Today on Blogcritics
Home » GOP Treason-Gate: Karl Rove 101 For Dummies

GOP Treason-Gate: Karl Rove 101 For Dummies

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

The scandal swirling around Karl Rove continues to widen. As the GOP continues to mount a “defense” for Rove, it becomes apparent that without Rove to write the talking points, the party is in deep trouble. Each new Republican talking point seems to either strengthen the argument that Rove is intricately involved in this crime or implicate Rove and other Republicans for either conspiracy, perjury, or obstruction of justice.


Here is a brief summary of the things we know.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was flailing about for a reason that would be acceptable to the American people. The idea that Iraq had so much WMD that we needed to invade right away was simply a fraud concocted in Texas. So the administration cooked up a scheme to use a forged foreign intelligence report. The forged foreign intelligence report, they believed, provided the public a reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the report was “fragmentary and lacked detail.”

Prodded by Dick Cheney, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson came back and reported no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium. For an administration gearing up for war as a first resort regardless of the reason, this was simply unacceptable.

Ignoring Wilson’s report, Cheney warned about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities all over TV. The president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address even went as far to pronounce: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Wilson declined to maintain his silence and publicly discredited the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed piece.

Shortly thereafter, Karl Rove and the GOP initiated a smear campaign against Ambassador Wilson and were quoted as saying “His wife is fair game.” Then, columnist Robert Novak reported that he had been told by two administration officials that the Niger trip had been suggested by Wilson’s wife, Plame.

It is a federal felony to knowingly identify an active undercover CIA officer and a federal grand jury is investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration unlawfully leaked the identity to the news media. Although the White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the episode, a Time magazine e-mail shows a conversation between Cooper and Rove took place a few days before Novak’s column appeared in July 2003. Cooper says Rove raised questions about Wilson’s credibility. Rove has maintained he neither knew Plame’s name nor leaked it to anyone.

Bush has said that if any White House official were involved, he or she would be fired. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had said publicly in the past that the President KNOWS Karl Rove was not involved, but as recent revelations have come out to the contrary, he has refused to answer any question relating to the matter. The president repeatedly refused this week to answer questions about whether Rove should be dismissed.

The GOP strategy has been multi-pronged, but without Karl Rove to write the talking points their strategy frankly, is very weak. A first strategy has been to re-initiate the failed smear campaign against Joe Wilson and his family. This strategy is bound to fail, since in the end it was Joe Wilson who was right about the uranium from Africa claim. Karl Rove was incorrect in trying to discredit Wilson’s report since it was true.

So this argument leaves Rove and his supporters with lower credibility than Joe Wilson on the issue and does not give the public much reason to believe them now, since they were wrong before. Even a child understands the phrase “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” The GOP in its first smear against Wilson tried to fool us into believing Saddam really did try to get nukes from Niger. Now that this claim has been proven false is the public expected to believe them the second time around?

A second GOP strategy is to claim “technically” no crime was committed. This claim will fail even worse than the first strategy for several reasons. First and foremost, the GOP has cultivated an image, however false, that they are strong on national security. Now the truth has come out. Someone in their administration has undermined national security yet the GOP is indifferent. Every American and the Democrats understand that national security is more important than party. Yet this seems to be lost on the Republicans, since in this case EVEN IF one were to accept the GOP talking point that “technically” no crime has been committed, Karl Rove still endangered a CIA agent, ruined her career which was devoted to national security, and endangered the lives of potentially thousands of anti-terror operatives overseas who are now compromised, (since they have had contacts with an outed spy and the enemy will find this out).

The number of blown contacts overseas and the number of US lives that will be lost because of this leak is hard to determine, but certainly his actions have endangered the country, the troops, and spies in the field. A former CIA agent suggested today on Air America radio that there are likely spies in the field whose lives have been jeopardized and who have been pulled from their missions because of their past contacts with Valerie Plame.

Thus, to say “technically” that no crime has been committed and hence no action against Rove should be taken, is for the GOP to give up its positioning on national security. Protecting Karl Rove is more important to the GOP than national security because even if what he did is not technically a crime, it was still wrong and it still weakened the war on terror. For that reason alone he should have been dismissed and most Americans understand this.

Now we hear a new strategy from the GOP. The new evidence shows that Novak was Rove’s source and thus Rove was just passing off information he was already tipped off to. The GOP is using this to try to argue that somehow this makes Rove not guilty of a crime. This argument falls flat and hurts the GOP even further for several reasons. First, nowhere in the statute does it say the leaker needs to be the original source. There very well could be a chain of 20 Republicans and journalists and each and every one, by passing along this leak, becomes liable under the statute.

Secondly, this faulty argument means for certain that other Republican officials are involved in this crime. Someone had to leak the identity to Novak, who in turn leaked it to Rove, who in turn leaked it to Matthew Cooper. Hence, it has publicly been admitted by the GOP that IF Karl Rove committed a crime, he was an accomplice and/or co-conspirator to out a CIA agent and thus there MUST be another GOP member who is also guilty of this crime.

Another GOP talking point, and the one potentially highlighting the biggest criminal danger to Rove and other Republicans is that each day, as more facts come out, Rove and the GOP’s position is being modified (twisting in the wind so to speak) along with their public statements. Thus, it is more than likely that EVEN IF Rove didn’t commit the crime of outing a CIA agent, he and other Republicans lied to the grand jury and committed perjury and/or obstruction of justice.

First Rove claimed to have nothing to do with this matter. Press Secretary Scott McClellan even went as far as to say the President KNEW Rove was not involved.

What did the President know and when did he know it?

If the president KNEW these facts one of two things must be true. First, Karl Rove must have lied to the president and the grand jury by claiming he was not involved as we now know he was. Second, Karl Rove was truthful with the grand jury and the president and the president lied to the public and committed an act of obstruction of justice. Thus, this scandal continues to widen to the extent that the potential for criminal behavior seems to be expanding not just to include Rove but potentially all the way up the chain of command to the president. Thus, by their own flawed strategy, the federal conspiracy statutes that eventually brought down the Nixon administration are likely to come into play here as well.

In either case the situation does not look good for Bush, Rove and the other involved GOP members either from a legal or political standpoint. Without Karl Rove to write their talking points they are twisting in the wind and digging their hole even deeper with every new flawed strategy. This is probably why they are fighting so hard to save Rove’s skin, despite the undeniable fact that no matter what the outcome of the criminal case, his behavior undermined national security, hurt America, and was the wrong thing to do.

balletshooz

More left-leaning and libertarian political commentary can be found at the Rights and Freedoms Coalition website. Please contact us to get involved in the 2006 elections.

Edited: LI

FOR DUMMIES® and related trade dress are
trademarks or registered trademarks of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its
affiliates in the United States and other countries.

Powered by

About Balletshooz

  • roger painter

    It looks like Novak got the information from one source and Rove’s role was to provide the nudge (or excuse) to get it to press…The big question may be: Did Novak out another source in his testimony?….If so this guy is facing major prison time and he’s gonna sing like a canary.

