Karl Rove, The American Traitor?

[jAZ]

It's wouldn't be shocking if it's true. It would reveal what many already believe... that Karl Rove is on the side of power, not patriotism.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

[mlyonsd]

Holy crap. Not only are you gunning for Bush AND Blair....now you're going after the brain child.

I'd start looking both ways b4 crossing the street.

[Earthling]

I'll hold judgement untill it can be proven without doubt. If whoever did leak her name is found out they should be tried for treason.

[Ugly Duck]

See, you guys? I tried to tell you, but you thought I wuzza foil-hatted nutcase.... HA!!

[go bowe]

surely rove isn't that stupid...

[Joe Seahawk]

The evil mastermind rove is simply setting up O-Donnell to make him look like a fool.. similar to what he did to Dan Rather among others..

:fire:

[Taco John]

I wonder what William Safire thinks of this?

[penchief]

surely rove isn't that stupid...

It would surprise me also if he is that stupid. I do believe he is that despicable.

[the Talking Can]

surely rove isn't that stupid...

you'd think....but....I'm sure people said the same about Nixon, Clinton, etc...


wow, if this is true....

[Ugly Duck]

It would surprise me also if he is that stupid. I do believe he is that despicable.You have to remember what we're dealing with here... this admin is not made up of regular folk. These are examples of the lowest form of human filth. These guyz are like the Nixon White House on steroids with a nasty bacterial infection and a toothache. Sure, they are a low and foul bunch, but "stupid?" I dunno, filth works in mysterious ways.....

[Bootlegged]

GET DA BUSHIES!!!

[Bootlegged]

How may websites are you going to start this on, DU Jiz?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4000279#4000328


Do everyone a favor, and keep your Chiefs connection to yourself in public. You're embarrassing everyone.

[memyselfI]

Call me a cynic but it won't matter...

the WH will lie, deceive, or otherwise blame everyone else for 'misunderstanding' or 'misinterpreting' what Rove was saying about Plume if it's true. He did not 'intend' to out her. He was acting on 'good faith.' He 'regrets any misunderstanding he may have caused.'

They have not been held accountable for jack shit up until now. Why would a smoking gun, if there is one, change anything?

OTOH, if it's true and Time can 'out' Rove by cooperating with the Grand Jury then I think this breach of journalistic ethics is warranted.

[yoswif]

I'm sure Karl Rove has clandestine meetings with reporters like Cooper all the time. They're his kind of people.

/sarc

[dirk digler]

Does it really matter if Rove did provide this information? Hypothetically this how I see it playing out if Rove did provide this info.

1. Rove gets arrested.
2. Rove goes to trial.
3. Rove gets convicted of perjury and whatnot.
4. The last day of Bush's term, Bush pardons Rove.

I do like this picture though.



http://tinypic.com/6ixhtu.jpg

[Taco John]

Call me a cynic but it won't matter...

the WH will lie, deceive, or otherwise blame everyone else for 'misunderstanding' or 'misinterpreting' what Rove was saying about Plume if it's true. He did not 'intend' to out her. He was acting on 'good faith.' He 'regrets any misunderstanding he may have caused.'

They have not been held accountable for jack shit up until now. Why would a smoking gun, if there is one, change anything?

OTOH, if it's true and Time can 'out' Rove by cooperating with the Grand Jury then I think this breach of journalistic ethics is warranted.



I can't believe that anyone will be able to spin treason for political gain as an act of good faith is this is true. Given America's current attitudes on the war, the Bush Administration would be damaged beyond salvage if Karl Rove really outed a CIA agent in order to send a political message. This makes Watergate look like a bunch of kids with tin cans and string.

We'll find out soon enough. With a Supreme Court nomination up for grabs, the political "turbo" button is pushed. If this is real, and I have my doubts that it is (I can't believe Karl would be so foolish), it will be all over the place.

[RINGLEADER]

Well if Lawrence O'Donnell says it then it must be true. He was so right about Kerry after all. I'm just surprised the liberal press isn't saying Bush gave out the information...

[RINGLEADER]

I can't believe that anyone will be able to spin treason for political gain as an act of good faith is this is true. Given America's current attitudes on the war, the Bush Administration would be damaged beyond salvage if Karl Rove really outed a CIA agent in order to send a political message. This makes Watergate look like a bunch of kids with tin cans and string.

We'll find out soon enough. With a Supreme Court nomination up for grabs, the political "turbo" button is pushed. If this is real, and I have my doubts that it is (I can't believe Karl would be so foolish), it will be all over the place.


If you look at the statute, even if Rove is the leaker, it will be next to impossible to convict him of anything. If they get legit info (sorry, but Lawrence O'Donnell's proclaimations just don't instill a lot of confidence) that Rove did something maliciously, however, then he should rightfully be dragged across hot coals. I can't believe he'd be that stupid for something so petty, but a lot of smart people do stupid things...

[stevieray]

You have to remember what we're dealing with here... this admin is not made up of regular folk. These are examples of the lowest form of human filth. These guyz are like the Nixon White House on steroids with a nasty bacterial infection and a toothache. Sure, they are a low and foul bunch, but "stupid?" I dunno, filth works in mysterious ways.....

The lowest form of human filth../.Doesn't suprise me that you would think they are worse than Osama and Saddam.

[Cochise]

I don't know about the rest of you, but if anyone but jAZ is named successor to Art Bell it will be a travesty.

[the Talking Can]

fwi, here's some further comments on it, from him...O'Donnell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html)


"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

[Taco John]

If you look at the statute, even if Rove is the leaker, it will be next to impossible to convict him of anything...



I don't think it's the mere conviction Bush should worry about. It's the open-ended investigation and the political fall-out at a very critical juncture.

[RINGLEADER]

I don't think it's the mere conviction Bush should worry about. It's the open-ended investigation and the political fall-out at a very critical juncture.


Well, if you can't win elections, I guess that would be something to get excited about...

[Taco John]

I'm not excited. I think it sucks... I'm sick of this crap. But then, I think this is all just so much payback for when the Republicans didn't win the Clinton election and felt the need to drag the country through his sex life. That's just my personal feeling is that the left is still reeling from that whole ordeal and has been looking for payback ever since. That's a dangerous game the right played there, "Get Him at Any Cost." It's a game that the left is now playing.

And if this Rove thing is true, I don't think the left is going to have any trouble winning elections for awhile...

[the Talking Can]

What about the fact that Bush has knowingly been protecting the leaker?

What about the principle of the matter?

Oh, wait....republicans save their principle for condeming Sponge Bob Square Pants.

We don't need a court verdict, we already know the White House orchestrated this. And that tells us everything about thier "honesty" in relation to the sales-job that was Iraq.

[RINGLEADER]

fwi, here's some further comments on it, from him...O'Donnell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html)


"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."


I wonder why they needed to threaten the other reporter with jail time when they could have just asked Lawrence O'Donnell? Also, if O'Donnell knew it was Rove months ago don't you think he would have dropped that bombshell on his own (especially if he knew it before the election)?

He could be right. If Rove busted the law he should face the wheel. Like I said, smart people - stupid things...

[Taco John]

I wonder why they needed to threaten the other reporter with jail time when they could have just asked Lawrence O'Donnell? Also, if O'Donnell knew it was Rove months ago don't you think he would have dropped that bombshell on his own (especially if he knew it before the election)?

He could be right. If Rove busted the law he should face the wheel. Like I said, smart people - stupid things...


Lawrence was probably under non-disclosure of some sort... Standard media practice.

[RINGLEADER]

What about the fact that Bush has knowingly been protecting the leaker?

What about the principle of the matter?

Oh, wait....republicans save their principle for condeming Sponge Bob Square Pants.

We don't need a court verdict, we already know the White House orchestrated this. And that tells us everything about thier "honesty" in relation to the sales-job that was Iraq.


Whoa, Nellie...maybe you can prove Rove did it before you try to prove Bush "knowingly protected" the leaker. I'm with you on this if Rove is the perp, but don't let your liberal zest get in the way of the facts.

Just trying to help protect you from some embarrassment if O'Donnel is wrong (again).

[Taco John]

Whoa, Nellie...maybe you can prove Rove did it before you try to prove Bush "knowingly protected" the leaker. I'm with you on this if Rove is the perp, but don't let your liberal zest get in the way of the facts.

Just trying to help protect you from some embarrassment if O'Donnel is wrong (again).



No doubt. Bush will be well insulated on this one...

[RINGLEADER]

Lawrence was probably under non-disclosure of some sort... Standard media practice.


You're joking, right? I don't remember seeing too many NDAs for news information being signed by reporters when I was in the media. Anyway, O'Donnell has already said why he didn't reveal it at the time and given his partisan background I don't buy it.

All other caveats remaining of course... ;)

[RINGLEADER]

I'm not excited. I think it sucks... I'm sick of this crap. But then, I think this is all just so much payback for when the Republicans didn't win the Clinton election and felt the need to drag the country through his sex life. That's just my personal feeling is that the left is still reeling from that whole ordeal and has been looking for payback ever since. That's a dangerous game the right played there, "Get Him at Any Cost." It's a game that the left is now playing.

And if this Rove thing is true, I don't think the left is going to have any trouble winning elections for awhile...


I hear ya. The whole Lewinsky thing turning out to be true didn't help the GOPpers much though. Not comparing the veracity of the two events, just that things sometimes don't work out the way you think they will. And until the Dems decide they're going to be hardcore on defense they're going to be starting with two strikes in every election they run.

Which, again, is why I'm hoping Biden gets the nod.

[Michael Michigan]

Lawrence was probably under non-disclosure of some sort... Standard media practice.

Huh?

:spock:

[go bowe]

Huh?

:spock:well, you have to be a liberal journalist to do those nda's...

or so i've heard... :p :p :p

[Taco John]

You're joking, right? I don't remember seeing too many NDAs for news information being signed by reporters when I was in the media.


I think it all just depends on circumstances. You said it yourself, he's a partisan. It's in his interest to play ball with the gate keepers who might be his friends on the side and giving him the inside dirt. Who knows. I think that element of it is pretty inconsequential.

[Taco John]

Huh?

:spock:



You've never heard of an NDA?

