PDA

View Full Version : Rove Resigns


irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 08:41 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/13/rove.resign/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Karl Rove said Monday his resignation as President Bush's senior political adviser was not forced and that he plans to spend his post-White House career writing a book and teaching.
art.rove.gi.jpg

Karl Rove was dubbed by President Bush as "the architect."

Perhaps Bush's most powerful White House aide, Rove submitted his resignation to Bush on Friday, he told CNN's Suzanne Malveaux in an e-mail.

When asked for his reaction to those who say he's being "run out of town," Rove responded, "That sounds like the rooster claiming to have called up the sun."

Rove has been the target of congressional scrutiny as he and other White House staffers have been subpoenaed by Congress to testify in the case of several fired U.S. attorneys. Rove served as Bush's political adviser last year as Democrats won control of Congress and as the president failed to overhaul U.S. immigration law. Video Watch why "Democrats had a big target on Rove's back"

Both Rove and the president are expected to speak on the White House South Lawn at 11:35 a.m. ET before boarding Marine One. Then Bush and Rove will head to the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Rove intends to return to Washington over the weekend, according to a White House official.

Rove said the first thing he plans to do after leaving the White House is "go dove hunting in West Texas with family and friends, then drive my wife and the dogs to the beach."

A senior administration official described Rove's agony over the decision, and how "he and his family struggled" over it and why "this is a good as time as any."
Don't Miss

* Rove's career highlights
* TIME.com: Rove calls it quits

"You're never going to replace him," said another senior administration official, adding that Rove served a "unique role."

"It's up to [White House Chief of Staff] Josh [Bolten] whether he'll be replaced," the official said.

Rove plans to write a book about his days with Bush and eventually teach politics on the university level.

"Obviously it's a big loss to us, said deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino. "He is a great colleague, good friend and a brilliant mind."

Rove, who has held a top position in the White House since Bush took office in January 2001, is to stand down on August 31.

Both Rove and Scott Jennings, who is a special assistant to the president and deputy political director, were subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the fired attorneys case.

Rove did not testify as ordered by the subpoena earlier this month, which angered panel Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. White House Counsel Fred Fielding informed the committee that Rove, "as an immediate adviser to the president," can't be ordered to testify and was told by the White House not to attend.

Rove did testify before a federal grand jury about the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity after Plame's husband, former ambassador Joe Wilson, became a critic of the war in Iraq.

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, was later convicted of lying and obstructing justice. Bush commuted Libby's sentence.

Libby's attorneys contended that Libby was the victim of a White House conspiracy to protect Rove but never presented any evidence to support that claim.

Journalist Robert Novak, who identified Plame in a 2003 column, testified that Rove was one of two officials who leaked Plame's identity to him, but Rove was never charged with a crime.
advertisement

Bush nicknamed Rove "the architect" for creating the plan that won the White House in 2000 and 2004.

Rove told The Wall Street Journal that he'd first suggested the idea of leaving about a year ago. However a series of problems for the Bush administration, starting when the Democrats took control of Congress and then as immigration and the Iraq war topped the agenda, made the enormously powerful Rove stay on.

jAZ
08-13-2007, 08:56 AM
Wow.

banyon
08-13-2007, 09:03 AM
Is this real?

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 09:11 AM
Wonder which campaign he is moving on to.

Dave Lane
08-13-2007, 09:11 AM
I'm stunned, now Gonzales I could believe but....

Dave

Cochise
08-13-2007, 09:16 AM
TWO WEEKS FTW!

banyon
08-13-2007, 09:29 AM
http://www.apfn.org/LEAK-GATE/arrestedRove.jpg

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
(Chorus)
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
Chorus
I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my condemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on."
Chorus
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
Chorus
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Chorus
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is Wisdom to the mighty, He is Succour to the brave,
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of Time His slave,
Our God is marching on.

StcChief
08-13-2007, 09:31 AM
Libs dancin' in the street.... PBJ

HolmeZz
08-13-2007, 09:35 AM
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOOOO

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFa8l2Y0HSI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFa8l2Y0HSI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Pitt Gorilla
08-13-2007, 09:45 AM
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOOOO

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFa8l2Y0HSI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFa8l2Y0HSI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>That never gets easier to watch.
:shake:

Jenson71
08-13-2007, 09:50 AM
He's working on an album with Jay-Z.

HolmeZz
08-13-2007, 10:04 AM
He's working on an album with Jay-Z.

K-ROVA

teh flow iz religiouz

Frankie
08-13-2007, 10:14 AM
Time for his prosecution for the number of frauds he commited against our society.

Logical
08-13-2007, 10:58 AM
This could be good news or it could just mean he is looking to sign on with someone else who is a candidate. That would be bad news.

Jenson71
08-13-2007, 11:12 AM
This could be good news or it could just mean he is looking to sign on with someone else who is a candidate. That would be bad news.

I've been watching MSNBC this morning, and it seems from both the talking heads and Rove himself that he's not going to work with another candidate. But you can never say never.

Ebolapox
08-13-2007, 02:14 PM
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0OOOOO

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFa8l2Y0HSI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MFa8l2Y0HSI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

ROFL

that's just WRONG

Dallas Chief
08-13-2007, 04:26 PM
Time for his prosecution for the number of frauds he commited against our society.
What are those specifically?

Hydrae
08-13-2007, 04:29 PM
:clap:

Adept Havelock
08-13-2007, 04:33 PM
And the guy who was fired from Bush 41's team for unethical behavior gets a grand send off from Bush 43's

...for exactly the same reason.

Frankie
08-14-2007, 08:10 AM
What are those specifically?
You must be one of the %26.