  • Maynard

    John Dean, former Nixon staffer, attorney and whistleblower, wrote this article today.

    The normnally cited Law ain’t the only thing to worry about. It seems the Bush administration’s justice department has already showed how to legally deal with leaks.

    Worth a read, IMO.

  • billy

    “Rove’s role was to provide the nudge (or excuse) to get it to press”

    I agree that this was his most likely motive. I think the “his wife is fair game” quote is as close to a smoking gun on motive as you can get.

    So definitely the original leaker is some other republican. Rove either perjured himself or was a second leak (regardless of how he found out) or both.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Balletshooz gets my nomination for the most idiotic post on BlogCritics today. There are so many incorrect points in this post that it’s difficult to know where to begin. But I’ll try.

    Consider this gem: “The WMD theme was simply a fraud concocted in Texas, so the administration cooked up a scheme to use a forged foreign intelligence report to provide a reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.” Balletshooz must not be aware of the voluminous evidence collected through the 1990s that convinced international observers that Iraq possessed or was attempting to possess WMDs. In the event, it turns out that Bush was wrong. But if WMDs were a fraud, then the fraud got cooked up much earlier than Bush and somewhere other than Texas. In fact, if it got cooked up, it got cooked up by the Clinton administration, whose intelligence suggested Iraq had WMD. For a mainstream analysis of the intelligence about Iraqi WMD before the invasion of Iraq, see The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack, who served in the Clinton National Security Council. Regarding the “forged foreign intelligence report,” you seem to forget that Bush attributed the specific intelligence to the British who, by the way, have not retracted their contention that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Niger. There was a forged foreign intelligence report, but the British did not rely on it, nor did Bush cite it in his State of the Union address.

    Then there’s this: “A second GOP strategy is to claim “technically” no crime was committed.” Actually, amicus curiae briefs filed by 36 mainstream press organizations (including the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) contend that there is “no underlying crime” in the Plame affair, so “technically,” the claim is not a “GOP strategy.” Rather, it’s a straightforward legal argument, and it’s undoubtedly correct.

    And then there’s this: “The number of blown contacts overseas and the number of US lives that will be lost because of this leak is hard to determine, but certainly his actions have endangered the country, the troops, and spies in the field.” You’re kidding me, right? Valerie Plame was not an undercover agent at the time of the supposed “leak.” According to Joseph Wilson, he and his wife had returned from jobs abroad in 1997. And Valerie Plame had a DESK JOB at the CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. In fact, her desk job had to do with tracking weapons of mass destruction. This seems to have been something of an open secret in the Washington community. If anyone endangered American lives by exposing Plame’s identity, it was Plame herself when she drove to work at Langley every morning.

    So, if no crime has been committed, what’s the big deal?

  • Maynard

    Read the article I put the link up for, GPW. According to legal precedent set by the Bush Justice department, there is plenty of crime for leaking. And that’s above and beyond the Law that everybody has been talking about when it comes to “outing” an agent. Read, learn, decide for yourself.

  • billy

    “So, if no crime has been committed, what’s the big deal?”

    I guess you must know something the prosecutors and grand jury dont know. if so, you should let them know.

    lets not forget there are already people in jail in this case and a grand jury has been working on it for two years.

    i guess they are just playing chess and reading high times in the grand jury room. the reporter in jail isnt there because there is a crime, she just felt like going there for a while. right?

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    And one other thing. Balletshooz writes: “Shortly thereafter, Karl Rove and the GOP initiated a smear campaign against ambassador Wilson….” It’s hard to smear a liar, and Wilson has been caught up in a fair share of distortions of the truth. In the words of a recent Wall Street Journal editorial:

    —–

    The same can’t be said for Mr. Wilson, who first “outed” himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous “16 words” on the subject in that year’s State of the Union address.

    Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

    But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. “Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip,” said the report.

    The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn’t even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

    About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain’s Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: “We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.”

    —–

    So, once again, where’s the scandal?

  • http://home.comcast.net/~chickyraptor/ted_hooters.jpg Dave

    GPW: But, but, but…
    ChimpyMcBusHitleRoveHalliburton stole the election or something!

  • billy

    typical republican. undermining the war on terror is no scandal to you because the gop is more important to you than national security.

  • billy

    “It’s hard to smear a liar”

    no, in fact, its quite easy to smear a liar. its hard to smear someone who told the truth.

    since there was no nuclear program in iraq, wilson obviously told the truth on the matter in question and rove and bush lied.

    is it really relevant wilson “lied” about whether his hair was dyed or the size of his waistline?

    he told the truth about the fact in dispute. unless again, you know about some nuclear program in iraq that the entire world doent know about.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Actually, Billy, Judith Miller is in jail for contempt of court because she won’t reveal her sources to the grand jury. That’s the only “crime” we know for sure has been committed. My further contention that there is no underlying crime involved is based on what I’ve read about the case so far, as well as my knowledge of what the press thinks about the issue, based on its amicus curiae briefs. If the special prosecutor has evidence that leads the grand jury to indict, that’s his prerogative. Based on what we know so far, there’s simply no basis for believing any indictment is forthcoming.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Now Billy gets my nomination for most idiotic post on BlogCritics today (#9) Let’s parse what Billy wrote:

    “typical republican. undermining the war on terror is no scandal to you because the gop is more important to you than national security.”

    1. I don’t think I identified myself as a Republican anywhere. Billy assumes it.
    2. “Typical Republican” is a hasty generalization, and anyway, Billy hasn’t provided one shred of evidence that I value the GOP over national security. He assumes it.
    3. And then there’s the little fact that Billy hasn’t provided any evidence that the public identification of Valerie Plame as a CIA employee has undermined the war on terror, so his conclusion assumes facts not in evidence.

    Billy, you see, assumes quite a lot. Two can play that game.

    1. I assume that Billy is a Democrat or a leftist of some stripe or at best a Hagelite Republican.
    2. I assume that Billy would like to undermine the war on terror by (a) bringing the troops home from Iraq now since (b) he failed to stop the war in the first place.
    3. And I assume that Billy wouldn’t give a fig about the Plame kerfuffle if it didn’t give him and his friends yet one more opportunity to bash Bush.

    Maybe I’m wrong about Billy. But I’m pretty sure I’m right about Karl.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Read the Lord Butler quote (#7) once again, slowly: “”We conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.” Everyone knew that Iraq did not have a nuclear program, thanks to the Israeli bombing run on the Osirak reactor in 1987. But many believed that Iraq was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program by, inter alia, seeking uranium in Niger. British intelligence still does.

  • billy

    “But many believed that Iraq was seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program by, inter alia, seeking uranium in Niger. British intelligence still does.”

    Yes, and that is why Bush was forced to retract that statement.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~chickyraptor/ted_hooters.jpg Dave

    Billy, Wilson’s lies were exposed by none other than the bipartisan 911 Commission.

    Let’s wait and see how this “scandal” turns out. To me it reeks of something mostly manufactured by the media.

    Meanwhile, you may want to listen to this about Saddam’s nuclear program and his ties to 911.