I'm taking a client on press tour next week to all the major media outlets in their industry, and talking with reporters about news we will be announcing in September. Not every journalist will accept news embargos. But enough of them will that the company is throwing thousands of dollars behind the effort.

[jAZ]

http://www.blogd.com/archives/000298.html

"We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

George H.W. Bush April 16th, 1999 Dedication Speech George Bush Center for Intelligence

[jAZ]

How may websites are you going to start this on, DU Jiz?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4000279#4000328


Do everyone a favor, and keep your Chiefs connection to yourself in public. You're embarrassing everyone.
You always seemed unbalanced, but now you are just a stalker. Congrats on the downward spiral.

[patteeu]

Another day, another slimy thread title from our local slime merchant, jAZ.

On the same program that Lawrence O'Donnell made this statement, he also admitted that the disclosure of Plame's name didn't fit the statute making it a crime to disclose an undercover agent's identity (i.e. there is no underlying crime, certainly nothing that would justify the label "traitor.").

At worst, this is another Martha Stewart style witchhunt by a prosecutor looking for a perjury charge to justify the expense of his investigation.

[patteeu]

You always seemed unbalanced, but now you are just a stalker. Congrats on the downward spiral.

I thought you always claimed to be a moderate who tended toward the left at ChiefsPlanet to balance the conservative center of gravity. What's your excuse for tending toward the left at DU? For a moderate, you sure do fit in well over there.

[WoodDraw]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

I think everyone needs to take a wait and see attitude to this.

[Bootlegged]

You always seemed unbalanced, but now you are just a stalker. Congrats on the downward spiral.


Don't you have an activist activity to plan with your jerk off hippie buddies? Go get da Bushies Jiz. Get em.

[Taco John]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

I think everyone needs to take a wait and see attitude to this.



I totally agree. This is treason we're talking here (or at least that's the impression I'm under, given Bush's statements on this). The left is always quick to throw Rove under the bus, and while they have good reason (he's a superb strategist), it's way to early to rush to judgement.

[RINGLEADER]

the newsweek story sure succeeds in making O'Donnell's "bombshell" sound more like a firecraker. I guess Rove is on record with the grand jury as saying he didn't reveal that Plame was a CIA agent while also signing a waiver allowing Cooper to testify about anything they talked about. Doesn't sound very nefarious to me...

But like everyone else says we'll wait and see. Fitzgerald is actually a guy I know in a roundabout way and he's a fair guy...but if something happened he'll root it out.

[Michael Michigan]

You've never heard of an NDA?



Like Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise--right?

Oh--wait--that's PDA.

[Michael Michigan]

the newsweek story sure succeeds in making O'Donnell's "bombshell" sound more like a firecraker. I guess Rove is on record with the grand jury as saying he didn't reveal that Plame was a CIA agent while also signing a waiver allowing Cooper to testify about anything they talked about. Doesn't sound very nefarious to me...

But like everyone else says we'll wait and see. Fitzgerald is actually a guy I know in a roundabout way and he's a fair guy...but if something happened he'll root it out.

More...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002356167_webrove02.html

Lawyer says Rove talked to reporter, did not leak name

By Carol D. Leonnig

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, spoke with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative, his lawyer confirmed today.

Rove is identified in Cooper's notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald — under court order. Fitzgerald is investigating whether senior administration officials leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to reporters in July 2003 as retaliation after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.

Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Cooper has said that more than one confidential source is identified in his e-mails and the notes of interviews he conducted in July 2003 after Wilson's opinion piece appeared in the New York Times. Reporters were calling the White House with questions about Wilson's assertions, which senior government officials tried to discredit.

Plame's name first appeared in Robert D. Novak's syndicated column in July 2003, eight days after Wilson's opinion piece critical of the Bush administration appeared in the Times. Wilson was sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate allegations that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger, and he reported that he found no proof. His opinion piece accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify going to war with Iraq

After the Novak column, Wilson said the White House had damaged his wife's career and had put all her contacts in jeopardy. He initially accused Rove of being behind the leak, then retracted that statement. It is a felony to knowingly identify a covert operative.

Rove answered questions under oath for about two hours before a grand jury on Oct. 15 as part of the special prosecutor's investigation. According to Luskin, the prosecutor said he believes Rove was candid and forthcoming about his contact with reporters.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," Luskin said.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face four months in jail as early as Wednesday for defying Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan's order to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation. The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the reporters' appeals of Hogan's order.

[Logical]

Well, if you can't win elections, I guess that would be something to get excited about...
Sorry but you have lost me, are you really saying that because the Democrats did not win in the last two elections it makes it less onerous that a top White House official may have direct led to the death of a CIA agent to display pettiness and project unacceptable abuse of power/influence. If so that is f*cking disgusting. One good thing is that this may finally lead to a full on investigation of the potential misdeeds of this White House.

[go bowe]

as long as there is a republican majority in both houses, don't hold your breath for any such investigation... :( :( :(

[Earthling]

Sorry but you have lost me, are you really saying that because the Democrats did not win in the last two elections it makes it less onerous that a top White House official may have direct led to the death of a CIA agent to display pettiness and project unacceptable abuse of power/influence. If so that is f*cking disgusting. One good thing is that this may finally lead to a full on investigation of the potential misdeeds of this White House.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[RINGLEADER]

Sorry but you have lost me, are you really saying that because the Democrats did not win in the last two elections it makes it less onerous that a top White House official may have direct led to the death of a CIA agent to display pettiness and project unacceptable abuse of power/influence. If so that is f*cking disgusting. One good thing is that this may finally lead to a full on investigation of the potential misdeeds of this White House.


Bah Vlad. I'm saying that people like Lawrence O'Donnell on the far left get a chubby over the prospect of the leaker being Rove because it helps them in their goal of hurting Bush. Their motives aren't based in patriotism or truth-finding. They want to hurt Bush politically. That's f*cking disgusting. As is the crap that Durbin says, the crap Dean says, and the crap other far-lefties like Ward Churchill say. The left doesn't seem to have much to cheer about on election nights so they get overly excited about info (as I presumed in this instance) that turns out to be less than what was advertised (by O'Donnell in this case).

But again, I'm all with the left if Rove broke the law. He should be locked up if that's proven. I don't think Rove giving a guy an interview automatically translates into Rove giving up the name of Valerie Plame. O'Donnell and some on the left want that to be true, but...what was the name of that Stones' song?

[mlyonsd]

Bah Vlad. I'm saying that people like Lawrence O'Donnell on the far left get a chubby over the prospect of the leaker being Rove because it helps them in their goal of hurting Bush. Their motives aren't based in patriotism or truth-finding. They want to hurt Bush politically. That's f*cking disgusting. As is the crap that Durbin says, the crap Dean says, and the crap other far-lefties like Ward Churchill say. The left doesn't seem to have much to cheer about on election nights so they get overly excited about info (as I presumed in this instance) that turns out to be less than what was advertised (by O'Donnell in this case).

But again, I'm all with the left if Rove broke the law. He should be locked up if that's proven. I don't think Rove giving a guy an interview automatically translates into Rove giving up the name of Valerie Plame. O'Donnell and some on the left want that to be true, but...what was the name of that Stones' song?

True dat.

[dirk digler]

Bah Vlad. I'm saying that people like Lawrence O'Donnell on the far left get a chubby over the prospect of the leaker being Rove because it helps them in their goal of hurting Bush. Their motives aren't based in patriotism or truth-finding. They want to hurt Bush politically. That's f*cking disgusting. As is the crap that Durbin says, the crap Dean says, and the crap other far-lefties like Ward Churchill say. The left doesn't seem to have much to cheer about on election nights so they get overly excited about info (as I presumed in this instance) that turns out to be less than what was advertised (by O'Donnell in this case).

But again, I'm all with the left if Rove broke the law. He should be locked up if that's proven. I don't think Rove giving a guy an interview automatically translates into Rove giving up the name of Valerie Plame. O'Donnell and some on the left want that to be true, but...what was the name of that Stones' song?

Eerily similar to what the RWNJ's did in the 90's under Clinton.

What comes around goes around.

[the Talking Can]

Bah Vlad. I'm saying that people like Lawrence O'Donnell on the far left get a chubby over the prospect of the leaker being Rove because it helps them in their goal of hurting Bush. Their motives aren't based in patriotism or truth-finding. They want to hurt Bush politically. That's f*cking disgusting. As is the crap that Durbin says, the crap Dean says, and the crap other far-lefties like Ward Churchill say. The left doesn't seem to have much to cheer about on election nights so they get overly excited about info (as I presumed in this instance) that turns out to be less than what was advertised (by O'Donnell in this case).

But again, I'm all with the left if Rove broke the law. He should be locked up if that's proven. I don't think Rove giving a guy an interview automatically translates into Rove giving up the name of Valerie Plame. O'Donnell and some on the left want that to be true, but...what was the name of that Stones' song?

funny..things people say outrage you...things people actually do, like outing CIA operatives for revenge, only merit a mild, legalistic, vague response

your two paragraphs taken together are perfect example of the complete absence of principle laying at the hearts of partisan hacks...non-events are treated like high crimes while real crimes are explained away

bravo...oh, and you need to work on your faux-outrage...not your best effort...

[mlyonsd]

funny..things people say outrage you...things people actually do, like outing CIA operatives for revenge, only merit a mild, legalistic, vague response

your two paragraphs taken together are perfect example of the complete absence of principle laying at the hearts of partisan hacks...non-events are treated like high crimes while real crimes are explained away

bravo...oh, and you need to work on your faux-outrage...not your best effort...

And your entire post proves RL's point whether you care to admit it or not.

I'm not sure how you can call RL calling for Rove to be locked up if the allegations were true being partisan.

Jesus, listen to yourself.

[Taco John]

Hey Ringleader, I altered your quote a bit for comedic effect...


Bah Vlad. I'm saying that people like Rush Limbaugh on the far right get a chubby over the prospect of Monica Lewinsky because it helps them in their goal of hurting Clinton. Their motives aren't based in patriotism or truth-finding. They want to hurt Clinton politically. That's f*cking disgusting.


