you bring any of this into this discussion, why, per se?

And you bring any of this into this discussion, why, per se?

It should be self-evident to one as erudite as yourself.

I'm aware of that site. I'm not even a big fan of President Bush nor am I a Republican, but I find it quite sad that the biggest thing the Left holds against him is his lack of oratory skills. So it's clearly not his forté; big deal. I know a very intelligent person who can't speak in front of a crowd to save their life. Does that make me think any less of them? Definitely not. Not everyone is Patrick Henry.
I can speak only for myself, but Bush's malapropisms don't even make my top ten reasons as to why I don't like him. He could speak in pig latin for all I care if he'd just balance a damn budget or not send our troops into an unnecessary war for starters. It's his slavery to big business and his overall incompetence that pisses me off, not the "nucular" crap. That's just gravy.

I can speak only for myself, but Bush's malapropisms don't even make my top ten reasons as to why I don't like him. He could speak in pig latin for all I care if he'd just balance a damn budget or not send our troops into an unnecessary war for starters. It's his slavery to big business and his overall incompetence that pisses me off, not the "nucular" crap. That's just gravy.Exactly.

I can speak only for myself, but Bush's malapropisms don't even make my top ten reasons as to why I don't like him. He could speak in pig latin for all I care if he'd just balance a damn budget or not send our troops into an unnecessary war for starters. It's his slavery to big business and his overall incompetence that pisses me off, not the "nucular" crap. That's just gravy.

Exactly. I also have a big beef with how non-transparent Bush's administration is. Considering that I strongly disagree with many of his policies, the potential activities that the administration holds under the cloak of secrecy really scares me.

I can speak only for myself, but Bush's malapropisms don't even make my top ten reasons as to why I don't like him. He could speak in pig latin for all I care if he'd just balance a damn budget or not send our troops into an unnecessary war for starters. It's his slavery to big business and his overall incompetence that pisses me off, not the "nucular" crap. That's just gravy.
You have to imagine it's short-term or selective memory as well as hearing. No one in their right mind has ever given the fact that he's a pisspoor speaker as thier sole or even chief reason for not liking the guy. But this criticism, this claim that we are petty because the 'only reason we don't like him is his poor speaking skills' (however-he is the President, oratory is a chief function of his job, to express ideas to others from here and the rest of the world, to presuade and understand, so it's not completely trivial.) comes from people who had no problem pointing out another president's fondness for cheese burgers and the biggest thing that they managed to get was a consentual blow job.

But sure, yeah. We're the petty ones.


Thanks, Nazz, for the birthday wishes by the way :)

It's not like there's a huge liberal contingent that hates Yogi Berra or Boomhauer from "King of the Hill."

It's not like there's a huge liberal contingent that hates Yogi Berra or Boomhauer from "King of the Hill."
Quality.

You have to imagine it's short-term or selective memory as well as hearing. No one in their right mind has ever given the fact that he's a pisspoor speaker as thier sole or even chief reason for not liking the guy. But this criticism, this claim that we are petty because the 'only reason we don't like him is his poor speaking skills' (however-he is the President, oratory is a chief function of his job, to express ideas to others from here and the rest of the world, to presuade and understand, so it's not completely trivial.) comes from people who had no problem pointing out another president's fondness for cheese burgers and the biggest thing that they managed to get was a consentual blow job.


I had no problem with that; I have a problem with perjury.

I had no problem with that; I have a problem with perjury.
I do to. And yet I have an even bigger problem spending ten million tax dollars getting to ask in inconsiquential question to lie about so the charge can be leveled.

I do to. And yet I have an even bigger problem spending ten million tax dollars getting to ask in inconsiquential question to lie about so the charge can be leveled.

Precisely. It was never a question that should have been asked under oath at the expense of millions of dollars. Isn't it Republicans who argue against the frivolous use of the legal system?

It should be self-evident to one as erudite as yourself.