    As for your concern about “scandals” that are supposedly undermining the WOT, which is worse,

    • Rove supposedly saying something to the press that he heard about himself from the press because it was already common knowledge in the media,
    • a couple of congressman blabbing the contents of confidential FBI reports, or
    • the NY Times exposing an entire undercover CIA anti-terrorism operation?
  • billy

    no one disputes that saddam HAD wmd. like 20 years ago. we know because the US gave them to him. Remember your hero Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand right before he handed them WMD.

    What the facts now show is Saddam didnt HAVE WMD anymore. The sanctions and inspections obviously worked and there was no reason for war.

    Why do Bush loyalists have such a problem telling the truth?

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    A lot of us—British intelligence especially—were not happy when Bush retracted the famous 16 words of his State of the Union address. As a statement of fact, they are, in fact, true. That was my point: British intelligence stands by its conclusion that Hussein’s Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Niger. As for your “20 years ago” crack, if I remember correctly, Saddam still had WMD in the mid-1990s, which we discovered only because his sons-in-law defected to Jordan and leaked information to UN weapons investigators. As for the canard that the US armed Saddam Hussein, you might want to read Kenneth Timmerman’s The French Betrayal of America, which points out that the French were the primary arms suppliers to Hussein’s Baathist government, not the US. True, in the late 1970s/early 1980s, we supported Saddam’s Iraq against Khomeini’s Iran, but that hardly amounts to a full-hearted endorsement of the man or his policies. It was a lesser-of-two evils choice in foreign policy. We now know that “sanctions and inspections” helped rid Iraq of WMDs, but we didn’t know that for sure at the time of the war. Plus, Saddam’s unwillingness to cooperate with UNMOVIC inspectors increased suspicions about what was going on. As for the “no reason for war” if Iraq didn’t have WMDs, I’d say that’s a pretty big non sequitur. Bosnia, Serbia, and the former countries of Yugoslavia didn’t possess WMDs, but we “went to war” there anyway. Rwanda didn’t possess WMDs, but we should’ve gone to war there. Somalia didn’t possess WMDs, but we sent in troops. And Afghanistan didn’t possess WMDs, but we went to war anyway. The possession and use of WMDs is a reason for going to war, but not the only one. And there were plenty of other reasons for going to war in Iraq, including his financial support of Palestinian terrorism, violation of any number of UN Security Council Resolutions, near-genocidal treatment of Shiites and Kurds, sheltering of known terrorists such as Abu Nidal, etc. The Bush cited all these reasons in the leadup to the war in Iraq, but focused especially on WMDs—like the Clinton administration had—because this was an area where Saddam was a known user of WMDs and was widely believed to be ready to use them again.

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    I am shocked that this is still being discussed here. Even the MSM has concluded that Rove did not break any laws. In fact, I’m having a hard time even seeing an ethical lapse if its true that Plames friends and neighbors new she worked for CIA, and that Wilson even said she was NOT covert at the time of Novak’s piece.

    I’ve figured out why the Dem’s hate Bush so much. Every time they think they have something on him, Bush just quietly waits for them to impale themselves on their wrong and wrongheaded info and speculation. Then the truth comes out and they look like …..

    This has to be about the 5th time that has happened.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Another product of public education.

    Even at the worst possible scenario being sent around by the left, it isn’t treason, not even close.

  • billy

    randy, why are you so shocked?
    i havent seen anyone say this isnt a crime, besides hard-core right wingers and their attorneys.

    i definitely havent seen anyone say this isnt an ethical lapse.

    since you are so shocked why dont you think for a moment why people are sitting in jail and there is a grand jury.

    is this a big democratic conspiracy to get rove? are the grand jury and prosecutors now an arm of the DNC as well?

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    I love Billy’s question, “Why do Bush loyalists have such a problem telling the truth?” Umm, Billy, why do you have such a hard time responding to facts and arguments?

  • billy

    because you havent made any that are credible!

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    I was unaware that the 36 representatives of the press who filed amicus curiae briefs arguing that there is “no underlying crime” in the revelation of Valerie Plame’s identity were “hard-core right wingers and their attorneys.”

    I find it hard to believe that you would promote the honor of Joseph Wilson, who leaked his report about Niger to the press, when you criticize the alleged Rove leak as an “ethical lapse.” Are lapses ethical leaks for everyone, including Wilson, or only for Republicans, meaning Rove?

    There are not “people” sitting in jail, only a person—Judith Miller—and for contempt of court, not for the leak of Plame’s identity.

    Yes, there is a big Democratic conspiracy to get Rove. Or rather, it’s not a conspiracy; it’s an out-in-the-open partisan attack. No, the grand jury and prosecutors are not an arm of the DNC. Nor are the grand jury and special prosecutors necessarily a sign of Rove’s guilt, or anyone else’s. Prosecutors routinely make use of grand juries to conduct investigations. Until or unless there is an indictment, we should not assume that anyone is guilty in this matter.

    Or have you and your Bush-hating friends given up on the principle of innocent until proven guilty?

  • http://ideaplace.blogspot.com Randy Kirk

    New York Times started it. LA Times now agrees. You can’t out someone who is not covert. end of story.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Me arguing with Billy is so unfair. It’s like Nolan Ryan pitching fastballs to a Little Leaguer. I wonder if Nolan enjoyed striking out ten-year olds as much as I enjoy the drubbing I’m giving to Billy.

  • billy

    yes i agree. and clearly this woman was covert. the cia admitted it. and hence, now the grand jury is looking into it. right wing blogs and opinion pieces making wild claims wont change that.

    or i could just believe you. and then id have to believe that the grand jury is just there to play chess and read high times.

    glad we got that out of the way.

  • billy

    gpw, dont be stupid, your main argument is based on something bush already retracted.

    next time you try to win an argument try to cite something that bush hasnt already publicly admitted was a lie.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Actually, my main argument is that there is no “underlying crime” in the Plame affair. Bush has not commented on whether there is an underlying crime or not, so he most certainly could not have retracted anything.

    As for Iraq seeking uranium in Niger, the important issue is not whether Bush retracted the 16 words in his State of the Union address, but whether the British—whose intelligence Bush cited—have retracted their own conclusions. They have not, so the fact that Bush retracted his remarks is materially irrelevant, however politically embarrassing.

    You still haven’t responded to Saddam’s possession of WMDs through the mid-1990s, the nearly universal belief leading up to the war that he still possessed them or the capability of making them, and the reasons for war other than WMD.

    However, you’ve repeated your quip about grand juries playing chess and reading high times. Perhaps this is a projection of your own use of leisure time?

  • http://www.DowningStreetmemo.com harpo1973

    What Bush has done is nothing short of treason during wartime.

    All we have seen lately is:

    Cowardly Coverup of Traitorious Treason.

    IMPEACH and IMPRISON

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    According to Harpo1973’s website, which can be accessed by following the link, he/she has been “seeking the truth since May 13, 2005.” One wonders if he/she was seeking a lie prior to that. Seeking a reasonable political stance in a complex moral environment certainly wasn’t on his/her list of things to do, at least not if comment #29 is any indication. At any rate, the alliteration and assonance are downright sophomoric.