You shaming the Left for anything involving witch hunts is not only hilarious, but it just shows how politically shortsighted you are. This is just more of the same... Carry-over from what your side did the last time, when a Democrat president was in office. You can't seriously expect that your side was going to be able to put a very popular President on display in front of the American people for receiving a blow job, and not expect that they'd be turning up every rock in the nation to get back at you...

[RINGLEADER]

Eerily similar to what the RWNJ's did in the 90's under Clinton.

What comes around goes around.


I'll agree with that to some extent. Although Clinton actually was proven to have done something that broke the law. And if Rove is likewise proven guilty then he should suffer the consequences too.

[RINGLEADER]

funny..things people say outrage you...things people actually do, like outing CIA operatives for revenge, only merit a mild, legalistic, vague response

your two paragraphs taken together are perfect example of the complete absence of principle laying at the hearts of partisan hacks...non-events are treated like high crimes while real crimes are explained away

bravo...oh, and you need to work on your faux-outrage...not your best effort...


What are you talking about TC? I've said over and over that if Rove is responsible he should be seeing the inside of a prison cell. My comments in the above referenced paragraph are in response to why Lawrence O'Donnell and those on the far-left seem unwilling to wait for the facts before jumping to conclusions that fit their partisan beliefs. And until it's proven Rove is the one who did it (and his willingness to let Cooper talk about anything they discussed seems to undercut that contention) I'm not going to join your outrage over why he's not headed to jail. There's no proof that he is even involved, Lawrence O'Donnell's mighty proclaimations notwithstanding.

It's funny how the Howard Dean's of the world think Usama Bin Laden should have due process but when it comes to Karl Rove or Tom DeLay they don't need to be anything more than suspects in the heads of the Left.

I'm not so partisan as to say that if it's Karl Rove who broke the law then he should be held accountable. But are you so partisan in your beliefs as to find it impossible that he just might not have anything to do with it?

[Michael Michigan]

Hey Ringleader, I altered your quote a bit for comedic effect...

Originally Posted by RINGLEADER

Bah Vlad. I'm saying that people like Rush Limbaugh on the far right get a chubby over the prospect of Monica Lewinsky because it helps them in their goal of hurting Clinton. Their motives aren't based in patriotism or truth-finding. They want to hurt Clinton politically. That's f*cking disgusting.

Comedy?

Don't quit the day job.

;)

[dirk digler]

I'll agree with that to some extent. Although Clinton actually was proven to have done something that broke the law. And if Rove is likewise proven guilty then he should suffer the consequences too.

I am good with that.

I don't think in the end it really matters anyway. As I pointed out earlier in this thread if he did it and gets convicted Bush will pardon him so it is highly unlikely he would serve any jail time.

[RINGLEADER]

Hey Ringleader, I altered your quote a bit for comedic effect...





You shaming the Left for anything involving witch hunts is not only hilarious, but it just shows how politically shortsighted you are. This is just more of the same... Carry-over from what your side did the last time, when a Democrat president was in office. You can't seriously expect that your side was going to be able to put a very popular President on display in front of the American people for receiving a blow job, and not expect that they'd be turning up every rock in the nation to get back at you...


Your changes are accurate to the degree that Clinton lied for months to keep the facts a secret. If the same holds true for Rove then your comparison is valid (as far as comparing a president lying to protect himself is the same as a presidential assistant lying to protect himself) and if Rove turns out to have not done anything then it doesn't.

That's the only point I'm trying to make here. That there is ZERO evidence that Rove is the person responsible despite how much Jaz and O'Donnell and others on the left like to think he is. And the fact that Dean would find it necessary to forward due process to a terrorist that killed thousands of Americans and not to Tom DeLay or Karl Rove sort of underscores the point I made above.

[RINGLEADER]

I am good with that.

I don't think in the end it really matters anyway. As I pointed out earlier in this thread if he did it and gets convicted Bush will pardon him so it is highly unlikely he would serve any jail time.


Well that kind of crap - left or right - does piss me off. Whether its Delay or Pelosi skirting the law on contributions or gifts from lobbyists it always seems like the pinheads in Washington can just go re-file stuff and all is forgiven. Just think if the same standards applied to the rest of us for speeding tickets, IRS filings, or other things of that nature.

[dirk digler]

Well that kind of crap - left or right - does piss me off. Whether its Delay or Pelosi skirting the law on contributions or gifts from lobbyists it always seems like the pinheads in Washington can just go re-file stuff and all is forgiven. Just think if the same standards applied to the rest of us for speeding tickets, IRS filings, or other things of that nature.

It pisses me off too but all of the latest POTUS have done it. Reagan pardoned his friends, so did Bush Senior IIRC, Clinton did, and I fully expect George W to do the same.

[jAZ]

Rove's lawyer explains Rove's defense... It seems to hinge on the word "knowingly".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

[Donger]

How may websites are you going to start this on, DU Jiz?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4000279#4000328


Do everyone a favor, and keep your Chiefs connection to yourself in public. You're embarrassing everyone.

Wow. I distinctly remember jAZ giving someonw here a rather hard time about posting on FreeRepublic.

[jAZ]

Wow. I distinctly remember jAZ giving someonw here a rather hard time about posting on FreeRepublic.
Really?

[Donger]

Really?

Yes. It was either Brock or Lattimer. IIRC, you made it rather clear that you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs.

[jAZ]

Yes. It was either Brock or Lattimer. IIRC, you made it rather clear that you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs.
You seem to hold yourself to a different standard than you do others. Or are you on your way to prove these statements?

I actually suspect that lots of people around here read and/or post on FreeRepublic.

[Donger]

You seem to hold yourself to a different standard than you do others. Or are you on your way to prove these statements?

I actually suspect that lots of people around here read and/or post on FreeRepublic.

Do you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs?

If you will answer that, there will be no need. It was a VERY long time ago and came in the form of a PM from you to me. IIRC, you stated something about a post I made about FR and how I wasn't very fond of that site any longer because of the extremist nature of the site and how it's just a right-wing circle jerk that doesn't permit debate. You said something like, "Don't let Brock (or Lattimer) see this!"

[Ultra Peanut]

"Karl Rove -- *HOOOOOOOOOOOWL*"

[jAZ]

Do you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs?

If you will answer that, there will be no need. It was a VERY long time ago and came in the form of a PM from you to me. IIRC, you stated something about a post I made about FR and how I wasn't very fond of that site any longer because of the extremist nature of the site and how it's just a right-wing circle jerk that doesn't permit debate. You said something like, "Don't let Brock (or Lattimer) see this!"
ROFL

Make sure you never ask for proof ever again for anything, lest you show yourself a hypocrite.

The only comment I ever recall making about FR, is a suspicion that RL is a regular. And that was a long time ago, and not in a PM to you, but on the board.

And, no... I know almost nothing about FR first hand... other than the fact that they have a crappy UI for a message board. I don't understand how even die-hard Bush backers can stand to post there based on the format alone.

As for the people, I'm guessing its identical to DU. All types of conservatives frequent the board... and the loudest/most-visable are the radical RWNJ's. DU has plenty of radical LWNJ's too.

I know a good deal more about DU, and I see disputes between posters there on issues from religion, abortion, economic policy, etc.

I'm sure you can tell me if something similar happens at FR. I have no similar experience there, but my experience is very old and very, very limited.

[Donger]

ROFL

Make sure you never ask for proof ever again for anything, lest you show yourself a hypocrite.

The only comment I ever recall making about FR, is a suspicion that RL is a regular. And that was a long time ago, and not in a PM to you, but on the board.

And, no... I know almost nothing about FR first hand... other than the fact that they have a crappy UI for a message board. I don't understand how even die-hard Bush backers can stand to post there based on the format alone.

As for the people, I'm guessing its identical to DU. All types of conservatives frequent the board... and the loudest/most-visable are the radical RWNJ's. DU has plenty of radical LWNJ's too.

I know a good deal more about DU, and I see disputes between posters there on issues from religion, abortion, economic policy, etc.

I'm sure you can tell me if something similar happens at FR. I have no similar experience there, but my experience is very old and very, very limited.

It was actually a rep, not a PM, and it was so long ago that it's not available. If it were, I'd be happy to post it, and the link to the thread in question.

[RINGLEADER]

Rove's lawyer explains Rove's defense... It seems to hinge on the word "knowingly".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.


Yeah, that's definitely a weasel word. Why didn't you highlight the next sentence where he says he "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" though? Isn't that the illegal part?

[RINGLEADER]

ROFL

Make sure you never ask for proof ever again for anything, lest you show yourself a hypocrite.

The only comment I ever recall making about FR, is a suspicion that RL is a regular. And that was a long time ago, and not in a PM to you, but on the board.


Again, Jaz's suspicions are wrong.

I read DU more than FR. The only time I can remember looking at FR this year was when someone called about a Tsunami warning and I couldn't find mention of it on the tube or online. Sure enough someone there had posted the info.

I find it funny that most around here think I'm a RWNJ.

[jAZ]

Again, Jaz's suspicions are wrong.

I read DU more than FR. The only time I can remember looking at FR this year was when someone called about a Tsunami warning and I couldn't find mention of it on the tube or online. Sure enough someone there had posted the info.

I find it funny that most around here think I'm a RWNJ.
You are an ameture Republican Party operative. You might be more middle of the road on policy, but you are all-team in your propaganda.

[Logical]

Do you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs?

If you will answer that, there will be no need. It was a VERY long time ago and came in the form of a PM from you to me. IIRC, you stated something about a post I made about FR and how I wasn't very fond of that site any longer because of the extremist nature of the site and how it's just a right-wing circle jerk that doesn't permit debate. You said something like, "Don't let Brock (or Lattimer) see this!"I have never found it acceptable for people to reveal other peoples Private Messages to make a point. You should have kept this debate in PMs if you needed to use that to support your argument. I have castigate those on the left who do this and I will castigate those on the right who do the same. Bad, bad values IMO.

[Logical]

Again, Jaz's suspicions are wrong.

I read DU more than FR. The only time I can remember looking at FR this year was when someone called about a Tsunami warning and I couldn't find mention of it on the tube or online. Sure enough someone there had posted the info.