Chief Henry
08-14-2007, 08:40 AM
Rove to be indicted this Friday and Frankie
kisses Hotlips with an open mouth.

Dallas Chief
08-14-2007, 10:04 AM
You must be one of the %26.
No. I am no blind supporter of this admin. I was just curious as to what you think the crimes of the man were. It's OK if you don't have an answer. It was just kind of a strong statement if the only thing he is guilty of is not being in agreement with your particular view on the way things should be in the world.

Frankie
08-14-2007, 11:49 AM
No. I am no blind supporter of this admin. I was just curious as to what you think the crimes of the man were. It's OK if you don't have an answer. It was just kind of a strong statement if the only thng he is guilty of is not being in agreement with your paticular view on the way things should be in the world.
The man built a career out of spreading lies and false vicious rumors. The cases are many and all available to you if you care to get your head out of the sand and research them.

Frankie
08-14-2007, 11:51 AM
Rove to be indicted this Friday and Frankie
kisses Hotlips with an open mouth.
Hotlips is too old. She must be, what, 87 now?

Cochise
08-14-2007, 12:25 PM
No. I am no blind supporter of this admin. I was just curious as to what you think the crimes of the man were. It's OK if you don't have an answer. It was just kind of a strong statement if the only thng he is guilty of is not being in agreement with your paticular view on the way things should be in the world.

You don't need crimes. All you need is to wish the person was in jail because you don't like him.

Dallas Chief
08-14-2007, 02:08 PM
The man built a career out of spreading lies and false vicious rumors. The cases are many and all available to you if you care to get your head out of the sand and research them.

Really? Are any of those a crime? If being a gossip and spreading false vicious rumors were a crime then half this BB would be locked up. Get real.
I think the guy is total knob, but that doesn't mean he should get locked up for being a big meanie. He is very politically astute and is no different than the Paul Begalas / Sydney Blumenthals of the world- Political Hacks. You just don't like his politics...

You are the one that said he should be prosecuted- I just want to know if there is a legit reason. Give me just one.

KC Jones
08-14-2007, 08:56 PM
Karl Rove leaves a malign mark on the American political system as he prepares to depart the Bush White House. Rove, more than anyone, has blurred the line between politics and governance. A separation between the two will be difficult to retrieve, because candidates of both parties will emulate Rove's manifestly successful win-an-all-costs methods of campaigning - methods that inevitably stand in the way of effective public-policy leadership.

Nearly 20 years ago in Texas, Rove saw in George W. Bush an opportunity to create a permanent Republican majority in the United States by laying claim to traditionally Democratic issues such as education. The Bush-Rove team wrested the Texas governorship from the hands of a popular Democratic incumbent, defeated a sitting vice president in the presidential election of 2000, gained seats in both the House and Senate in 2002, and won re-election in 2004 while strengthening Republican majorities in Congress.

Bush's successes in office have been less spectacular - in part because Rove's course to victory left embittered opponents in its wake. For Rove, every issue is a wedge with which to split the electorate in ways that put Bush on the winning side. In Rove's black-and-white political universe, the compromises and accommodations that make policy-making possible can't be found. That helps explain why Bush's ambition to reform the Social Security system during his first term, and the immigration system during his second, met with frustration.

Rove's worst offense has been to apply his political tactics to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath. The attacks created an extraordinary degree of national unity and international support. Rove helped squander that moment of opportunity by using the issue of terrorism to highlight political differences - suggesting that Democrats are weak in their commitment to national defense. The same willingness to characterize opponents as handmaidens of America's enemies poisoned the debate over the decision to invade Iraq, leaving the country divided at home and isolated abroad. It was a high price to pay for Republican gains in 2002 and 2004.

Treating the business of government as part of a permanent campaign led to Rove's most serious problems as a White House official. Rove was at the center of the effort to discredit a former diplomat who cast doubt on a justification for the Iraq war by leaking his wife's identity as a CIA agent. He's embroiled in the controversy over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys who were deemed insufficiently loyal to the Bush administration. Rove never knew when to stop campaigning and start governing.

Rove seemed to lose his touch in 2006, predicting Republican victories even as the Democrats were winning control of both the House and Senate. It's likely that no strategist could have prevented Republican losses in the face of an unpopular war and growing fatigue with the Bush administration. It's also likely that the Democrats' gains came partly by emulating Rove's methods, freely characterizing the Bush administration and the Republicans not as merely misguided but as deceptive, not merely ineffectual but corrupt.

A bipartisan willingness to win at all costs could prove to be Rove's lasting legacy. It's not a happy one.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/08/14/ed.edit.rove.0814.p1.php?section=opinion

patteeu
08-14-2007, 09:14 PM
Boy, it's a good thing democrats don't have any political strategists who are just as partisan and divisive as Karl Rove. If they did, it would be so much harder for them to complain about Rove. Thankfully, they're all a bunch of straight talkers. :rolleyes:

a1na2
08-14-2007, 09:14 PM
Really? Are any of those a crime? If being a gossip and spreading false vicious rumors were a crime then half this BB would be locked up. Get real.
I think the guy is total knob, but that doesn't mean he should get locked up for being a big meanie. He is very politically astute and is no different than the Paul Begalas / Sydney Blumenthals of the world- Political Hacks. You just don't like his politics...

You are the one that said he should be prosecuted- I just want to know if there is a legit reason. Give me just one.

Frankie talks a good story but is very short on proving his points with facts. This is one you should probably write off as a LWNJ wanting to jail someone just because.

a1na2
08-14-2007, 09:16 PM
Karl Rove leaves a malign mark on the American political system as he prepares to depart the Bush White House. Rove, more than anyone, has blurred the line between politics and governance. A separation between the two will be difficult to retrieve, because candidates of both parties will emulate Rove's manifestly successful win-an-all-costs methods of campaigning - methods that inevitably stand in the way of effective public-policy leadership.