  • Anthony Grande

    Do you guys know why Rove did what he did?

    Because this C.I.A. agent told the White House what Saddam was really up to and then came out and told the media that Saddam was up to nothing so Bush would look bad.

    What she did sounds like treason to me.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    GPW:

    If you can’t learn what treason is, please leave the discussion to the adults.

  • http://ncmail.netscape.com/msglist.adp?folder=SW5ib3g=&start=1&fl=1&r=65971 richmtn

    Thanks I believe you have a better handle of this issue than anyone on either side.

    Rich

  • leftwinger

    Yes, noone thinks this is really treason. A crime has probably been committed by one or more persons but it is not treason so to speak. Rove would have to have picked up a machine gun an joined al qaeda and perticipated in another foiled 9-11 to be charged with that.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    >>Actually, amicus curiae briefs filed by 36 mainstream press organizations (including the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) contend that there is “no underlying crime” in the Plame affair

    The amicus briefs say no such thing. They are much more specific to the crime they are referring, too, which is KEEPING THE IDENTITY OF SOURCES SECRET.

    None of these briefs addresses the law surrounding the revealing of a covert CIA agent.

    Just because you read it somewhere on a blog or partisan publication – doesn’t make it so.

    Try here for the 40-page PDF of the briefs (1.3 MB). Just to give you a starting off point, search for the keywords in this phrase: … a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative’s name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources

    “should first … whether a crime has been committed. etc. etc. Nothing in the briefs says “no-crime has been committed.”

    I can’t let such an obvious fact go unchecked by those who won’t check.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    All the bickering here is hilarious. I’d love for GPW and Anthony to answer the following questions but without using the typical GOP lines that I don’t accept as reasonable answers. I will place these answers next to each question, so come up with something else b/c I’ve already read these from all the GOP talking heads.

    1) If Karl Rove did not think he was doing anything wrong why did Cooper’s leaked e-mails to his editors at Time read “KR” “double supersecret”? Actually I have not seen a decent answer to this.

    2) If all of this is completely above board, why was the White House’s initial response a denial of any involvement and a promise that whoever was responsible would be fired? Have not seen a decent answer to this either. Other than a post hoc… “we meant only if there was an indictment”.

    3) If the White House is not genuinely concerned about possible legal trouble, why are they stone walling? B/c Fritzgerald has asked them not to talk… My Reply: True but his request is not legally binding, and I know if my reputation were on the line over something getting this much media attention, I’d sure defend myself if I did not have anything to hide or fear.

    4) If the special prosecution has no evidence of wrongdoing, why is he putting his reputation on the line by strongarming and jailing reporters over a deadend case? Have not seen a decent reply to this either.

    Don’t strain your brains too hard, b/c the most parsimonious answer is that they do have something to fear and they know that they did something unethical if not illegal.

    I will agree that the felonly conviction is unlikely; however, perjury is a real possibility.

    – RBP

  • billy

    . . . “his request is not legally binding, and I know if my reputation were on the line . . .

    good one. bush is the president of the US. if he wants to fire someone, comment on someone, or TAKE AN ACTION with regard to national security (i.e., revoke rove’s clearance) he can do that no matter what the prosecutor says.

    so Bush’s inaction is telling.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Hey, Ballet, since you know so much about GOP talking points, perhaps you could tell me where to get some. Actuually, I’m just curious about the whole ‘talking points issue’, so forward a copy of the email you get from moveon.org or the DNC which you use as the basis of your posts. That would work just as well.

    Dave

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    That was circular “reasoning” at its finest.

  • http://www.malakajoe.com MalakaJoe

    No matter what the legal ramifications are, remember that President Bush promised to fire anyone found to have leaked the information.

    Argue all you want about the other stuff, but this promise was made. If it was a democrat, the GOP would send out a lynch mob for the person. Now that is Bush’s “architect”, should things be different?

    Will Bush keep his promise? That is the big question.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Temple Stark:

    Did you even read the amicus curiae you directed my attention to? Page ii: “In this case, there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the ‘Act’)in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper.” Pages 5-12 of the brief document this claim.

    So when you write, “None of these briefs addresses the law surrounding the revealing of a covert CIA agent,” you’re just plain wrong. Whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act applies is the whole point of the brief. Indeed, the logic of the brief depends on the assumption that there is no “underlying crime” involved in the leak of Plame’s name. Since there’s no underlying crime, the brief argues, Miller and Cooper should not be forced to reveal their sources.

    So, since either you have not read or do not understand the brief, don’t lecture me with nonsense like, “Just because you read it somewhere on a blog or partisan publication – doesn’t make it so.” And reread–slowly and aloud–this sentence: “there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed.”

    I can’t let such an obvious misinterpretation of the brief go without comment.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    When the reasoning makes a circle, that’s a sign that it’s complete.

    Dave

  • balletshooz

    I think a fair reading of the news as a whole, as well as the GOP talking points, which have been stated in the public record in both the House ands Senate will reveal a strategy by the GOP to:

    1. Smear/Discredit Wilson; and
    2. Claim no crime was committed.

    Even a Republican probably agrees with this.

    Today, a new prong was added, as indicated in Rush Limbaugh’s artucle on the subject, for instance, which is to claim that Rove just got this info from a reporter, (i.e., he is not a leaker), and therefore this is much ado about nothing.

    There are several others, check out this for all of them, but some are just too silly to mention, like “He didnt use her name”.

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Bambenek:

    In light of what you wrote in #19, and in light of the fact that we seem to agree on this issue, why are you busting my chops in #32?

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    Balletshooz:

    You’re right about the GOP “talking points.” That is the GOP strategy. Where you’re wrong is thinking that Wilson is credible and that there’s an underlying crime here.

  • http://www.geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    GPW,

    Will you please respond to comment 36.

    – RBP

  • http://againsttheleft.com GPW

    1) If Karl Rove did not think he was doing anything wrong why did Cooper’s leaked e-mails to his editors at Time read “KR” “double supersecret”? Actually I have not seen a decent answer to this.

    Of course, on the logic of this question, anyone who leaks any information thinks he has done something wrong. Why else would the leaker desire to keep his/her identity secret? Try coming up with a question that doesn’t have such a ridiculous premise.

    2) If all of this is completely above board, why was the White House’s initial response a denial of any involvement and a promise that whoever was responsible would be fired? Have not seen a decent answer to this either. Other than a post hoc… “we meant only if there was an indictment”.

    Well, if as today’s news reports suggest, Bob Novak told Karl Rove about Valerie Plame and not the other way around, then technically, Rove didn’t leak anything. And given the scandal-prone Washington DC climate, I’d chalk up Bush’s promise to fire the leader to his swaggering Texas bravado.

    3) If the White House is not genuinely concerned about possible legal trouble, why are they stone walling? B/c Fritzgerald has asked them not to talk… My Reply: True but his request is not legally binding, and I know if my reputation were on the line over something getting this much media attention, I’d sure defend myself if I did not have anything to hide or fear.