I find it funny that most around here think I'm a RWNJ.Actually I would say you are more of a shill for the RWNJs, not a practicing member. Almost as bad IMO.

[Donger]

I have never found it acceptable for people to reveal other peoples Private Messages to make a point. You should have kept this debate in PMs if you needed to use that to support your argument. I have castigate those on the left who do this and I will castigate those on the right who do the same. Bad, bad values IMO.

It wasn't a PM. It was a rep statement. And if you consider that to be bad values, so be it.

[Bootlegged]

Do you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs?

If you will answer that, there will be no need. It was a VERY long time ago and came in the form of a PM from you to me. IIRC, you stated something about a post I made about FR and how I wasn't very fond of that site any longer because of the extremist nature of the site and how it's just a right-wing circle jerk that doesn't permit debate. You said something like, "Don't let Brock (or Lattimer) see this!"


Just FTR, I don't post on political websites. Just one quazi-political site, this one. Watching the Jiz's of the world wet themselves over da Bushies is entertainment enough.

[Logical]

Do you consider FR to be a mindless bunch of right wing nutjobs?

If you will answer that, there will be no need. It was a VERY long time ago and came in the form of a PM from you to me. IIRC, you stated something about a post I made about FR and how I wasn't very fond of that site any longer because of the extremist nature of the site and how it's just a right-wing circle jerk that doesn't permit debate. You said something like, "Don't let Brock (or Lattimer) see this!"

Donger, you are the one who said it was from a PM not me. See bold above.

[Donger]

Donger, you are the one who said it was from a PM not me. See bold above.

Yes, I know. I was incorrect, and corrected myself in a later post.

[Cochise]

It's funny how the Howard Dean's of the world think Usama Bin Laden should have due process but when it comes to Karl Rove or Tom DeLay they don't need to be anything more than suspects in the heads of the Left.


yep :hmmm:

[Logical]

Yes, I know. I was incorrect, and corrected myself in a later post.OK, I checked back a few posts and found that correction, too bad I missed it the first time through.

[NewPhin]

Actually I would say you are more of a shill for the RWNJs, not a practicing member. Almost as bad IMO.

Worse. Because he knows better but does it anyway.

[Taco John]

It's funny how the Howard Dean's of the world think Usama Bin Laden should have due process but when it comes to Karl Rove or Tom DeLay they don't need to be anything more than suspects in the heads of the Left.



I don't know about anyone else, but I've never heard anyone make the argument for due process in deference to the Usama's of the world. It's the random cab driver, or fifteen year old boy that gets rounded up in these huge dragnets and may or may not have connections to AQ that people make the argument for due process for. Due process is about protecting innocent people, not coddling terrorists...

[RINGLEADER]

Actually I would say you are more of a shill for the RWNJs, not a practicing member. Almost as bad IMO.

:shrug:

[RINGLEADER]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've never heard anyone make the argument for due process in deference to the Usama's of the world. It's the random cab driver, or fifteen year old boy that gets rounded up in these huge dragnets and may or may not have connections to AQ that people make the argument for due process for. Due process is about protecting innocent people, not coddling terrorists...

Howard Dean did.

[RINGLEADER]

Worse. Because he knows better but does it anyway.


Because I ask for people to explain how Bush lied about the Iraq war or Karl Rove is an American Traitor or how social security will do worse by earning more when there are no facts to support those conclusions?

I think I'm the only RWNJ who supports Joe Biden for president.

Anyway, all I can do is keeping asking for evidence.

[Taco John]

Howard Dean did.


Well Howard Dean is an idiot then.

[Logical]

Well, if you can't win elections, I guess that would be something to get excited about...

Yep I sure can see how you were asking for evidence in this post.:rolleyes:

[patteeu]

Yeah, that's definitely a weasel word. Why didn't you highlight the next sentence where he says he "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" though? Isn't that the illegal part?

It's not a weasel word, it's a fairly large distinction that is common throughout our legal system. State of mind is a key component to a large number of our crimes. It can be the difference between actually committing a crime and being completely innocent.

[patteeu]

I have never found it acceptable for people to reveal other peoples Private Messages to make a point. You should have kept this debate in PMs if you needed to use that to support your argument. I have castigate those on the left who do this and I will castigate those on the right who do the same. Bad, bad values IMO.

That's a ridiculous position to take IMO. It's one thing if you offer someone confidentiality, but the sender shouldn't be able to impose it on you. Did you think it was wrong of Taco to expose the PMs he was receiving that he felt were threatening and harassing? I didn't.

[Cochise]

I rate this thread....

5 :rolleyes

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

[RINGLEADER]

It's not a weasel word, it's a fairly large distinction that is common throughout our legal system. State of mind is a key component to a large number of our crimes. It can be the difference between actually committing a crime and being completely innocent.


Not if Rove did it knowingly but can simply say that he was momentarily stupid and didn't intend for it to happen.

I know I'm treading precariously close to losing my credentials as a RWNJ propagandist shill but when actions that are wrong become somehow less wrong based merely on interpretation of the action then it's kinda whacked.

[Cochise]

So has anything new happened or are there still a couple of reporters trying to finger Rove while he denies it (or his lawyer or whatever)

Of course if he exposed a CIA agent he should face whatever the due penalty is for that, but if its word against word for now, I have a hard time believing that anyone would have sat on knowing the fact that he was the source for 'months' given the complete hatred of him from the left. Would they sit by knowing the facts or try to take him down for a 'see I told you he was the devil'? Seems likely to me that they would have broken the story 'months' ago then.

[Michael Michigan]

...I know I'm treading precariously close to losing my credentials as a RWNJ propagandist shill...

Nah--don't worry, they'll still resort to name-calling.

If they slow down for a bit--I'll be a giver and pick up their slack.

;)

Any preferences?

[RINGLEADER]

Yep I sure can see how you were asking for evidence in this post.:rolleyes:


Another great example of how the left likes to pull a single comment and claim the contents (or lack thereof) represent the entire position of the person making said comment.

My comments were in regards to O'Donnell's statement, the interpretation of Jaz of those statements, and the fact that just because O'Donnell says it's so doesn't make it so. As I've said from the beginning - if you can produce evidence that shows Rove did it then I'm all for putting him away. But there is no evidence of that despite what O'Donnell says and I'm sorry but I don't agree with the head of the Democratic Party that Rove should be treated as guilty until proven innocent (especially when he's on record believing Usama should be treated as innocent until proven guilty).

What's quite funny about your shill comment is that it's founded on my belief that Bush's national defense strategy was better than what Kerry advocated, that his economic policy was better than what the Dems wanted and that his plan for social security - that has been proven superior in certain areas of the country - is better than letting it start paying out a fraction of what is promised in 2041. The left around here says Bush Lied about Iraq and I ask how that could be the case give the evidence that Saddam was given the opportunity to tell the UN (and the world) what happened to WMDs he admitted he had in 1998 and he didn't do so.

Sorry, but just because I don't immediately buy into the left's POV (which would actually be easier for some to do in certain cases if it weren't so far out there...see Durbin's statements) doesn't mean I'm not open to finding out FACTS that ultimately supports a position of the left and embracing it.

Which brings us full circle to this thread. If Rove did it he should be held accountable. If he didn't then it looks like my initial reaction will be proven more accurate than certain people to the left of center around here.

[RINGLEADER]

So has anything new happened or are there still a couple of reporters trying to finger Rove while he denies it (or his lawyer or whatever)

Of course if he exposed a CIA agent he should face whatever the due penalty is for that, but if its word against word for now, I have a hard time believing that anyone would have sat on knowing the fact that he was the source for 'months' given the complete hatred of him from the left. Would they sit by knowing the facts or try to take him down for a 'see I told you he was the devil'? Seems likely to me that they would have broken the story 'months' ago then.


Especially if that person fits Vlad's definition of a shill. Funny how Vlad is all indignant on my azz about being a shill while swallowing O'Donnell's "shilliness" hook, line, and sinker.

[patteeu]

Not if Rove did it knowingly but can simply say that he was momentarily stupid and didn't intend for it to happen.

I know I'm treading precariously close to losing my credentials as a RWNJ propagandist shill but when actions that are wrong become somehow less wrong based merely on interpretation of the action then it's kinda whacked.

I think you lost your credentials way back when you first mentioned that you could support Joe Biden, but that's not important right now. :p

You usually can't get out of a crime by claiming that you were momentarily stupid or by denying knowledge that can reasonably be attributed to you (even if you in fact did momentarily go stupid and didn't have a conscious awareness of that knowledge at the time of the act).

If Rove committed a crime, he should pay the consequences. If no crime was committed, he shouldn't be tarred with the notion that he got off on a technicality which is how I took jAZ's post and your response.

[Michael Michigan]

Especially if that person fits Vlad's definition of a shill. Funny how Vlad is all indignant on my azz about being a shill while swallowing O'Donnell's "shilliness" hook, line, and sinker.

Let's don't forget one of Larry's finest moments, the guy was foaming at the mouth.



http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/larry-john.jpg

(CROSSTALK)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6327790/

O‘DONNELL: Which is not in John O‘Neill‘s book, because it‘s a lie.

BUCHANAN: Hold it. It‘s all there.

Look, but he got a Bronze Star, and it did say he took fire. My understanding is, he got the Bronze Star a couple of months later, that it came to him, and it did say he took fire. Thurlow does now say that after the explosion in the river, they fired into the bank for 45 seconds or something, and when they got no return fire, no fire at all, they stopped, and they rescued that other boat.

Now, how does Thurlow answer the question Larry raises about what‘s on his Bronze Star citation?

O‘NEILL: Well, here‘s what Thurlow says.

Thurlow says that, as everyone has said and as Kerry has admitted, he left the scene. He didn‘t stick around. He left the scene and came back. The question is, when he finally came back, was there fire? There are 11 different people, including all four officers, not just Thurlow, and seven enlisted men who say there was no fire.

But, understand, when Kerry came back and picked up Rassmann, he had stayed in exactly the same place. They all did for an hour and a half. There‘s not a bullet hole in any of the boats. Nobody was wounded. This is a 75-yard-wide canal.

BUCHANAN: Tell me, John, about—did not the citation Thurlow got say that they were taking fire?