Nearly 20 years ago in Texas, Rove saw in George W. Bush an opportunity to create a permanent Republican majority in the United States by laying claim to traditionally Democratic issues such as education. The Bush-Rove team wrested the Texas governorship from the hands of a popular Democratic incumbent, defeated a sitting vice president in the presidential election of 2000, gained seats in both the House and Senate in 2002, and won re-election in 2004 while strengthening Republican majorities in Congress.

Bush's successes in office have been less spectacular - in part because Rove's course to victory left embittered opponents in its wake. For Rove, every issue is a wedge with which to split the electorate in ways that put Bush on the winning side. In Rove's black-and-white political universe, the compromises and accommodations that make policy-making possible can't be found. That helps explain why Bush's ambition to reform the Social Security system during his first term, and the immigration system during his second, met with frustration.

Rove's worst offense has been to apply his political tactics to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and their aftermath. The attacks created an extraordinary degree of national unity and international support. Rove helped squander that moment of opportunity by using the issue of terrorism to highlight political differences - suggesting that Democrats are weak in their commitment to national defense. The same willingness to characterize opponents as handmaidens of America's enemies poisoned the debate over the decision to invade Iraq, leaving the country divided at home and isolated abroad. It was a high price to pay for Republican gains in 2002 and 2004.

Treating the business of government as part of a permanent campaign led to Rove's most serious problems as a White House official. Rove was at the center of the effort to discredit a former diplomat who cast doubt on a justification for the Iraq war by leaking his wife's identity as a CIA agent. He's embroiled in the controversy over the firings of nine U.S. attorneys who were deemed insufficiently loyal to the Bush administration. Rove never knew when to stop campaigning and start governing.

Rove seemed to lose his touch in 2006, predicting Republican victories even as the Democrats were winning control of both the House and Senate. It's likely that no strategist could have prevented Republican losses in the face of an unpopular war and growing fatigue with the Bush administration. It's also likely that the Democrats' gains came partly by emulating Rove's methods, freely characterizing the Bush administration and the Republicans not as merely misguided but as deceptive, not merely ineffectual but corrupt.

A bipartisan willingness to win at all costs could prove to be Rove's lasting legacy. It's not a happy one.

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/08/14/ed.edit.rove.0814.p1.php?section=opinion


What kind of love do you give George Soros? I'm sure he is very influential with Hillary and the rest, not to mention funding as much of their campaigns as he possibly can.

Ugly Duck
08-15-2007, 12:47 AM
I was just curious as to what you think the crimes of the man were.

Aside from crimes that he admits to, he's a tough guy to pin things on. He has admitted to using a false identity to infiltrate the headquarters of a Democratic candidate running for state treasurer of Illinois, stealing the campaign's letterhead and fraudulently putting out false information on it. Can't nail him on that cuzza the statute of limitations. He lied to the grand jury about revealing the CIA agent's name, but Cooper outed his lie. Can't nail him on that cuz he was allowed to come back to the grand jury and change his testimony to the truth after he got caught. He can't be investigated for illegally running all the White House e-mail through Coptix instead of the White House government servers cuz Bush has granted him blanket executive privelege. The question is not if he commits crimes (he admits some that he can't be prosected for), but if his slippery ass can be nailed down in a court of law. With Gonzo in the Justice Dept & MonkeyBoy in the White House... Rove will be at large instead of in jail. Hide your children.

Velvet_Jones
08-15-2007, 07:27 AM
Aside from crimes that he admits to, he's a tough guy to pin things on. He has admitted to using a false identity to infiltrate the headquarters of a Democratic candidate running for state treasurer of Illinois, stealing the campaign's letterhead and fraudulently putting out false information on it. Can't nail him on that cuzza the statute of limitations. He lied to the grand jury about revealing the CIA agent's name, but Cooper outed his lie. Can't nail him on that cuz he was allowed to come back to the grand jury and change his testimony to the truth after he got caught. He can't be investigated for illegally running all the White House e-mail through Coptix instead of the White House government servers cuz Bush has granted him blanket executive privelege. The question is not if he commits crimes (he admits some that he can't be prosected for), but if his slippery ass can be nailed down in a court of law. With Gonzo in the Justice Dept & MonkeyBoy in the White House... Rove will be at large instead of in jail. Hide your children.
I call BS. If they could have nailed him for the Plame deal they would have. Are you being mentored by the president of the full of sh!t club jIZ?

KC Jones
08-15-2007, 08:58 AM
What kind of love do you give George Soros? I'm sure he is very influential with Hillary and the rest, not to mention funding as much of their campaigns as he possibly can.

None, I don't care much for Soros.

Ugly Duck
08-15-2007, 05:50 PM
If they could have nailed him for the Plame deal they would have. Where did you get that information? Sounds kinda like an opinion. Here's the facts... Rove told the grand jury that he was not Cooper's source. That is a lie. Then the Time reporter tips off Rove's lawyer (Luskin) that others within Time Magazine know that Rove is in fact the source. Luskin then has Rove conduct a "new" email search that mysteriously finds a Rove email of the Cooper conversation. Rove sees his own email, and then suddenly "remembers" that we was in fact Cooper's source. Fitzgerald then allows Rove to correct his false testimony. Thats the story. You can read it in the news.