    Given that Rove has testified before the grand jury, I’m not sure in exactly what sense the WH is stonewalling this investigation. Would you please give me an example of the alleged stonewalling?

    4) If the special prosecution has no evidence of wrongdoing, why is he putting his reputation on the line by strongarming and jailing reporters over a deadend case? Have not seen a decent reply to this either.

    Umm, only one reporter (Judith Miller) has been jailed. And perhaps the prosecutor jailed her because she, unlike Matthew Cooper, refused to identify her source, despite a lawful subpoena ordering her before the grand jury to do so. I’m not lawyer, but I hear that people are often jailed for contempt of court.

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Re 1) The premise is not that the leaker has done something wrong (perhaps my wording was poor). It’s that they have something to hide. In this case, What is Mr. Rove trying to hide and why? Is it b/c he did something wrong (not nesc. illegal but still something that he knew would bring political heat).

    Re 2) This is a very weak answer. Why are they changing their tone now (i.e., now in “no comment” stage)?

    Re 3) Do you live in a vacume? Have you not seen McClellan’s recent interactions with the press. Let’s be realistic.

    Re 4) Maybe, but these people are not often reporters with a legitimate reason for not testifying. If Fritzgerald has sent Miller to jail and strongarmed Cooper in to testifying but does not get an indictment, his reputation will be damaged. Once again you have given a weak answer.

    – RBP

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    RE: amicus

    It gets technical, so I’m not going to debate it as there would be no convincing. It’s for the sake of the general readers who may want facts on their side. However, the key phrase in the page ii introduction quote you cited is “in the public record.”

    The briefs are being filed for the sake of maintaining confidential sources. It’s obvious. The other thing being said is that the prosecutor hasn’t proved enough of s case or yet proved a crime has been committed to compel reporters to reveal their sources. To my educated but untrained and non-lawyerly mind it’s a weak argument. The prosecutor only needs to prove to a judge that he has exhausted all other potential sources for the information he seeks. That decision had already been made, though of course there are appeals.

    The briefs are not being filed in the case against Rove.

  • Tao Jonez

    yo GPW and peeps like him. not to bust yer chops or nuthin, but Maynard nailed yer whole “there is no crime” schtick way up at the beginning with this linky dink

    now scope that a sec, and ya will find the the Justice department, under Bush, already stated how ta persecute those that leak shit, what laws they would use
    and everything.

    poor fool that leaked somthin that Bush didn’t like wuz up on charges coulda got him 500 years! now, he didn’t do that much crime, so he did much less time.

    but then the five oh bragged about, this wuz how they did leaks, and these were the laws that leakers could be busted on

    the bit wuz written by John Dean, and he knows a bit of somthin somthin about leaks and republicans and the Honky House

    you been served

  • http://www.syntropo.com Doug

    From Yubanet:

    A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even “negligent” disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.

  • Tao Jonez

    oh man, and now doug nailed yer nads to the table with the ten penny from hell
    nice linkage Doug

    w00t

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Yep, Doug confirms there’s no way Rove did it. Not if he signed that NDA.

    Dave

  • http://home.comcast.net/~chickyraptor/ted_hooters.jpg Dave

    Tao Jonez, is that supposed to be in English?

  • http://www.bhwblog.com bhw

    Everyone, please use hyperlinks to point to outside sources. Thanks!

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php Marc

    The more this moves along the more it appears as thoughn the [Dim]ocrats have been outfoxed by Rove again.

    Case in point:

    WASHINGTON (AP) – After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president’s No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative’s husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.

    The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter wrote an article identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA officer.

    “I didn’t take the bait,” Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.

    The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove testified to a grand jury about it last year.

    Earlier in the week before the e-mail, Plame’s husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written a newspaper opinion piece accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence, including a “highly doubtful” report that Iraq bought nuclear materials from Niger.

    “Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he’s got a welfare reform story coming,” Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.

    “When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn’t this damaging? Hasn’t the president been hurt? I didn’t take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn’t get Time far out in front on this.”

    So what does it all mean?

    Just as a few, a very few, in this thread have pointed out Rove was on the recieving end of this leak. Rove knew the score a year ago, knew where the guilty resided and as soon as the investigation started he alerted WH Security and turned over the Email.

    This also kills the current Leftist meme of “well if Rove is so innocent why haven’t they cleared his name earlier.”

    Because they did a year ago and as the investigators have said Rove isn’t the target.

    Besides it’s more fun from the WH perspective to watch the [Dim]ocrats chase their tails over this non-issue and make fools of themselves.

  • http://cranialcavity.net/wordpress/index.php Marc

    So as I don’t leave you hanging with no solution to this sordid tale, here are the possible candidates that may have leaked info to “Dame” Miller who currently resides in the ironbar hotel for not telling who her source was.

    George Tenet, Colin Powell or Ari Fleischer.

    My money is on Tenet.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Why would the administration leak a name to discredit someone who has no credibility to begin with? Doesn’t make sense.

    But you could interpret this as a whistleblower action. In the government you are not supposed ato get your spouses jobs ESPECIALLY when they aren’t qualified.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Bush’s inaction?

    You mean calling for an investigation and waiting for the results? You mean having something like, **gasp** due process?

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Two points:

    1)Nobody in the GOP camp of this discussion has addressed in a meaningful way why the Bush Administration has gone from emphatic denials to “no comment” with respect to the press (not the investigation as GPW did earlier in a textbook example of bait-and-switch)

    2) Note that Bush did not call for an indpendent investigation nor has the republican congress. This investigation is under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department which is run by Bush appointee Alberto Gonzales.

    Let’s be intellecutally honest with each other. For and example of intellectual dishonesty, see GPW’s comments above about no stonewalling (comment 47) and my reply (comment 48).

    – RBP

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    rpd:

    No idea, I’m not in the White House and it doesn’t matter. Maybe they are being quiet to let you guys make fools of yourselves and when the investigation is completed you’ll just go back to blaming DeLay.

    I call having the AG step down and appointing an indifferent prosecutor to investigation an exampe of an independent investigation. Not every employee of the DoJ are GOP cronies you know.

    But you do know the the prosecutor has asked them all to shut up and let him do his job?

  • Tao Jonez

    now, let’s hop inta the “wayback” machine a sec. last regime, there wuz some shit, and the prez set up an independant prosecutor, some bigtime partisan from the opposition party.
    and this time? is this Fiotz dude some rabid dem with an open mandate and over 47 million ta spend on it?
    nah.
    but give da boyee time,and see what he does before we bitch.
    just remember where he came from.

  • Shark

    Bambineck: “I’m not in the White House…”

    Wow. I’m shocked!

    Judging from your jingoisms and the fact that you write like English is a second language, I would have thought you were President Bush.

    ======

    The great irony of the Rove affair is that the apologists (many on the above thread) are reduced to a sorta Clintonian “depends on what your interpretation of is is”.

    AHAHAHA. Apparently, there is a God.

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Once again, LET’S BE INTELLECUTALLY HONEST. Check out this link.

    1) Bush appointed Fitzgerald in 2001
    2) The Bush Justice Dept. appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor during the Bush/Kerry Campaign.