Sarcasm on your part? I have no problem with you, but you surely seem to have one with me. And I don't often criticize liberals as "young, indigent or ignorant" unless it does, in fact, apply to a particular person and in such a case it is only done in retaliation (I only trade ad hominems after they've been fired my way first; rules of engagement). If you're referring to my cute 'theories' list in the 'why so many liberals here' thread, it would do you great to find yourself a sense of humor (I could send you one, I suppose). Inane fact: I am not a 'tight,' strict, or highly serious person. A great deal of what I say (and post, for that matter) often contains a good deal of jest involved. Yet there are those who fail to recognize it and you, seemingly, are one of them. That, I can't correct.

Precisely. It was never a question that should have been asked under oath and that the expense of millions of dollars. Isn't it Republicans who argue against the frivolous use of the legal system?
Yeppers. I was coming back to clarify:
If no one cares about the blow job, why in the fuck did we spend all that money to ask him about it in the first place?

And no, that doesn't let him off the hook for lieing. I can be mad at more than one entity, I haven't sold my soul.

I do to. And yet I have an even bigger problem spending ten million tax dollars getting to ask in inconsiquential question to lie about so the charge can be leveled.

Yet it was and he did commit perjury, was impeached, and, in this Yooper's opinion, escaped the punishment he deserved. In my point of veiw, the matter of whether or not the question should have been asked under oath is a different bathtub of lobsters.

EDIT: I see your second post and acknowledge. Yays. :)

Yet it was and he did commit perjury, was impeached, and, in this Yooper's opinion, escaped the punishment he deserved. In my point of veiw, the matter of whether or not the question should have been asked under oath is a different bathtub of lobsters.
That's a pretty slidey scale of accountability that seems to saddle right alongside party lines. Telling, that.

Sarcasm on your part? I have no problem with you, but you surely seem to have one with me. And I don't often criticize liberals as "young, indigent or ignorant" unless it does, in fact, apply to a particular person and in such a case it is only done in retaliation (I only trade ad hominems after they've been fired my way first; rules of engagement). If you're referring to my cute 'theories' list in the 'why so many liberals here' thread, it would do you great to find yourself a sense of humor (I could send you one, I suppose). Inane fact: I am not a 'tight,' strict, or highly serious person. A great deal of what I say (and post, for that matter) often contains a good deal of jest involved. Yet there are those who fail to recognize it and you, seemingly, are one of them. That, I can't correct.

Lol. I offered my "counter theories" in the same spirit as you offered your original "theories." Perhaps if one intends to sail the rough waters of humor, one should be prepared to take as well as one can give. :D

That's a pretty slidey scale of accountability that seems to saddle right alongside party lines. Telling, that.

You lost me slightly. I credit a momentary space-out for such, but I digress.....clarify, lest I go from confused to bewildered and then to, God fear it, flummoxed. ;)

Lol. I offered my "counter theories" in the same spirit as you offered your original "theories." Perhaps if one intends to sail the rough waters of humor, one should be prepared to take as well as one can give. :D

Aww snap. Duly noted at any level. ;)

Aww snap. Duly noted at any level. ;)

I just can't feel any ill will towards someone who I've caused to exclaim, "Aww snap."

Rove testimony. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/15/cia.leak.rove.ap/index.html)

If this is proven, I can't imagine better traitors at the moment. And traitors end up executed. ;)
Actually, it depends on the state they're in. If it's politicians committing treason, they'd probably be put on trial in Washington D.C., which doesn't have a death penalty.

Just yesterday I tuned into C-SPAN to watch a Congressional hearing on the incident.

That hearing was amazing. :eek: They debunked every single RNC lie in existence with the help of a registered Republican. Everyone - whether you love Rove or hate him, whether you think you know everything about this case or you are almost clueless - should watch this video (http://************/9nnmf).

seems as if that link is (censored) up at the moment.

hmmm....worked fine a minute ago
here is the direct link (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter072205_identity.rm) to the video. (real player required)

Are you saying that Karl Rove doesn't deserve to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty?
I'm saying that some of the same people who are calling for him to be treated fairly are some of the same people who offer no such fairness on the other side of the political spectrum. I didn't think I'd actually have to explain myself over that, though. To be perfectly clear: Yes, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.