Dallas Chief
08-15-2007, 09:30 PM
Where did you get that information? Sounds kinda like an opinion. Here's the facts... Rove told the grand jury that he was not Cooper's source. That is a lie. Then the Time reporter tips off Rove's lawyer (Luskin) that others within Time Magazine know that Rove is in fact the source. Luskin then has Rove conduct a "new" email search that mysteriously finds a Rove email of the Cooper conversation. Rove sees his own email, and then suddenly "remembers" that we was in fact Cooper's source. Fitzgerald then allows Rove to correct his false testimony. Thats the story. You can read it in the news.
Seroiusly I must have missed one of your posts or something. Who took the rap for it after all since it obviously was not Rove? I thought it was Armitage that leaked whatever about Plame to Novak?

a1na2
08-15-2007, 09:32 PM
revisionist history is so exciting.

Taco John
08-15-2007, 09:33 PM
Karl Rove has got a great sense of humor:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/08/rove_finds_himself_in_petas_cr.html

Frankie
08-16-2007, 09:00 AM
Aside from crimes that he admits to, he's a tough guy to pin things on. He has admitted to using a false identity to infiltrate the headquarters of a Democratic candidate running for state treasurer of Illinois, stealing the campaign's letterhead and fraudulently putting out false information on it. Can't nail him on that cuzza the statute of limitations. He lied to the grand jury about revealing the CIA agent's name, but Cooper outed his lie. Can't nail him on that cuz he was allowed to come back to the grand jury and change his testimony to the truth after he got caught. He can't be investigated for illegally running all the White House e-mail through Coptix instead of the White House government servers cuz Bush has granted him blanket executive privelege. The question is not if he commits crimes (he admits some that he can't be prosected for), but if his slippery ass can be nailed down in a court of law. With Gonzo in the Justice Dept & MonkeyBoy in the White House... Rove will be at large instead of in jail. Hide your children.
So you decided to Dallas Chief's research for him. Not necessary. But your good work deserves a rep.

Frankie
08-16-2007, 09:02 AM
I call BS. If they could have nailed him for the Plame deal they would have. Are you being mentored by the president of the full of sh!t club jIZ?
They didn't nail him because this administration always has a sacrificial lamb ready, to protect the bigger guys.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 09:58 AM
Richard Armitage was the source. Everything
else was just a fishing expedition.

Dallas Chief
08-16-2007, 02:26 PM
So you decided to Dallas Chief's research for him. Not necessary. But your good work deserves a rep.
Look, I wanted to know why YOU thought he should be prosecuted? While someone was able to come up with a dandy list of things that could or could not be followed up on by any well meaning Special Prosecutor, it showed me nothing as to why you seem to have such hatred and vitriolic feelings towards Rove. You still have not answered and that's OK because I think I know why. I was curious though if there was a REAL reason like he kicked your dog or bumped uglies with a close relative and didn't call her the next day. Moving on...

Baby Lee
08-16-2007, 02:41 PM
Bush's successes in office have been less spectacular - in part because Rove's course to victory left embittered opponents in its wake. For Rove, every issue is a wedge with which to split the electorate in ways that put Bush on the winning side. In Rove's black-and-white political universe, the compromises and accommodations that make policy-making possible can't be found. That helps explain why Bush's ambition to reform the Social Security system during his first term, and the immigration system during his second, met with frustration.
I really am at a loss, neither of those issues failed because they were straight up partisanly crafted. Just the opposite. They were largely progressive measures. And the left hated him too much to support it, however palatable it might have otherwise been. And the right didn't support it because they felt it wasn't in line with conservative principles.
Bush gives the left plenty to legitimately loathe, but time after time, the points where his support really erodes, is when he tries to throw the left a bone. They're never gonna like him, and it frustrates his supporters.

Taco John
08-16-2007, 02:48 PM
I really am at a loss, neither of those issues failed because they were straight up partisanly crafted. Just the opposite. They were largely progressive measures. And the left hated him too much to support it, however palatable it might have otherwise been. And the right didn't support it because they felt it wasn't in line with conservative principles.
Bush gives the left plenty to legitimately loathe, but time after time, the points where his support really erodes, is when he tries to throw the left a bone. They're never gonna like him, and it frustrates his supporters.



You think Bush's position on immigration was based on him wanting to throw the left a bone?

Cochise
08-16-2007, 03:02 PM
Richard Armitage was the source. Everything
else was just a fishing expedition.

Yes, it's all pretty clear, unless the facts are disappointing to you.

Taco John
08-16-2007, 03:14 PM
Absolutely it's clear. It's clear that Libby obstructed an investigation, lied under oath, and was convicted for it. What's also clear is why he lied and who he was protecting.

The only thing that's truly disappointing about that whole affair is that the ringleader of the dirty deed hasn't yet had to pay for his crime... Once he loses power, though, I wouldn't be suprised to see prosecution pick up.

patteeu
08-16-2007, 03:21 PM
Absolutely it's clear. It's clear that Libby obstructed an investigation, lied under oath, and was convicted for it. What's also clear is why he lied and who he was protecting.

The only thing that's truly disappointing about that whole affair is that the ringleader of the dirty deed hasn't yet had to pay for his crime... Once he loses power, though, I wouldn't be suprised to see prosecution pick up.

Nobody made Libby lie in his testimony. The trail stops with Libby because there wasn't an underlying crime.

Taco John
08-16-2007, 03:27 PM
Nobody made Libby lie in his testimony. The trail stops with Libby because there wasn't an underlying crime.



Of course there was. Otherwise, why would Libby have obstructed justice? You don't obstruct justice on accident. You do it with intent. That's why he was convicted of the crime: the jury was convinced that he did it with intent.

See this is another case where the evidence doesn't support your viewpoint, but you insist that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true.

What your "repeat it and make it magically true" tactic fails to overcome is the fact that people who get convicted of obstruction of justice do so because the jury has determined that there was intent to obstruct justice. Guilty is guilty.