O‘NEILL: It said under fire. That‘s true. It was based upon Kerry‘s own after-action report.

O‘DONNELL: That‘s a lie. It‘s another lie. That‘s a lie.

O‘NEILL: Which said there had been 5,000 meters of fire.

O‘DONNELL: Absolutely lie.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: You lie in that book endlessly claiming that reports belonged to Kerry that don‘t have his name on it, John O‘Neill.

You lie about documents endlessly. His name is not on the reports.

You‘re just lying about it.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: And you lied about Thurlow‘s Bronze Star. You lied about it as long as you could until “The New York Times” found the wording of what was on the citation that you, as a lying writer, refused to put in your pack-of-lies book.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: Disgusting, lying book.

BUCHANAN: John, let me ask you this.

O‘NEILL: And you, Larry, are a professional liar.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: You have no standards, John O‘Neill, as an author. And you know it. It‘s a pack of lies. You are unfit to publish.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘NEILL: There are 254 of us, Larry. It‘s a little hard to call us all liars.

BUCHANAN: All right, John O‘Neill, let me ask you a quick question. How do you know for certain that John Kerry wrote the after-action report that said the boats were under fire?

O‘NEILL: It has been tracked down specifically in...

O‘DONNELL: Lies.

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: Oh, let him talk.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: He just lies. He just spews out lies.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: Point to his name on the report, you liar. Point to his name, you liar. These are military records. Point to a name.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘NEILL: I will, if you‘ll shut up, Larry. You can‘t just scream everybody down.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘DONNELL: There‘s no name. You just spew lies.

(CROSSTALK)

O‘NEILL: ... let everybody talk, isn‘t...

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN: Look, Lawrence, take it easy. You‘ve made your point.

We‘re going to take a break. We‘re going to give John O‘Neill a chance to answer that when we come back. We‘ll continue this discussion after the break.

[dirk digler]

You usually can't get out of a crime by claiming that you were momentarily stupid or by denying knowledge that can reasonably be attributed to you (even if you in fact did momentarily go stupid and didn't have a conscious awareness of that knowledge at the time of the act).



Spot on. In our legal system there is no excuse for not knowing or being stupid.

[patteeu]

Spot on. In our legal system there is no excuse for not knowing or being stupid.

That's not exactly what my point was. There IS an excuse wrt knowledge-based crimes for not knowing. There isn't an excuse for not knowing when you reasonably should have known.

[dirk digler]

That's not exactly what my point was. There IS an excuse wrt knowledge-based crimes for not knowing. There isn't an excuse for not knowing when you reasonably should have known.


Please do explain because I am not following you. Thanks.

[dirk digler]

Nevermind patteeu, is this what you meant?

I understand that ignorance of the law is no defense. However, a friend of mine passed a bad check and he got off because he didn't know it. How come?

You are confusing two separate issues. The fact that you do not know an act is a crime defined by statute in your state is no defense if you are charged. On the other hand to be charged with passing a bad check, you must know that there is not enough money in your account to cover the check when presented to the bank. Knowledge that the check is not good when you write it is an "element" of the defense. The state has to prove that you wrote the check with knowledge that it wasn't good. If your friend wrote the check believing that there was enough money in his account to cover it when presented, he hasn't committed a crime because one of the elements of the crime is missing.

[penchief]

Spot on. In our legal system there is no excuse for not knowing or being stupid.

How convenient that plea would be for an underhanded, reputation-attacking, insideous political mastermind like Rove.

[Logical]

Especially if that person fits Vlad's definition of a shill. Funny how Vlad is all indignant on my azz about being a shill while swallowing O'Donnell's "shilliness" hook, line, and sinker.

Why don't you quote the post that would indicate I have swallowed O'Donnell's shillness hook, line and sinker.

[Michael Michigan]

By Mickey Kaus
Updated Monday, July 4, 2005, at 2:09 PM PT

Mickey on Larry O'Donnell

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121630/

He Could Be Right! On election night, when Democrats started to worry that the exit polls indicating a Kerry victory might not hold up, someone at a party I attended called up Lawrence O'Donnell for reassurance. Don't worry, we were told--O'Donnell says it's all under control because Kerry will win the key swing states! That's when I knew Bush had been reelected. ... O'Donnell is a brilliant pundit because he picks a clear, intriguing, contrarian position and sticks to it. But he's almost always wrong. Which is why I'll believe his report that "Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source"--headlined "Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover"--when it's confirmed elsewhere. ... Which it pointedly isn't, quite, in Newsweek. ...

Update: In a HuffPo update, O'Donnell accuses Rove's lawyer of choosing his words carefully when saying that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information." [Italics added.] But O'Donnell also seems to be choosing his words carefully. He says of Rove:

"Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years ..."

"Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting ..."

"Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source ..."

"the source of-for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove ..."

He does not say in so many words (at least in any quote I can find) that Rove was the one who outed Plame as a CIA agent, though he seems happy to leave this implication, and he fooled the headline writers at HuffPo and Drudge, who both used the phrase "Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover". [That incautiously worded HuffPo headline has now been dropped, though it's available here and will still be recorded here when the Huffington people wise up and take it down.] In fact, there seems to be less disagreement between O'Donnell and Rove's lawyer than O'Donnell's huffing suggests--maybe no disagreement at all. Both admit Rove talked to Cooper. That presumably means Rove was a source that Cooper was protecting. Neither says that Rove outed Plame, and O'Donnell doesn't think that would be a crime anyway.** So what's the fuss about? Maybe not what Rove told Cooper but what Rove told the grand jury, and whether it was truthful. But O'Donnell doesn't offer any evidence that Rove committed perjury. ...

**: Here's O'Donnell on Hardball from September 30, 2003:

MATTHEWS: Lawrence O'Donnell, you're out here as well. Lawrence, what do you think of this? Give a meter on this.

O'DONNELL: Well, Chris, I think, on a 10 scale, it's about a six. And it is actually going to go down from there, after another month or so of going up, because, at the base of this is an unprovable crime. There will not be a criminal accusation, because if you read the statute, as I've been studying it today, one of the elements that's absolutely necessary is, the person who releases this information must know, actively know, that the CIA is very actively trying to protect and hide the identity of this person.

It will be very easy for amateurs in handling CIA information, like a Karl Rove or someone else at the media end of the White House, to say, I did not know that the CIA was trying to hide her identity.

By the way, I don't think, based on my reading of the statute and the news accounts so far, that this woman fits the definition of the statute either. So I don't think you're going to be able to connect the criminal elements in the case. [Emph. added]

:)

[patteeu]

Nevermind patteeu, is this what you meant?

I understand that ignorance of the law is no defense. However, a friend of mine passed a bad check and he got off because he didn't know it. How come?

You are confusing two separate issues. The fact that you do not know an act is a crime defined by statute in your state is no defense if you are charged. On the other hand to be charged with passing a bad check, you must know that there is not enough money in your account to cover the check when presented to the bank. Knowledge that the check is not good when you write it is an "element" of the defense. The state has to prove that you wrote the check with knowledge that it wasn't good. If your friend wrote the check believing that there was enough money in his account to cover it when presented, he hasn't committed a crime because one of the elements of the crime is missing.

Yes, except that I wasn't confusing two separate issues. Knowledge being an element of the crime (rather than a mere technicality) is what I was talking about from the beginning. Your post #99 mistook my meaning (and looking at the specific post you were responding to, I can see how it was ambiguous).

[patteeu]

How convenient that plea would be for an underhanded, reputation-attacking, insideous political mastermind like Rove.

No matter what you think of Rove, he isn't all knowing.

[Clint in Wichita]

If Rove is proven to be the source, more digging will need to be done. There is little doubt he was ordered to reveal the name, or had his idea for revealing the name greenlighted by his boss.

[RINGLEADER]

If Rove is proven to be the source, more digging will need to be done. There is little doubt he was ordered to reveal the name, or had his idea for revealing the name greenlighted by his boss.


Dems can dig and investigate all they want (their mock impeachment hearings a couple weeks ago were particularly entertaining), but I though Bush was stupid and couldn't tie his shoes without help.

[RINGLEADER]

Yes, except that I wasn't confusing two separate issues. Knowledge being an element of the crime (rather than a mere technicality) is what I was talking about from the beginning. Your post #99 mistook my meaning (and looking at the specific post you were responding to, I can see how it was ambiguous).


My only point is that if he did it with forethought and knowledge but is required by the law to merely claim that he didn't then it's kind of whacked (in the same way Clinton was able to skirt some of the "issues" he had regarding knowledge of how discoverable items ended up under the bed of his secretary).

I'm not saying Rove did anything. In fact, the whole O'Donnell bombshell seems to have disappeared since the end of last week - pretty much as I predicted. I wouldn't expect Fitzgerald to do anything regarding this for months, but it always could happen sooner.

[RINGLEADER]

Why don't you quote the post that would indicate I have swallowed O'Donnell's shillness hook, line and sinker.


FROM VLAD (circa a couple days ago): "Sorry but you have lost me, are you really saying that because the Democrats did not win in the last two elections it makes it less onerous that a top White House official may have direct led to the death of a CIA agent to display pettiness and project unacceptable abuse of power/influence. If so that is f*cking disgusting. <B>One good thing is that this may finally lead to a full on investigation of the potential misdeeds of this White House.</B>"

BTW, Vlad, I don't know where you're getting the "death of a CIA agent" thing but you may want to read a little bit about what you think Rove is being accused of doing before welcoming this information as a "good thing".

[whoman69]

surely rove isn't that stupid...
Stupid wouldn't be the word. Arrogant would fit better. He simply doesn't believe any of the lies and slanders he puts out there can hurt him. Until now, he's been right.

[Ugly Duck]

Rove's lawyer explains Rove's defense... It seems to hinge on the word "knowingly".

Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information"

Hmmmm... an ignorance defense in this case kinda points towards Rove actually saying some kinda something to someone out the identity of the CIA operative.....

First, Rove calls Hardball and says that Wilson's wife was "fair game."

Then, Newsweek sez, "It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official"

Now, Rove's lawyer sez, "Rove never knowingly disclosed classified information"

So Rove thought that it was fair game to out the undercover CIA op. When he finds out that he was wrong and that it was a crime, his lawyer then says that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information."