    – RBP

  • hst

    After 9/11 ‘National Security’ has risen to the front of all major decisions. From the Afganistan campaign, the Iraqi Invasion, even to GITMO, and the Patriot Act.

    And even now when the political pundits continue to defend Karl Rove and demean Valerie Plame. Wow, you just have to wonder about the mental conditions of these folks.

    The ones who wrapped themselves in god, flag, country, national security, during the last election. The ones today who continue their treasons of rationalization, by defending the ‘outing’ of the CIA.

    So much for the Republican Party defending ‘National Security’. Especially when their ‘wonder boy’ Karl Rove is involved. Such hypocrisy.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Bah, one, there has been no indication whatsoever that outing Valerie Plame caused any problems for national security, especially in the light she and her husband where quite free about her employment BEFORE this came down.

    Two, it doesn’t appear at all that Rove “leaked” this. When you leak something you don’t wait for a reporter to call you about a welfare article. Loose tounge maybe.

    Three, Judith Miller is in jail for protecting a source. It isn’t Karl Rove because he waived confidentiality 2 years ago.

    Four, Rove gave all documents and testified freely in front of the Grand Jury.

    Five, Valerie Plame committed a huge breach of ethics getting her unqualified husband a job he wasn’t qualified for to do a hatchet job on the President that was proven wrong on all accounts. He even lied publicly about how he was chosen.

    Six, you guys STILL don’t know what treason is.

    Seven, even Pelosi is backing off of Rove now that it’s quite clear he committed no crime.

    Eight, she was not a covert agent. Covert agents don’t work at Langley.

    Nine, if you guys have to resort to so much distortion to prove you case, it is more likely you don’t have one.

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Hi Folks:

    The real point I’m making with the “why have they changed their story” (i.e., emphatic denial to “no comment”) goes beyond PlameGate. This administration has a huge credibility issue. Here is an incomplete list of topics where, at the very least, there has been considerable dispute.

    1) WMDs
    2) Saddam and Al-Qaida
    3) John McCain’s black baby
    4) PlameGate
    5) “Major combat operations are over”
    6) Faith based initiatives
    7) Torture of prisoners
    a) GITMO
    b) Abu Graib
    8) No bid contracts
    9) Executive privledge on energy
    meetings
    10) “They will welcome us as liberators”

    etc., etc., etc.

    I’m sorry to get off topic, but this is far from an isolated problem. The real question central to PlameGate is inter-related to the problems listed above and many others… Does this adminstration struggle with the truth? As is usually true in politics, it is likely that the coverup surrounding PlameGate is where the crime resides if indeed there is one at all. The problem is not so much a legal one as it is a credibility one.

    I’m not looking to hang these guys or be partisan… It’s just after over four years of service they have not EARNED my trust. Therefore, I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt when they act suspiciously (see my comments above) with regard to PlameGate.

    – RBP

  • Tao Jonez

    holla holla, scope the link in comment 50
    lot more than what the repub’s is sayin. da truth will set ya free, my peeps.

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    Turning off italics until bhw can get to it!!

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Tao:

    You are right. I read the Dean article yesterday, and it is a good one. The difference is that then the Justice Dept. wanted to throw the book at someone.

    Nevertheless, the blueprint on how to legally sodomize somebody over a leak is there.

    – RBP

  • Tao Jonez

    yo, thanx RBP. tryin ta do my bit. on the flip side, one of da repub talking points has been ta keep shouting Plame ain’t covert. I wanna know who knows more about that, them or the CIA, which brought it up in da first place, hence the grand jury and secial prosecutor?
    I’ll just wait and see how Fitz does, but liek i spoke out about before, he ain’t no independant type picked form the opposing side, like Ken Starr wuz, he wuz appointed by the very same peeps he is supposed ta investigate in 2001 ta da Justice dept, and now he is supposed ta be independantly scoping this mess?
    like havin’ Michael Corleone investigate the mafia
    know what i’m sayin?

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Hi Tao:

    I know what you’re saying. See my comment 64.

    – RBP

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    rpd:

    Faith Based Initiatives?

    I can understand the WMD (although every world government accepted it as fact before we started about going in including the UN) and Al Qaeda (though I’d refer you to some of the latest stuff by Stephen Hayek), but Faith based Initiatives?

    And what the heck does John McCain’s alleged kid have to do with anything?

  • Tao Jonez

    yo Bambenek, it all goes ta show how some peeps got a history and habit of bringing the bullshit instead of keeping it real
    but hatah’s like you want everybody ta be all kinds of ADD and scope nothing but short attention span theatre.
    too bad, so sad, there’s brains all over the place

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    John McCain has a black baby? Tell me more. Sounds like he’s a shoe-in to steal lots of Dem votes in 08 now.

    Dave

  • Tao Jonez

    wuz one of da push poll lies in south carolina primary in 2000, like the shit pulled in georgia about that amputee dude in the wheelchair, ya know, the Nam vet

  • billy

    that nasty john mccain. adopting an asian baby to give it a better life. what a monster.

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Thanks Tao,

    for telling the truth while I was absent. Push polls as Tao was saying: The 2000 Bush campaign called people in SC asking them how they would feel about McCain if they knew he had a black baby. His standing in the state plumitted. It got all kinds of mainstream press coverage. Thus, either Dave and John don’t read much (a distinct possibility given their comments), or they need to refer to my comments 60 & 64 about intellectual honesty.

    Dave, do I detect a tinge of racism in your comment 75? Not accusing, just asking.

    – RBP

  • billy

    classic rovian dirty trick against mccain. i wonder why the republican prosecutor P. Fitzgerald is doing this?
    is he an honest repub and sees evidnce of crime? or is he dishonest, sees evidence of crime, going through the motions now, and later will not do anything?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Oh, we’re talking about the SC push poll question. I thought there was some actual new story that was relevant. I should have known from the rest of the stuff in RPB’s list that none of it was relevant or interesting.

    Dave

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Billy:

    Make no mistake about it… the WH is scared. Largely b/c Fitzgerald has the reputation of being a tenacious no non-sense prosecutor. However, this does not change the fact that Fitzgerald is a partisan as Tao and I have both pointed out above.

    – RBP

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Scared of what? At this point Rove seems to have been conclusively cleared. What you perceive as trying to stonewall is more likely that they are just ignoring a non-issue to concentrate on more relevant things.

    Dave

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Dave:

    1) Only the most partisan ideologue would dismiss my list as irrelevant and uninteresting.

    2) I tied it into Plamegate in the context of a growing credibility gap within the Bush Administration.

    3) Even if KR is in the clear as you claim (which is far from “conclusive”), he is not the only game in town. What about Libby and Fleisher (both have been implicated). There’s still another source out there and the idea that it was Tennet (as someone suggested earlier) is laughable. GT had no motive to out one of his own.

    Again, see my comments 60 & 64 about intellecual honesty.

    – RBP

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    rpb: before we start talking about who has been implicated by a discredit lair (aka Wilson), why don’t we wait for the investigation to be don…

    Then maybe you can have your beheadings.