Chief Henry
08-16-2007, 03:33 PM
No more questions were needed by Fitzgerald once he knew Armitage was the source.
Its only a story of the BDS crowd.
End of story.

penchief
08-16-2007, 03:48 PM
No more questions were needed by Fitzgerald once he knew Armitage was the source.
Its only a story of the BDS crowd.
End of story.

Not so. Armitage was one of many leakers, including Rove and Libby. Who did Armitage hear it from?

The big difference is that Armitage probably told the truth to Fitzgerald about what he knew (which was probably not much) while Libby tried to conceal the fact that the operation originated in the White House and that Cheney and Rove were involved in perpetuating the information to others who perpetuated it further, including Armitage.

a1na2
08-16-2007, 03:48 PM
Quote:Originally Posted by patteeu
Nobody made Libby lie in his testimony. The trail stops with Libby because there wasn't an underlying crime.

Of course there was. Otherwise, why would Libby have obstructed justice? You don't obstruct justice on accident. You do it with intent. That's why he was convicted of the crime: the jury was convinced that he did it with intent.

See this is another case where the evidence doesn't support your viewpoint, but you insist that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true.

What your "repeat it and make it magically true" tactic fails to overcome is the fact that people who get convicted of obstruction of justice do so because the jury has determined that there was intent to obstruct justice. Guilty is guilty.

Where your story falls short is that the investigators were searching for something wrong but by charging Libby with obstruction they ended their investigation claiming he was the lynch pin that stopped them. There facts are, if there was a crime by anyone other than Libby they had to have his statements to go further with out them there was NO PROOF OF ANY CRIME. If they had other proof they would have continued and charged others. As it is they didn't which in essence tells us all that there was no crime but only an effort to discredit the administration. They were on a giant fishing expedition and came up totally empty.

a1na2
08-16-2007, 03:51 PM
Not so. Armitage was one of many leakers, including Rove and Libby. Who did Armitage hear it from?

The big difference is that Armitage probably told the truth to Fitzgerald about what he knew (which was probably not much) while Libby tried to conceal the fact that the operation originated in the White House and that Cheney and Rove were involved in perpetuating the information to many others, one of whom ended up being Armitage.

That is purely speculation and if there was any proof of it there would have been more, you see that everything is finished. As I said before, they were fishing and came up empty.

penchief
08-16-2007, 03:54 PM
That is purely speculation and if there was any proof of it there would have been more, you see that everything is finished. As I said before, they were fishing and came up empty.

Which is why Libby was charged. Because he lied multiple times. And those lies were very pertinent to uncovering the truth. He deserved to be charged. The sad part is that those who perpetuated the crime in the first place are still manipulating the power of their office to evade accountability and perpetuate more fraud.

It's easy to call it speculation when the snide bastard intentionally lied and misled in order to prevent the truth from seeing the light of day. This is exactly why they have such laws. So that people can't commit crimes and then lie about it.

So you approve of perjury and obstruction of justice in a case that involves national security?

Cochise
08-16-2007, 03:55 PM
Not so. Armitage was one of many leakers, including Rove and Libby. Who did Armitage hear it from?


When I read a big writeup of the situation, it was stated that Armitage saw her name in a memo that mentioned her as working at the CIA but did not mention her covert status. He later mentioned it to Novak and Woodward, but the reason he wasn't charged was that there was no reason to believe that he knew she was covert at that time.

penchief
08-16-2007, 03:58 PM
When I read a big writeup of the situation, it was stated that Armitage saw her name in a memo that mentioned her as working at the CIA but did not mention her covert status. He later mentioned it to Novak and Woodward, but the reason he wasn't charged was that there was no reason to believe that he knew she was covert at that time.

But who put out that memo? There was also the story about the plane trip involving many high level cabinet members in which Cheney initially passed out the info and it was stamped classified at the time.

Baby Lee
08-16-2007, 04:00 PM
So you approve of perjury and obstruction of justice in a case that involves national security?
Why yes, and I accept that OJ Simpson is a free man because I love murder.

penchief
08-16-2007, 04:02 PM
Why yes, and I accept that OJ Simpson is a free man because I love murder.

But you're not defending it either, are you?

Cochise
08-16-2007, 04:02 PM
Why yes, and I accept that OJ Simpson is a free man because I love murder.

And did you stop beating your wife yet?

a1na2
08-16-2007, 04:13 PM
Which is why Libby was charged. Because he lied multiple times. And those lies were very pertinent to uncovering the truth. He deserved to be charged. The sad part is that those who perpetuated the crime in the first place are still manipulating the power of their office to evade accountability and perpetuate more fraud.

It's easy to call it speculation when the snide bastard intentionally lied and misled in order to prevent the truth from seeing the light of day. This is exactly why they have such laws. So that people can't commit crimes and then lie about it.

So you approve of perjury and obstruction of justice in a case that involves national security?

The intent of what I said is that there most likely was no directive from the white house as everyone wants to believe. If there were a directive there would be more than one single party that could disclose the information. It was nothing more than a witch hunt aimed at the administration.

Taco John
08-16-2007, 04:25 PM
No more questions were needed by Fitzgerald once he knew Armitage was the source.
Its only a story of the BDS crowd.
End of story.



If that were true, then Libby wouldn't have needed to obstruct the investigation. Again, the facts of the case are that the jury found him guilty of INTENDING to obstruct justice, and following through on that intent.

You may not like this fact, but it doesn't change that it *is* a fact.

penchief
08-16-2007, 04:33 PM
The intent of what I said is that there most likely was no directive from the white house as everyone wants to believe. If there were a directive there would be more than one single party that could disclose the information. It was nothing more than a witch hunt aimed at the administration.