We then ask ourselves, when Rove thought that outing the op was "fair game," is he the kind of guy that would use that "fair game" for political advantage? Or is he the kind of guy that would think that it was "fair game" to out the op, and then just sit on the info and not use it?

[Taco John]

Dems can dig and investigate all they want (their mock impeachment hearings a couple weeks ago were particularly entertaining), but I though Bush was stupid and couldn't tie his shoes without help.


Classic misunderestimation...

[RINGLEADER]

Stupid wouldn't be the word. Arrogant would fit better. He simply doesn't believe any of the lies and slanders he puts out there can hurt him. Until now, he's been right.


Did something happen? Was Rove indicted? Can you provide a link? Or are you another purchaser of Lawrence O'Donnell's partisan patty-cakes?

[RINGLEADER]

First, Rove calls Hardball and says that Wilson's wife was "fair game."

Didn't he call after her name had already been released?

Then, Newsweek sez, "It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official"

Which is true.

Now, Rove's lawyer sez, "Rove never knowingly disclosed classified information"

He also said he never revealed she was an undercover CIA agent.

If you get proof that shows otherwise LMK. I'll be standing next to you demanding his resignation and jail time.l

[RINGLEADER]

Classic misunderestimation...

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Classic indeed.

Rep.

[Bootlegged]

Lawrence O'Donnell, The American Douchebag.

[RINGLEADER]

BTW, do I become an American Traitor if I post a picture from a nationally distributed magazine of Valerie Plame "out on the town" last month doing pretty much everything she can to not keep her identity hidden?

I sure hope the counter-intelligence services of our enemies don't read Vanity Fair...

[Cochise]

Let's don't forget one of Larry's finest moments, the guy was foaming at the mouth.

ROFL Nice.

"It's lies you lying lie telling liar telling lies!!!"

[Ugly Duck]

Didn't he call after her name had already been released??? Of course. But blowing the cover of our CIA operatives is not fair game, as Rove subsequently found out after his televised comment. Thats why there is this big investigation thingie going on.

[patteeu]

My only point is that if he did it with forethought and knowledge but is required by the law to merely claim that he didn't then it's kind of whacked (in the same way Clinton was able to skirt some of the "issues" he had regarding knowledge of how discoverable items ended up under the bed of his secretary).

I'm not saying Rove did anything. In fact, the whole O'Donnell bombshell seems to have disappeared since the end of last week - pretty much as I predicted. I wouldn't expect Fitzgerald to do anything regarding this for months, but it always could happen sooner.

Fair enough. :)

[patteeu]

Hmmmm... an ignorance defense in this case kinda points towards Rove actually saying some kinda something to someone out the identity of the CIA operative.....

First, Rove calls Hardball and says that Wilson's wife was "fair game."

Then, Newsweek sez, "It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official"

Now, Rove's lawyer sez, "Rove never knowingly disclosed classified information"

So Rove thought that it was fair game to out the undercover CIA op. When he finds out that he was wrong and that it was a crime, his lawyer then says that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information."

We then ask ourselves, when Rove thought that outing the op was "fair game," is he the kind of guy that would use that "fair game" for political advantage? Or is he the kind of guy that would think that it was "fair game" to out the op, and then just sit on the info and not use it?


What difference would it make if he did out her? If he truly thought she was fair game (and by implication didn't violate the statute that requires knowledge of her undercover status), then he is not only NOT a traitor, he's not even a criminal.

[the Talking Can]

the latest info:

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05cnd-leak.html?ei=5094&en=6280ad97ddcf0988&hp=&ex=1120622400&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)


July 5, 2005
Time Inc. Reporter's Testimony Still Needed, Prosecutor Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded the grand jury testimony of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents to the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention -- instead of jail -- for refusing to reveal their sources.

Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify.

Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.

Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

[RINGLEADER]

?? Of course. But blowing the cover of our CIA operatives is not fair game, as Rove subsequently found out after his televised comment. Thats why there is this big investigation thingie going on.


Wasn't her cover already blown at that point? If you agree that her cover was already compromised then how do you assign what Rove said to the blowing of her cover?

[Duck Dog]

I find it hard to believe that the smartest man in Washington, the greatest political mastermind of the world, the man who flat out is responsible for the Republican take over in Washington made this kind of error.

I suppose he could have slipped up one time, but I doubt it.

[Taco John]

I find it hard to believe that the smartest man in Washington, the greatest political mastermind of the world, the man who flat out is responsible for the Republican take over in Washington made this kind of error.

I suppose he could have slipped up one time, but I doubt it.



I share the same skepticism... No way is Rove this stupid.

[homey]

Wasn't her cover already blown at that point? If you agree that her cover was already compromised then how do you assign what Rove said to the blowing of her cover?

I would get so tired of fishing to defend actions of my party.

[Chief Henry]

Lawrence O'Donnell, The American Douchebag.


O'Donnell is a partiasian Hack that pretends to be a journalist...
How many times did he say before the election that President Bush was toast or he eluded to W was going to lose........Only in his dreams did
President Bush lose and how many MILLION votes did he beat John Kerry
by?

[Chief Henry]

I share the same skepticism... No way is Rove this stupid.



REP heading your way TJ.

[homey]

I share the same skepticism... No way is Rove this stupid.

Stupid? Try cocky. Think his head's gotten any bigger the last couple years? Who knows, we'll see....

[Taco John]

Stupid? Try cocky. Think his head's gotten any bigger the last couple years? Who knows, we'll see....



You're telling me that Rove is so cocky that he thinks he can out CIA agents in the middle of a War on Terror, and not worry about any reprocussions? That's damn cocky.

Hey, maybe you're right. I'm just skeptical. That's all.

[the Talking Can]

You're telling me that Rove is so cocky that he thinks he can out CIA agents in the middle of a War on Terror, and not worry about any reprocussions? That's damn cocky.

Hey, maybe you're right. I'm just skeptical. That's all.

obviously the White House felt that way....we already know they did it, this is just a matter of naming names...imho, it is very instructive about the integrity with which the White House sold the invasion of Iraq...they were willing to do anything...republicans shouldn't have to wait for a name before holding them accountable for this, the name is almost irrelevant....

[Duck Dog]

Hey, if Rove outed the CIA agent he should pay according to law, no doubt about it. Until that's proven, he still owns liberals and dems.

[Michael Michigan]

Here's our gal. Apparently hanging out with Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others...

I guess I shouldn't have let that Vanity Fair sub expire.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/plame.jpg




http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_03_corner-archive.asp#068326

[Duck Dog]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_03_corner-archive.asp#068326

That's about right on par. :rolleyes:

[Taco John]

Well if she's hanging out with celebrities, she must not have been outed afterall! Case closed.

[Logical]

FROM VLAD (circa a couple days ago): "Sorry but you have lost me, are you really saying that because the Democrats did not win in the last two elections it makes it less onerous that a top White House official may have direct led to the death of a CIA agent to display pettiness and project unacceptable abuse of power/influence. If so that is f*cking disgusting. One good thing is that this may finally lead to a full on investigation of the potential misdeeds of this White House."

....

Uh sure seems like I said potential misdeeds. That is hardly buying O'Donnells position hook line and sinker. I was pretty sure you were mistaken, now you have proven it.

[the Talking Can]

Here's our gal. Apparently hanging out with Robert deNiro, Nicole Kidman, Barry Diller, Willem Dafoe, John McEnroe, and many others...

I guess I shouldn't have let that Vanity Fair sub expire.

http://www.nationalreview.com/images/plame.jpg




http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_03_corner-archive.asp#068326


wow...look, it says "Valarie Plame, CIA Operative".....oh, wait.....

are you sure you're a journalist?

there's no doubt you're an apologist...

[jAZ]

wow...look, it says "Valarie Plame, CIA Operative".....oh, wait.....

are you sure you're a journalist?

there's no doubt you're an apologist...
Hell, from that photo you wouldn't even know she was married to the Ambassador... But I'm sure she's wearing a name badge that says "Valerie Plame: CIA Operative and WMD expert".

[jAZ]

You're telling me that Rove is so cocky that he thinks he can out CIA agents in the middle of a War on Terror, and not worry about any reprocussions? That's damn cocky.

Hey, maybe you're right. I'm just skeptical. That's all.
Try, there might be a bigger picture going on...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/30/123531/610

[jAZ]

Wasn't her cover already blown at that point? If you agree that her cover was already compromised then how do you assign what Rove said to the blowing of her cover?
That comment isn't the act of blowing her cover, it's an indication of his state of mind, and willingness to discuss her because she is "fair game".

[jAZ]

What difference would it make if he did out her? If he truly thought she was fair game (and by implication didn't violate the statute that requires knowledge of her undercover status), then he is not only NOT a traitor, he's not even a criminal.
ROFL

I hope it plays out exactly this way... And that Rove tries to use the "I thought she was fair game" excuse. Feigned ignorance of the law or her status isn't exactly the same as actual ignorance of the law or her status.

[jAZ]

BTW, do I become an American Traitor if I post a picture from a nationally distributed magazine of Valerie Plame "out on the town" last month doing pretty much everything she can to not keep her identity hidden?

I sure hope the counter-intelligence services of our enemies don't read Vanity Fair...
It depends on if you post it before or after Rove leaked her identity to Novak. Since the picture (as you describe it) was taken years after the "outing", I'm guessing you would be safe.

[Taco John]

Try, there might be a bigger picture going on...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/30/123531/610



Wow. In essence, you're telling me that Plame is the straw that breaks the impeachment back? (Or I guess I should say Kos is telling me that). What I can't understand why there haven't been any whislteblowers coming forward to put this story in the proper perspective?

[Mr. Kotter]

... What I can't understand why there haven't been any whislteblowers coming forward to put this story in the proper perspective?

Because, possibly....it's bogus? :hmmm:

[jAZ]

Because, possibly....it's bogus? :hmmm:
I'm sure you felt exactly the same way about the 6 years of Whitewater investigations, right?

[jAZ]

What I can't understand why there haven't been any whislteblowers coming forward to put this story in the proper perspective?
Which part of the story? The Rove/Plame thing? Who besides Rove and the journalists fighting to keep his ID secret (so much for a liberal media bias, right?)?