    You guys wanted the investigation, you got the investigation, now wait for it to be done already.

  • Tao Jonez

    yo Bambenek, might taste better if the prosecutor hadn’t been given his job by the peeps he’s supposed ta investigate
    can ya even spell conflict of interest?

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    Tao:

    Maybe you should take a look at what Fitzgerald is doing in Illinois if you think he’s a partisan hack. He single-handed made sure this state is solid democrat by indicting half the freaking IL GOP here. Not that I blame him, they were crooks, but still…

  • Tao Jonez

    and how does that change the fact that he got his fed job in 2001 from this WH?
    please playah, sell that horseshit ta somebody thas buyin

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    If he’s such a partisan hack, why did he wipe out IL GOP?

    Thanks for playing. We know you’ll see no investigation as valid that doesn’t impeach every Republican and give the Democrats the Socialist dream state they’ve always wanted but could never get enough votes for.

  • Tao Jonez

    yo Bambineck, did i call him any kinda hack?
    or did i just say there coudl be a conflict of interest cuz of who gave him his job in the Fed?
    clean yer ears out, hatah, get a grip
    and try not ta have too many wet dreams about the fascist state ya obvioulsy want that can’t question nutcuppers like you

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    John:

    Tao (comment 62) and I (comment 81) have both given Fitzgerald his due props, so do something besides namecalling. My suggestion is that you admit that Fitzgerald has ties to the administration, and that he could, as Tao pointed out, have a conflict of interest.

    – RBP

  • Nancy

    From what I’ve been able to find out about him, Fitzgerald has a pretty solid rep for being an ‘honest cop’. The kind of Republican that USED to run the party. Good for him. I’ll keep hoping this is true & remains so. We need more like him: honest, regardless of party.

    What still perplexes me (& it’s been hashed out in other threads) is why Novak is still walking & talking out in public instead of behind bars. If Rove is suspect for being part of the daisy chain of leakers, why isn’t Novak, who actually published the piece? Isn’t it just as illegal for a reporter to ‘out’ a CIA as it is for a technical ‘civilian’ like Rove? It would seem if Rove is going to be lambasted, Novak (historically his partner in crime in other dirty tricks episodes in the past) should be too, instead of just keeping his head down & walking away from it all as he seems to be doing. Situations change day to day on this, any thoughts about why Rove is being targeted (aside from the obvious that anyone w/any ethics at all loathes him for the amoral maggot he is, plus he’s (literally, lol) a bigger target politically) & Novak seems to be getting off scott free?

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    speaking ot Nancy’s question only – Rove would have signed all kinds of Non-Disclosure agreements and having security clearance makes you culpable in so many ways.

    Novak, a columnist. I’m really struggling about the morality of what he did and how wrong he may have been. But he isn’t equal when it comes to revealing information. He wrote that he got his information from government officials. Usually that’s code words for White House from all that I’ve read.

    I’m gauging the fear factor for Rove supporters by their volume of posts here and elsewhere trying to explain the un=explainable and asserting “nothing here” at the slightest whiff of hope.

  • Nancy

    Noooo…I can’t buy that, quite. It seems to me a law is a law is a law, & if Rove ends up hanging, so should Novak. There aren’t two laws, one for reporters & one for everyone else. Treason & outing someone are treason & outing someone, regardless. And if media types are that irresponsible, they deserve to hang…but in view of past history between the two, this was not an uncoordinated thing, I’m betting. Novak has been Rove’s journalist hack for decades. IF Rove is guilty, then Novak sure as shit is, too. I’m still intrigued by – was it yours, Temple? – someone’s speculation that Miller is actually in jail voluntarily (i.e. by her own choosing) as a way to avoid a yet bigger “bottom feeder” she’s protecting as a source, that she’s more afraid of than Rove or jail time.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    Somebody said there was a possibility of Miller being behind bars as pennance. And I said I had been thinking of the same thing. No proof at all, just speculation .. and the information has moved forward since then.

    I also am glad at least one journalist went to jail. I hope to post about that, soon. Tomorrow probably.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I won’t admit that Fitzgerald has ties because no one in the DNC said one word against him and lots of words for him when he got appointed. So in short, it’s only you kooks who are complaining because you aren’t going to get the result you want.

  • billy

    i have solved this whole dilemma, (maybe)

    the oroginal source is unknown (probably libby) who leaked to miller, to novak, to rove, to cooper, and without miller’s testimony the original source (libby) may be hard to get.

    rove probably lied and said to the grand jury he had nothing to do with it.

    bye bye martha, i mean rove

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RPB:

    >>1) Only the most partisan ideologue would dismiss my list as irrelevant and uninteresting.< <

    Only the most partisan ideologue would put forward a silly list like the one in #67. All but about two of your items are either utter crap or distillations of totally ludicrous left wing spin.

    >>2) I tied it into Plamegate in the context of a growing credibility gap within the Bush Administration.< <

    Keep saying it. If enough people repeat it, it apparently becomes true.

    >>3) Even if KR is in the clear as you claim (which is far from “conclusive”), < <

    I'm just going on the latest news reports which seem to be tending that direction pretty definitively.

    >>he is not the only game in town. What about Libby and Fleisher (both have been implicated). There’s still another source out there and the idea that it was Tennet (as someone suggested earlier) is laughable. GT had no motive to out one of his own.< <

    This is why we have a special prosecutor.

    >>Again, see my comments 60 & 64 about intellecual honesty.<<

    Based on #64 you wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if it bit you on the ass.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    I’m not complaining about Fitz; so far I think we should clone him. A lot.

  • Nancy

    BTW, maybe it’s just me, but has anyone else noticed all these fat, pasty white men seem to look alike? I could swear Rove & Novak look alike enough to be related genetically. Maybe they both don’t have strawberry marks from birth….

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>My suggestion is that you admit that Fitzgerald has ties to the administration, and that he could, as Tao pointed out, have a conflict of interest.<<

    Special prosecutors are ALWAYS appointed by the White House. They appoint people they know who they think will be impartial. That’s the way it’s done. It’s not like what was done with Fitzgerald was any different than any previous special prosecutorial appointment. Nixon appointed the Watergate prosecutors – more than one (Sirica, Cox, Jaworski) because he kept firing them and appointing new ones who then proceded to prosecute him the same way.

    If it worked despite Nixon’s efforts to undermine the system I doubt we have to worry about it in this case.

    Dave

  • Nancy

    I don’t think so either, Dave. For once we agree on something. If Fitz says in the end Rove isn’t to blame, I’ll hate it, I admit, but I’d accept it, he’s that credible, even to me.

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Woh Dave… Easy Boy… Get Down.

    Comment 64 has a hyperlink, so if that information is wrong, you should write the SF Chronicle so that they can make a correcction.

    As for my other list… run a google new search on any of those topics. All this is documented Dave. Also note that I said “at the very least there has been considerable dispute”. Aren’t credibility gaps about disputed information?

    – RBP

  • Nancy

    Fitz, that is, not Rove. I wouldn’t trust Rove for any reason at any time. His past record regarding veracity & honesty is too poor.