Where did the information originally come from? Where did that "memo" come from?

Armitage didn't just dream it. The information was classified and anything that Armitage read or heard was classified. Has it ever occurred to you that he may have been fed that info under false pretense? Not saying it's so but Armitage didn't just shit the information himself.

Plus, there were others that perpetuated the leak (Rove, Libby). Did they know that Armitage had already leaked it? If not, did they know that it was classified (most likely)? So, why would those two leak classified information? Why would Libby commit perjury and obstruction of justice in such an important case as one of national security? You tell me.

And Cheney basically denied making the inquiry in order to make Joe Wilson look like a liar and a mooch. When he clearly made the inquiry.

You can make yourself feel better about the people you defend by ignoring the obvious but when one views the behavior of this administration pertaining to the leaking of Plame's name and compares it to their track-record of similar slimy behavior, it makes perfect sense.

But you insist on proof in an enviroment where the executive branch has sealed the truth off from the public in a very effective way.

Zero transparency = zero truth.

Zero truth = zero accountability.

What we currently have right now, my friend, is a pending disaster in this country and no one is being held accountible. How is that? You explain it to me.

patteeu
08-16-2007, 05:12 PM
Of course there was. Otherwise, why would Libby have obstructed justice? You don't obstruct justice on accident. You do it with intent. That's why he was convicted of the crime: the jury was convinced that he did it with intent.

See this is another case where the evidence doesn't support your viewpoint, but you insist that if you repeat something enough times, it becomes true.

What your "repeat it and make it magically true" tactic fails to overcome is the fact that people who get convicted of obstruction of justice do so because the jury has determined that there was intent to obstruct justice. Guilty is guilty.

Patrick Fitzgerald found the truth behind all of Libby's alleged deceptions and there wasn't an underlying crime. Whether Libby lied because he thought he might have committed a crime or not, I don't know, but based on the prosecutor's actions it sure doesn't look like he or anyone else committed one.

a1na2
08-16-2007, 05:55 PM
Where did the information originally come from? Where did that "memo" come from?

Armitage didn't just dream it. The information was classified and anything that Armitage read or heard was classified. Has it ever occurred to you that he may have been fed that info under false pretense? Not saying it's so but Armitage didn't just shit the information himself.

Plus, there were others that perpetuated the leak (Rove, Libby). Did they know that Armitage had already leaked it? If not, did they know that it was classified (most likely)? So, why would those two leak classified information? Why would Libby commit perjury and obstruction of justice in such an important case as one of national security? You tell me.

And Cheney basically denied making the inquiry in order to make Joe Wilson look like a liar and a mooch. When he clearly made the inquiry.

You can make yourself feel better about the people you defend by ignoring the obvious but when one views the behavior of this administration pertaining to the leaking of Plame's name and compares it to their track-record of similar slimy behavior, it makes perfect sense.

But you insist on proof in an enviroment where the executive branch has sealed the truth off from the public in a very effective way.

Zero transparency = zero truth.

Zero truth = zero accountability.

What we currently have right now, my friend, is a pending disaster in this country and no one is being held accountible. How is that? You explain it to me.


In this case accountability is lacking everywhere, not to mention credibility. The special prosecutor knew that Libby was innocent before the trial yet he kept going.

Tell me just what positive information you have that indicates anyone other than Armitage, Libby, Rove, Cheney, ore even the President did or said anything? It's all speculation and the need to have a fall guy for outing a semi-undercover agent.

Executive office seals information. I'm sure that has only happened in this administration. The Clinton years seem to be sealed now, not to mention the time that Hill and Billary kept the files from Whitewater hidden in the White House while they were being edited to remove any indication that the Clintons were involved in wrong doing.

What went on during Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, etc. What records were sealed or destroyed in their administrations?

You act as if sealing records and information by an administration is a new thing. Get a clue.

Even if the records are sealed, what makes you sure there is something incriminating in them? I can answer that for you, it's because you want there to be something. You cannot get away from the wall between the parties.

Ugly Duck
08-16-2007, 10:07 PM
Patrick Fitzgerald found the truth behind all of Libby's alleged deceptions and there wasn't an underlying crime.

Ken Starr found the truth behind all of Clinton's alleged deceptions and there wasn't an underlying crime. Yet righties went after him anyway. Just sleeping in the bed that Republicans made.

wazu
08-16-2007, 11:43 PM
Yeah.

<table id="zDebtBox">
<tr><td><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.zfacts.com/giz/G05/debt.js"></script></td></tr>
<tr><td><a href="http://zfacts.com/p/461.html" id='zF05' style="color:black;font-size:12px">The Gross National Debt</a></td></tr>
</table>

Taco John
08-17-2007, 12:10 AM
Patrick Fitzgerald found the truth behind all of Libby's alleged deceptions and there wasn't an underlying crime.

That's such a lie. It's just flat out deciet. Patrick Fitzgerald did *NOT* find out the truth behind all of the deception that Libby was convicted guilty of. How could he? Libby obfuscated, lied about it under oath, was convicted for obstructing justice, and then got his sentance commuted before he had to do any time for his crime. Justice was hence perverted and Libby cannot be compelled to tell the truth about why he lied and who he was trying to protect with his obstruction of justice.



Whether Libby lied because he thought he might have committed a crime or not, I don't know, but based on the prosecutor's actions it sure doesn't look like he or anyone else committed one.

Except for the crime of purgering himself under oath with the intent to obstruct justice. No matter how innocent you want to make that crime sound, it's still a crime to lie under oath with the intent to protect another crime.