Or the Plame/Iraq-War thing? There have been several whistleblowers of varying degrees on this issue (DSM, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clark, etc).

[Mr. Kotter]

I'm sure you felt exactly the same way about the 6 years of Whitewater investigations, right?

Whitewater? Actually....yes.

[Michael Michigan]

Well if she's hanging out with celebrities, she must not have been outed afterall! Case closed.

I was counting on the obligatory "I'd hit it" from you.

;)

[jAZ]

Whitewater? Actually....yes.
Right up until Lewinski pulled out the dress, I'm sure.

[RINGLEADER]

Uh sure seems like I said potential misdeeds. That is hardly buying O'Donnells position hook line and sinker. I was pretty sure you were mistaken, now you have proven it.


No, no, no. You said that you didn't buy O'Donnell's version of events. How do you arrive at an investigation (not a potential investigation) if you don't buy what O'Donnell said?

[RINGLEADER]

That comment isn't the act of blowing her cover, it's an indication of his state of mind, and willingness to discuss her because she is "fair game".

OK. If Chris Matthews' interpretation is more accurate than Lawrence O'Donnell's. Can you tell me what Chris/Hardball asked? Because that might have a lot to do with why they received the response they did.

[RINGLEADER]

Which part of the story? The Rove/Plame thing? Who besides Rove and the journalists fighting to keep his ID secret (so much for a liberal media bias, right?)?

Or the Plame/Iraq-War thing? There have been several whistleblowers of varying degrees on this issue (DSM, Paul O'Neil, Richard Clark, etc).


Um, Jaz, Rove already sent a letter to Cooper telling him he was free to discuss any conversation they had together with the grand jury.

And please don't make yourself look foolish the way you did when you said it doesn't matter what Bush actually says...it only matters what you think he's saying behind closed doors to his "cronies".

[Logical]

No, no, no. You said that you didn't buy O'Donnell's version of events. How do you arrive at an investigation (not a potential investigation) if you don't buy what O'Donnell said?
Because I believe that a full investigation should be conducted due to the unwillingness of the reporter to reveal his source. As such only a full governmental investigation can clear the air of the potential misdeeds of Rove, Bush and the entire administration. Really it is that simple, I believe someone did something and until an investigation is completed all are suspect in this administration. This has nothing to do with O'Donnell who I have honestly never heard or read accept if referenced from this very BB.

Please note the words in bold.

[Mr. Kotter]

Right up until Lewinski pulled out the dress, I'm sure.

A sexual harassment lawsuit, accepted by the courts....with requests for dismissals rejected by no fewer than three appeals courts and judges, certainly deserves serious consideration. Considering the $950,000 that was paid to make it go away, I'd say the "defense" agreed....

Perjury and obstruction of justice, committed during the aforementioned trial, in an attempt discredit legitimate claims of a "pattern of behavior" by the plaintiff, would seem, to many fair minded and conscientious citizens....an egregious crime for someone sworn to uphold the law.

I know it isn't to you--unless, of course, it's committed by someone who doesn't share your radical egalitarian ideology and zealotry. ;)

[Logical]

Um, Jaz, Rove already sent a letter to Cooper telling him he was free to discuss any conversation they had together with the grand jury.

And please don't make yourself look foolish the way you did when you said it doesn't matter what Bush actually says...it only matters what you think he's saying behind closed doors to his "cronies".
Actually if we learned anything from the Nixon disaster, it should be exactly that we should be worried about what is said behind closed doors among cronies.

[Logical]

A sexual harassment lawsuit, accepted by the courts....with requests for dismissals rejected by no fewer than three appeals courts and judges, certainly deserves serious consideration. Considering the $950,000 that was paid to make it go away, I'd say the "defense" agreed....

Perjury and obstruction of justice, committed during the aforementioned trial, in an attempt discredit legitimate claims of a "pattern of behavior" by the plaintiff, would seem, to many fair minded and conscientious citizens....an egregious crime for someone sworn to uphold the law.

I know it isn't to you--unless, of course, it's committed by someone who doesn't share your radical egalitarian ideology and zealotry. ;)OK I will be the first to admit jAZ has been very clear in hating Bush and all Bush related matters.

Otherwise however, unless the winkie smile is indicating you are joking I am not recalling jAZ having a plethora of radical egalitarian ideological or zealous views. If you are not joking could you provide speficific examples?

[Mr. Kotter]

OK I will be the first to admit jAZ has been very clear in hating Bush and all Bush related matters.

Otherwise however, unless the winkie smile is indicating you are joking I am not recalling jAZ having a plethora of radical egalitarian ideological or zealous views. If you are not joking could you provide speficific examples?

Damn it, Jim....I'm trying to goad Justin into being ridiculously defensive again; that's usually worth a few laughs.

Thanks for ruining it.... :harumph:

[Bootlegged]

efilateg

[Logical]

efilategonkcuf

[Mr. Kotter]

efilateg

Nice touch; not quite "genious" though.

Encoding the message backward, as a full-fledged member of the tin-foil hat conspiracy club......Justin will be able to figure it out, though. :)

[Mr. Kotter]

onkcuf

?he, retteb 'nileeF

.kcab uoy ees ot dooG

[Logical]

?he, retteb 'nileeF

.kcab uoy ees ot dooG

enif, uoy knaht

[Ugly Duck]

how do you assign what Rove said to the blowing of her cover?That was the subject of the discussion. I mean, they weren't making fun of her clothes or the way she walks or something when Rove said she was "fair game." The blowing of her cover was the reason they were talking about her. This answer seems so obvious I kinda get the feeling that I don't quite get your question....

[patteeu]

obviously the White House felt that way....we already know they did it, this is just a matter of naming names...imho, it is very instructive about the integrity with which the White House sold the invasion of Iraq...they were willing to do anything...republicans shouldn't have to wait for a name before holding them accountable for this, the name is almost irrelevant....

It's perfectly possible, and I'd say likely, that no one outed Plame in a way that violates any laws. Sorry to spoil your witch hunt.

[patteeu]

ROFL

I hope it plays out exactly this way... And that Rove tries to use the "I thought she was fair game" excuse. Feigned ignorance of the law or her status isn't exactly the same as actual ignorance of the law or her status.

I hope so to. I like to see you guys blowing gaskets.

[go bowe]

enif, uoy knahtwill you guys please quit it?

i can barely read forwards, let alone backwards...

that's life, when you're a braindead dickhead* worthless poster like me... :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:



*this characterization has been brought to you by skipping a beat towne...

[the Talking Can]

It's perfectly possible, and I'd say likely, that no one outed Plame in a way that violates any laws. Sorry to spoil your witch hunt.

I know you're happy with technicalities..."plausible denial" etc.

My point was- a CIA operative was outed, everyone she worked with jepordized, and every cover she used comprimised....just to punish someone for criticizing the White House's lies about Iraq. Sane people understand the implications of this regardless of whether or not "the glove fits."

So you think its funny...big deal. That's your job...you're the guy who never gets it that we all laugh at. This forum needs you. Don't ever stop...or at least till wolfman comes back.

[go bowe]

actually, i listen to patty two and ammo man all the time...

i think they're two of the best posters in the d.c. forum...

of course, everybody laughs at me too.. :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

[Ugly Duck]

My point was- a CIA operative was outed, everyone she worked with jepordized, and every cover she used comprimised....just to punish someone for criticizing the White House's lies about Iraq. So the Bushies are scrambling for some kinda twisted angles to portray this as a not-illegal outing. But even if it can be painted in some kinda convoluted not-illegal color, most folks would still regard it as a lowdown and despicable act. C'mon now, this undercover operative was secretly working to keep weapons of mass destruction from getting into the hands of terrorists. An important matter of national security, dontcha know. The Bush administration destroyed the national security operation by blowing her cover. This bunch wasted a national security operation to punish some relative that accused them of exaggerating the WMD claims. (A charge that turned out to be true). Heck, even some Planet righties can see that this is some lowdown & dirty poo. Others cheer that maybe some fancy lawyer work might be able to paint it as not-illegal. Tsk-tsk.

[Mr. Kotter]

...So you think its funny...big deal. That's your job...you're the guy who never gets it that we all laugh at. This forum needs you. Don't ever stop...or at least till wolfman comes back.

FWIW, you've filled Duhnise's role rather admirably--especially since the beginning of the year or so.

[patteeu]

I know you're happy with technicalities..."plausible denial" etc.

My point was- a CIA operative was outed, everyone she worked with jepordized, and every cover she used comprimised....just to punish someone for criticizing the White House's lies about Iraq. Sane people understand the implications of this regardless of whether or not "the glove fits."

You say that as though it's true. But I just read yesterday that Plame was outed to discredit the CIA critics of the war not to punish her husband and that the coverup is going to lead to impeachment. You're falling behind.

Seriously though, it's not a technicality. It's the difference between committing a crime and not committing a crime. I find that to be an important distinction in our criminal justice system. I'm sure you do too, but apparently only when it doesn't conflict with your political agenda. And I don't believe for a minute that you have any genuine concern for Plame's contacts or her ability to work undercover.

So you think its funny...big deal. That's your job...you're the guy who never gets it that we all laugh at. This forum needs you. Don't ever stop...or at least till wolfman comes back.

I aim to please. :)

[patteeu]

So the Bushies are scrambling for some kinda twisted angles to portray this as a not-illegal outing. But even if it can be painted in some kinda convoluted not-illegal color, most folks would still regard it as a lowdown and despicable act. C'mon now, this undercover operative was secretly working to keep weapons of mass destruction from getting into the hands of terrorists. An important matter of national security, dontcha know. The Bush administration destroyed the national security operation by blowing her cover. This bunch wasted a national security operation to punish some relative that accused them of exaggerating the WMD claims. (A charge that turned out to be true). Heck, even some Planet righties can see that this is some lowdown & dirty poo. Others cheer that maybe some fancy lawyer work might be able to paint it as not-illegal. Tsk-tsk.

LOL. To hear you guys talk about her, you'd think that Valerie Plame was our country's version of 007. What will we do now when the next Goldfinger tries to take over the world?