  • Tao Jonez

    yo Dave, howabout Starr?
    but i give props ta Fitz so far, we will see what the skinny is when it’s tucked inta bed

    now, when is somebody like Fitz gonna look inta Gannon/Guckert and let us know how somebody with a fake name got inta the WH after he wuz rejected on the Hill?(dat’s the normal path fer WH correspondents)

    how do these things fit? only one i know might have the 411 on that, would be Ari, and he’s gone and ain’t talking
    how bad it gotta be ta stick in his craw and make him resign?

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    There has been much speculation about exactly who Miller might be protecting, up to and including herself (there was no “government official,” she was writing from the rumors gleaned from Washington parties).

    It’s ALL hot air until the investigation concludes…

    and heaven knows there’s enough here to float a blimp the size of the District of Columbia!

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>Woh Dave… Easy Boy… Get Down.< <

    Not likely. I'm not going to stand silent when you start spewing garbage that looks like it came straight off of a leftist disinformation mill like DailyKos. You can feed that pablum to the true believers, but with thinking people it's not going to fly.

    >>Comment 64 has a hyperlink, so if that information is wrong, you should write the SF Chronicle so that they can make a correcction.< <

    Actually, it doesn't have a hyperlink, and regardless of where it came from, you posted it so you own it.

    >>As for my other list… run a google new search on any of those topics.< <

    I'm intimately familiar with each of the topics and how they've been manipulated and distorted to serve political agendas.

    >> All this is documented Dave.< <

    The topics are documented, but the documentation doesn't necessarily back up the way they're commonly being used.

    >> Also note that I said “at the very least there has been considerable dispute”. Aren’t credibility gaps about disputed information? <<

    Only in the mind of the disputer. And there are those who dispute anything which comes out of the administration just because of pure partisan hate. If Rove said the sky is blue John Conyers would have a petition drive going with 100,000 people signed up to say it is red.

    Dave

  • hst

    So sorry DAVE, your information like yourself is coming up SHORT! Ha Ha, Silly FReep.

    >>Special prosecutors are ALWAYS appointed by the White House.< <

    * Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who was ((appointed by Congress)) to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate…..

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Has anybody speculated that Miller may have received different information from Cooper and Novak, but from the same sources or with some source overlap?

    – RBP

  • http://paperfrigate.blogspot.com DrPat

    I believe that’s “FReeper,” hst…

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Well on my browser it has a hyperlink.

    Anyhow, cut and paste this into your browser Dave.

    – RBP

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    >>So sorry DAVE, your information like yourself is coming up SHORT! Ha Ha, Silly FReep.< <

    At least you gave me a laugh. I have the honor of having been permanently banned from Freepland for being too liberal. They don't even return my emails.

    >>>>Special prosecutors are ALWAYS appointed by the White House.<<

    * Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who was ((appointed by Congress)) to investigate the events surrounding the Watergate…..<<

    Your source is wrong, plus the link doesn’t work. Cox was appointed by acting attorney general Elliot Richardson with the approval of the WH but at the request of Congress. He was later fired by Robert Bork who was then acting AG.

    I should clarify what I wrote earlier. Sirica was not a special prosecutor, he was the judge in the B&E trial of the Watergate Seven. After teaching this stuff for 20 years I should have remembered that.

    Dave

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    Dave is right about Archibald Cox. Check out http://www.igpa.uiuc.edu/ethics/cox-bio.htm . Admittedly, I checked with hopes that Dave would be proved wrong, but he was right.

    – RBP

  • Paul

    Why hasn’t Bob Novak been brought forth publicly on this matter? Reporters should have no immunity when they are involved in jepadozing National Security of the country.

    Novak claimed to be so knowledgeable of the laws and have no excuse for publicly exposing the CIA agent. He therefore is guilty of a serious crime with the rest of his cronies in the Whitehouse.

    Paul

  • Nancy

    Well, Paul, this is the question a lot of us have been asking for months now. I suppose it will all come out in the wash, eventually… but it’s torture to our sense of curiousity waiting for it, isn’t it? We all hate to be kept waiting….

    LOL, DrPat, that must be why it’s 100+ w/near-100% humidity here in the DC area. You’d think w/congress out of town for a few weeks, the hot air would go away for a bit.

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554@hotmail.com

    New developments: COOPER SPEAKS. Check out these links:

    1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700400.html

    – RBP

  • http://geocities.com/rbp0554 rbp0554

    damn thing would not let me post two hyperlinks at once!
    2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700369.html

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    And in that story Cooper indicated their might be more sources but refused to identify them…

    Miller is in jail protecting sources and those aren’t Rove and Libby who’ve signed confidentiality waivers.

  • Tao Jonez

    here’s da facts and da timeline, layin it all out fer peeps ta scope

  • BE

    Bambenek,

    Like Cooper, Judith Miller did not accept the generic confidentiality waiver the WH forced everyone to sign. Cooper only revealed sources when the sources personally gave him permission. It is still possible that (one of) Miller’s source was also Rove. You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Which explains the nonsense you’ve written all over this thread.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    I’m sorry, I’m not buying that line of BS.

    Rove made it clear repeatedly, and once again to Cooper, he meant it when he waived it. It isn’t Rove. Move on. Miller is in jail protecting someone else… if it wasn’t clear that Rove waived it 2 years ago, it was made clear to Cooper last week.

  • BE

    Bambenek,

    Again, your not paying attention. Rove has made no personal waivers to Miller. Neither she nor Cooper have accepted anything but a personal waiver from sources. A waiver to some other reporter is as worthless as the WH generic waiver. Rove could have been on both sides of the leak; leaked it one way and then it got back to him through a different reporter. This would give him a plausible story, and a way to deny being the original source. I’m not saying this is what happened, but I would not be surprised if it is.

  • http://jcb.pentex-net.com John Bambenek

    BE:

    I’m paying attention, he signed a blanket waiver for everyone. I’m not buying this interpretation he has to sign waivers for everyone. I don’t accept that legal interpretation or that interpretation of the facts. It makes no sense and it is simply not plausible.

    The document as signed applied to Miller and Cooper, whether or not they want to play games or not.

  • BE

    Bambenek,

    Cooper did not accept the WH blanket waiver, did he? Neither did Miller. Cooper only talked after he was given personal permission from his source. Whether you choose to look at the press as playing games as they attempt to protect sources, or not, the facts are that Rove could be a source of Miller’s. There is no reason to rule that out. He has not given a personal waiver to Miller.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com/ andy marsh

    BE – how can you use the words fact and could in the same sentence and expect me to take you seriously…the fact is….that this could be…why isn’t the factof the matter…that he could not be???

  • BE

    Bambenek,

    It is a fact that whether (one of) Miller’s source(s) was Rove is unknown. He could be, he may not be. The waivers are insufficient to rule Rove out as a source of Miller’s. We can see how Cooper and Miller operate with respect to waivers: They only accept personal waivers, Miller has not received one such waiver from Rove, therefore Rove could be one of her sources, therefore she may know more than Cooper about what Rove disclosed to the press.