Does it bother you that you have to lie and defend criminality in order to make your points? At the very least, you should be able to honestly admit that we don't actually know if there was an underlying crime because Libby lied under oath and obstructed the investigation into the outing of a CIA asset. But to pass off the complete falsehood that "there wasn't an underlying crime" as though that's a factual position is nothing short of partisan dishonesty.

a1na2
08-17-2007, 04:43 AM
That's such a lie. It's just flat out deciet. Patrick Fitzgerald did *NOT* find out the truth behind all of the deception that Libby was convicted guilty of. How could he? Libby obfuscated, lied about it under oath, was convicted for obstructing justice, and then got his sentance commuted before he had to do any time for his crime. Justice was hence perverted and Libby cannot be compelled to tell the truth about why he lied and who he was trying to protect with his obstruction of justice.





Except for the crime of purgering himself under oath with the intent to obstruct justice. No matter how innocent you want to make that crime sound, it's still a crime to lie under oath with the intent to protect another crime.

Does it bother you that you have to lie and defend criminality in order to make your points? At the very least, you should be able to honestly admit that we don't actually know if there was an underlying crime because Libby lied under oath and obstructed the investigation into the outing of a CIA asset. But to pass off the complete falsehood that "there wasn't an underlying crime" as though that's a factual position is nothing short of partisan dishonesty.

The underlying crime you are looking for is just as much of a partisan dishonesty as those that are defending the story. The Bush haters will never admit that there is a improbability of a crime, they just want there to be one that they cannot let it go. It's over and you just can't give up. At least the Republicans backed off Clinton after he committed perjury was found guilty and then later acquitted.

Chief Henry
08-17-2007, 09:42 AM
The underlying crime you are looking for is just as much of a partisan dishonesty as those that are defending the story. The Bush haters will never admit that there is a improbability of a crime, they just want there to be one that they cannot let it go. It's over and you just can't give up. At least the Republicans backed off Clinton after he committed perjury was found guilty and then later acquitted.



Its part of there BDS...

Bush
Derangement
Syndrome

patteeu
08-17-2007, 09:43 AM
Ken Starr found the truth behind all of Clinton's alleged deceptions and there wasn't an underlying crime. Yet righties went after him anyway. Just sleeping in the bed that Republicans made.

I agree that there was no apparent underlying crime discovered by the Starr investigation. So what? Are you agreeing with me?

BTW, in the controversy related to Starr's Lewinsky discoveries, Clinton settled with Paula Jones for nearly $1 million. That wasn't a criminal case, but it's worth remembering about our 42nd president.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 10:02 AM
That's such a lie. It's just flat out deciet. Patrick Fitzgerald did *NOT* find out the truth behind all of the deception that Libby was convicted guilty of. How could he? Libby obfuscated, lied about it under oath, was convicted for obstructing justice, and then got his sentance commuted before he had to do any time for his crime. Justice was hence perverted and Libby cannot be compelled to tell the truth about why he lied and who he was trying to protect with his obstruction of justice.

You need to do more than wave your hands to make that case. Libby was accused of lying about what he and various reporters discussed, but Fitzgerald collected testimony from each of those reporters and concluded that Libby's version was untruthful. I invite you to describe a specific instance in which Libby lied but Fitzgerald failed to discover the truth.

Except for the crime of purgering himself under oath with the intent to obstruct justice. No matter how innocent you want to make that crime sound, it's still a crime to lie under oath with the intent to protect another crime.

Duh. I was talking about underlying crimes. Perjury isn't one.

Does it bother you that you have to lie and defend criminality in order to make your points? At the very least, you should be able to honestly admit that we don't actually know if there was an underlying crime because Libby lied under oath and obstructed the investigation into the outing of a CIA asset. But to pass off the complete falsehood that "there wasn't an underlying crime" as though that's a factual position is nothing short of partisan dishonesty.

It goes without saying that we don't know if there are any undiscovered crimes at the White House, but if there are, it's not Scooter Libby's testimony that is hiding them. As for lying, I'll wait patiently for you to describe how one or more of the lies Libby was convicted of is hiding this criminality that you claim to be so sure exists. To be honest, I don't think you've given this enough thought to have worked that part out. I think the partisan dishonesty comes in when you assume that criminality exists just because you don't like the administration.

Cochise
08-17-2007, 10:10 AM
I don't know why people argue about this. One side will always going to say, look at the outcome of the investigation. It's all right there. The other side will always believe that under whatever cirumstances, the administration is doing something corrupt and illegal - no matter whether there's any proof or even allegations, they just assume there is always something illegal and diabolical going on just by default. They'd say "you can trust this corrupt investigation" no matter what.

You believe what you want, if it doesn't get investigated you keep believing it, and you keep believing it no matter what the outcome of the investigation is anyway. What's the point? Should we investigate the investigation so that they say they don't believe the findings of the investigation of the investigation?

:ZZZ:

Taco John
08-17-2007, 10:22 AM
I got a better idea... Why don't we just trust Justice and let those who are convicted of crimes serve their time?

a1na2
08-17-2007, 03:35 PM
I got a better idea... Why don't we just trust Justice and let those who are convicted of crimes serve their time?

Did you have that same opinion when Clinton was pardoning killers and drug runners in his last month in office? Clinton pardoned over 540 people during his presidency. How many has President Bush pardoned (include commuting of sentences here too)?

I would guess that you aren't going to look it up so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush

As of June 29, 2007, President George W. Bush had issued 113 presidential pardons to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of four people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

The following is a partial list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton[1]. As President Bill Clinton used his power under the U.S. Constitution to granted pardons and clemency to 456 people, thus commuting the sentences of those already convicted of a crime, and obviating a trial for those not yet convicted. On January 20, 2001, he pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency

Adept Havelock
08-17-2007, 04:03 PM
Why don't we just trust Justice and let those who are convicted of crimes serve their time?