[Bootlegged]

Nice touch; not quite "genious" though.

Encoding the message backward, as a full-fledged member of the tin-foil hat conspiracy club......Justin will be able to figure it out, though. :)

seihsubadtegzij

[Duck Dog]

Which part of the story? The Rove/Plame thing? Who besides Rove and the journalists fighting to keep his ID secret (so much for a liberal media bias, right?)?



That's not a good reason to claim there isn't any liberal bias in the media. As a matter of fact its really quit stupid to even attempt to make that claim based on this incident.

[RINGLEADER]

Because I believe that a full investigation should be conducted due to the unwillingness of the reporter to reveal his source. As such only a full governmental investigation can clear the air of the potential misdeeds of Rove, Bush and the entire administration. Really it is that simple, I believe someone did something and until an investigation is completed all are suspect in this administration. This has nothing to do with O'Donnell who I have honestly never heard or read accept if referenced from this very BB.

Please note the words in bold.


Okay. I'll take your word for it buddy. ;)

[RINGLEADER]

Actually if we learned anything from the Nixon disaster, it should be exactly that we should be worried about what is said behind closed doors among cronies.


Yeah, okay, if you want to go through the exercise of guessing what's going on behind closed doors. I got no problem with that. It's when the reasons for war are clearly defined in a document or facts to support a POV are contrary to what is being peddled by the Bush-haters or Bush makes a statement that is consistent with every other statement he's ever made about an issue and some - note that I say some - on the left immediately discount the facts and claim that some secret speculation MAY mean that "circumstantial" evidence COULD BE more important than the real facts that can be documented.

[Ugly Duck]

LOL. To hear you guys talk about her, you'd think that Valerie Plame was our country's version of 007.
Yes, we actually do have agents out there secretly working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.

"NOC is a designation within the Central Intelligence Agency which means "non-official cover." It denotes an agent working under such deep cover that said agent cannot be officially associated with the American intelligence community in any way, shape or form. In order to keep covered, a NOC will work for the CIA out of a front company, which provides the illusion that the agent is just an ordinary accountant, lawyer or businessperson.

Between the CIA and the agent, a process is created to construct an identity which obscures completely the reality of the agent's true employment. The training of these NOC agents, along with the creation of the cover stories known as "legends" within the agency, requires millions of dollars and delicate work. It is, quite literally, a life and death issue. Little or no protection is given to an exposed NOC agent by the American government, an arrangement that is understood by all parties involved. A blown NOC can wind up dead very easily. Because of this, the cadre of NOC agents is small and elite.

Valerie Plame was a NOC working out of a front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates. To any and all uninformed observers, she was an energy analyst who spent a good deal of time working overseas. In fact, she ran a covert international network dedicated to tracking any person, group or nation that would put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10018

[RINGLEADER]

That was the subject of the discussion. I mean, they weren't making fun of her clothes or the way she walks or something when Rove said she was "fair game." The blowing of her cover was the reason they were talking about her. This answer seems so obvious I kinda get the feeling that I don't quite get your question....

If she's already outed and other people are running stories about her and Tweety calls up and Rove says something to the effect of, "well, she's on the front page of the New York Times...I'd say she's fair game to such discussions" but then never says another word about her I don't think that would qualify as something nefarious.

All I'm saying Ugly is that unless there's some story out there about this incident that I haven't previously read I don't believe you know what the context of Rove's statement was.

Just like O'Donnell breathlessly claimed that Rove's name is in Cooper's notes and then drew the inference that it means Rove gave up Plame's name appears to be wrong, I'd say your assumption invites the same types of mistaken conclusions.

But, I'll say it again, if Rove did the crime he should do the time. No arguments or debates from me there.

[Donger]

Yes, we actually do have agents out there secretly working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.

"NOC is a designation within the Central Intelligence Agency which means "non-official cover." It denotes an agent working under such deep cover that said agent cannot be officially associated with the American intelligence community in any way, shape or form. In order to keep covered, a NOC will work for the CIA out of a front company, which provides the illusion that the agent is just an ordinary accountant, lawyer or businessperson.

Between the CIA and the agent, a process is created to construct an identity which obscures completely the reality of the agent's true employment. The training of these NOC agents, along with the creation of the cover stories known as "legends" within the agency, requires millions of dollars and delicate work. It is, quite literally, a life and death issue. Little or no protection is given to an exposed NOC agent by the American government, an arrangement that is understood by all parties involved. A blown NOC can wind up dead very easily. Because of this, the cadre of NOC agents is small and elite.

Valerie Plame was a NOC working out of a front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates. To any and all uninformed observers, she was an energy analyst who spent a good deal of time working overseas. In fact, she ran a covert international network dedicated to tracking any person, group or nation that would put weapons of mass destruction into the hands of terrorists."

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10018

Plame wasn't an 'agent.'

[patteeu]

actually, i listen to patty two and ammo man all the time...

i think they're two of the best posters in the d.c. forum...

of course, everybody laughs at me too.. :deevee: :deevee: :deevee:

Hey, thanks for that. It's undeserved I'm sure, but I appreciate it anyway. :)

[RINGLEADER]

I know you're happy with technicalities..."plausible denial" etc.

My point was- a CIA operative was outed, everyone she worked with jepordized, and every cover she used comprimised....just to punish someone for criticizing the White House's lies about Iraq. Sane people understand the implications of this regardless of whether or not "the glove fits."

So you think its funny...big deal. That's your job...you're the guy who never gets it that we all laugh at. This forum needs you. Don't ever stop...or at least till wolfman comes back.


Wow. You jump to some mighty big conclusions.

Is it even remotely possible in your world that someone was talking to Bob Novak and that when Novak asked why the administration would send a detractor of the administration's policies (Joe Wilson) regarding Iraq to half-heartedly try to confirm Saddam's intent with respect to Niger and WMDs that the person Novak was talking to may have said "because his wife recommended him"? And that when Novak then, logically, asked "well who's his wife" the person could have then responded "some CIA analyst on WMDs" not fully knowing her real position with the agency?

If you believe Novak the release of the information was "not receive a planned leak," was actually run by the CIA who "never warned [Novak] that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else," and that Plame's identity and relationship to both Wilson and the CIA "was not much of a secret."

(I know this is where the left claims Novak is just covering for the Bush White House, but if he's not covering for them the claims pretty much go out the window).

I know that this conversation apparently took place several times with different reporters, but none of them had gotten to print. That could mean nefarious "planting" of the story to harm Wilson/Plame as those on the left insist, but it also could have been someone who only partially knew the story repeating it in the same context I outlined above - believing it was accurate and truthful but not malicious - until the first appearance cause the firestorm that it caused. And if the CIA was signing off on the release of the information - as Novak insists they did - then I don't see how you get any traction on this story at all.

[RINGLEADER]

Here's Novak's full version of events:

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml

There you go. If that's the case then this goes no where. If there's more to it I'm sure Fitzgerald will get to the bottom of it. Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out to be Colin Powell. I wonder how many on the left would be calling for his head in the same fashion they want Rove's...

[Taco John]

...or at least till wolfman comes back.



I have noticed less redness and irritation... Where's the Wolfman?

[RINGLEADER]

Hmm...Now that Cooper's going to testify we learn that:

a) Rove had waived any sourcing privilege (which I know doesn't exist in law, but reporters seem to be hung up on it) months ago.

b) Cooper's source for Plame's name released him from his sourcing confidentiality THIS MORNING.

Of course the case - as oft happens with prosecutors - could have gone off in a different tangent from the original "who was the leaker" question that started it and they could still be investigating Rove for perjury or something, but his lawyer was pretty specific that he wasn't the target of the current probe and was cooperating fully.

I guess we'll know soon. I can tell you now that if it isn't Rove the left is going to have a hard time creating a "secret" document or other reason that is hiding the truth like they seem to be doing with the Bush Lied About the Iraq War issue.

[Taco John]

Fine. Post in the thread with the twisted, leading headline. See if I care...

/;)

[the Talking Can]

Hmm...Now that Cooper's going to testify we learn that:

a) Rove had waived any sourcing privilege (which I know doesn't exist in law, but reporters seem to be hung up on it) months ago.

b) Cooper's source for Plame's name released him from his sourcing confidentiality THIS MORNING.

Of course the case - as oft happens with prosecutors - could have gone off in a different tangent from the original "who was the leaker" question that started it and they could still be investigating Rove for perjury or something, but his lawyer was pretty specific that he wasn't the target of the current probe and was cooperating fully.

I guess we'll know soon. I can tell you now that if it isn't Rove the left is going to have a hard time creating a "secret" document or other reason that is hiding the truth like they seem to be doing with the Bush Lied About the Iraq War issue.

Why does the name matter? There's no doubt about what happened. And whose White House is responsible for it...do you think it will all magically go away if it's "Scooter" Libby instead of Rove....or if [gasp!] we end up with "plausible deniability"?

What's done is done. The only issue is accountability...which is rarer than the Dodo in this administration.

[patteeu]

Why does the name matter? There's no doubt about what happened. And whose White House is responsible for it...do you think it will all magically go away if it's "Scooter" Libby instead of Rove....or if [gasp!] we end up with "plausible deniability"?

What's done is done. The only issue is accountability...which is rarer than the Dodo in this administration.

It seems like there is quite a bit of doubt about what happened. I do sometimes envy you and your black-and-white world though.

[yoswif]

Why does the name matter? There's no doubt about what happened. And whose White House is responsible for it...do you think it will all magically go away if it's "Scooter" Libby instead of Rove....or if [gasp!] we end up with "plausible deniability"?

What's done is done. The only issue is accountability...which is rarer than the Dodo in this administration.

I doubt there's much Bush could do if the original Novak source was CIA director Tenet and Colin Powell confirmed.

[Ugly Duck]

All I'm saying Ugly is that unless there's some story out there about this incident that I haven't previously read I don't believe you know what the context of Rove's statement was.Ok... I get it now. I'll have to give this one to you, Ring. I guess it is possible that Rove meant that its "fair game" to put a whoopee cushion under Valerie's butt... or to put salt in her sugar bowl or something. I reckon we'll eventually find out if he was referring to her outing when he said that....