An excellent notion, whatever one's personal politics might be.

a1na2
08-17-2007, 04:11 PM
An excellent notion, whatever one's personal politics might be.

In politics there is no justice regardless of how excellent the notion might be. No party is exempt from the other, they will forever be at each others throats trying to prove their party is better.

Adept Havelock
08-17-2007, 04:13 PM
Whether Libby lied because he thought he might have committed a crime or not, I don't know, but based on the prosecutor's actions it sure doesn't look like he or anyone else committed one.

It seems to me if he lied under oath, that's a crime he committed. No matter what motivation he might have had. :shrug:

Taco John
08-17-2007, 04:24 PM
Did you have that same opinion when Clinton was pardoning killers and drug runners in his last month in office?



Absolutely.

I find very little merit in the political way that pardons are handed out in this nation. The lack of accountability is saddening. I'd rather see the president be able to mandate a re-trial, than be able to just flat pardon or commute a sentence.

On the flip side, I don't see how anyone can rationalize defending Libby on one hand, but being stomping mad about the Clinton pardons on the other, unless they were willing to admit that the party owns them, regardless of principle.

patteeu
08-17-2007, 05:17 PM
An excellent notion, whatever one's personal politics might be.

I'm not sure I even understand what he means. Is he arguing that we should do away with criminal appeals?

patteeu
08-17-2007, 05:19 PM
It seems to me if he lied under oath, that's a crime he committed. No matter what motivation he might have had. :shrug:

The "one" in my statement was supposed to be referring to the aforementioned "underlying crime". If you're just saying that lying under oath is a crime, I agree.

Adept Havelock
08-17-2007, 05:35 PM
The "one" in my statement was supposed to be referring to the aforementioned "underlying crime". If you're just saying that lying under oath is a crime, I agree.

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, that's all I was saying.

a1na2
08-19-2007, 12:02 PM
Absolutely.

I find very little merit in the political way that pardons are handed out in this nation. The lack of accountability is saddening. I'd rather see the president be able to mandate a re-trial, than be able to just flat pardon or commute a sentence.

On the flip side, I don't see how anyone can rationalize defending Libby on one hand, but being stomping mad about the Clinton pardons on the other, unless they were willing to admit that the party owns them, regardless of principle.

You are the one with a hard on for Libby. I think the overall problem is that the dems were gunning for someone other than Libby and they couldn't get there because there was no proof other than to get one person to give them something that probably didn't exist. If there were proof other than from Libby the prosecutor would have done more with the case.

banyon
08-20-2007, 08:55 AM
Did you have that same opinion when Clinton was pardoning killers and drug runners in his last month in office? Clinton pardoned over 540 people during his presidency. How many has President Bush pardoned (include commuting of sentences here too)?

I would guess that you aren't going to look it up so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush

As of June 29, 2007, President George W. Bush had issued 113 presidential pardons to people who have served their entire sentence, and has commuted in addition the sentences of four people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton

The following is a partial list of people pardoned by Bill Clinton[1]. As President Bill Clinton used his power under the U.S. Constitution to granted pardons and clemency to 456 people, thus commuting the sentences of those already convicted of a crime, and obviating a trial for those not yet convicted. On January 20, 2001, he pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency

How can we even make a comparison when Bush hasn't had his last month in office yet? Are you really naive enough to think that Bush won't pardon a bunch of people at the end like Clinton did?

a1na2
08-20-2007, 12:14 PM
How can we even make a comparison when Bush hasn't had his last month in office yet? Are you really naive enough to think that Bush won't pardon a bunch of people at the end like Clinton did?

Even if he does I seriously doubt that he will even get close to the 546 that Clinton pardoned over his 8 year stretch.

Want to put a case of beer on it?

banyon
08-20-2007, 12:37 PM
Even if he does I seriously doubt that he will even get close to the 546 that Clinton pardoned over his 8 year stretch.

Want to put a case of beer on it?

Betting a case of beer might mean you had my address or phone number, so I don't think so. Otherwise I would take the bet.

Cochise
08-20-2007, 12:47 PM
How can we even make a comparison when Bush hasn't had his last month in office yet? Are you really naive enough to think that Bush won't pardon a bunch of people at the end like Clinton did?

I really don't think that he's going to be pardoning people like Marc Rich.

banyon
08-20-2007, 01:03 PM
I really don't think that he's going to be pardoning people like Marc Rich.

I would bet he pardons Skilling who is just as bad.

Cochise
08-20-2007, 01:07 PM
I would bet he pardons Skilling who is just as bad.

I don't really think insider trading is equal to treason.

banyon
08-20-2007, 01:18 PM
I don't really think insider trading is equal to treason.

Giuliani didn't charge Rich with treason.

Cochise
08-20-2007, 01:33 PM
Giuliani didn't charge Rich with treason.

I wasn't talking about what Giuliani thinks, I was saying that I thought his dealings with Iran were tantamount to treason. Skilling shouldn't be pardoned, I'm not saying that he should, but it's ridiculous to compare what the two did on an even plane. Skilling is a common thief, not a traitor.

banyon
08-20-2007, 02:08 PM
I wasn't talking about what Giuliani thinks, I was saying that I thought his dealings with Iran were tantamount to treason. Skilling shouldn't be pardoned, I'm not saying that he should, but it's ridiculous to compare what the two did on an even plane. Skilling is a common thief, not a traitor.

Ok, then Cheney and Haliburton made similar illegal deals with Iran, so is that sufficiently similar?