View Full Version : Karl Rove reportedly Outed Valerie Plume as CIA Undercover
dlabtot
07-24-2005, 02:25 PM
Anyone who had Brewster-Jennings & Associates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_%26_Associates) as a cover or connection was put in danger.
Melonie
07-24-2005, 05:26 PM
Where was all of this outrage and concern for CIA agent's being put at risk when John Kerry outed Fulton Armstrong during a Congressional Hearing last April ? That was OK I suppose since the attempted result of the outing was to shoot down GWB's UN nominee John Bolton ? Well at least no special prosecutor is necessary since the evidence is right there in the Congressional record ! The hypocracy is simply amazing.
As to criminal investigations, I can't wait to find out what source Judith Miller is protecting by sitting in jail on a contempt of court charge. From the LA Times ...
"Miller, who never wrote about the case, was subpoenaed by the prosecutor to testify about conversations that she had with a government official about Wilson and Plame between the time of the Wilson and Novak columns. Fitzgerald has asserted that the unnamed official with whom she spoke has given a general waiver permitting Miller to testify. Miller has said she does not consider the waiver to be voluntary. She thinks obviously that it's been coerced by the prosecutor, and so she's not going to reveal her source."
As Rush speculates ... "There's got to be another source here that Judith Miller won't give up even though there is a general waiver. That leads me to ask: Isn't the New York Times really in conflict here? What the New York Times is trying to do is protect one of their reporters and they're doing it by attacking Karl Rove. They're not acting in the public interest. They're acting out of their own corporate interests, and their own ideological interests. I don't know who their leaker is. I don't know who Judith Miller's leak is. What if it's a Democrat? What if it's a big lib somewhere? What if it's Wilson himself? Well, whoever it is, they need to come clean because the First Amendment is not without exceptions, folks. "
Richard_Head
07-24-2005, 07:09 PM
Why is it so hard for you to believe that Karl Rove could do something like this?
Here's another link on Rove and his actics: http://gnn.tv/articles/951/School_of_Rove
threlayer
07-24-2005, 09:58 PM
I have a local friend who believes everything Rush Limbaugh says. I cannot talk him out of being so gullible. I think it is because he wants it to be how Rush says it is. Of course Rush's Republicans can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right. I think he is just addicted to the show and doesn't know where else to go.
But everyone has different beliefs and 'reasons' for them, so who knows.
Melonie
07-25-2005, 02:47 PM
what do you know ... there WAS a new Rove story today
"July 25, 2005, 8:47 a.m.
A Rove Perjury Rap?
The speculation grows intense without any evidence.
by Byron York
Recent news reports and commentary have suggested that top White House adviser Karl Rove might be under investigation for perjury in the Plamegate affair. But sources familiar with the probe say the most frequently cited evidence for such speculation an apparent inconsistency between Rove's and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's accounts of a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation falls far short of being the basis for any prosecution, much less a perjury charge.
Two days ago, in a front-page story headlined "Testimony By Rove And Libby Examined; Leak Prosecutor Seeks Discrepancies," the Washington Post reported that Plamegate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has been reviewing over the past several months discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony in his investigation of the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame." One such discrepancy, the Post reported, involved vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby. The other involved Rove:
Prosecutors have also probed Rove's testimony about his telephone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the crucial days before Plame's name was revealed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak.
Rove has testified that he and Cooper talked about welfare reform foremost and turned to the topic of Plame only near the end, lawyers involved in the case said. But Cooper, writing about his testimony in the most recent issue of Time, said he "can't find any record of talking about" welfare reform. "I don't recall doing so," Cooper wrote.
The apparent discrepancy, first reported by Bloomberg News, is, according to the Post, evidence that Fitzgerald's investigation "has ranged beyond his original mission to determine if someone broke the law by knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative." Another Post account, citing the Cooper-Rove discrepancy, quoted an informed source saying that Fitzgerald is now " looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent.'"
But speculation that Rove's conversation with Cooper might somehow form the basis of a perjury charge has no basis, according to knowledgeable sources. There are two reasons. The first is that there is solid evidence to support Rove's version of events. The second is that, even if Rove's account were incorrect, a conflict in testimony about welfare reform is not material to the Plamegate case.
First the evidence. Two weeks ago, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin told NRO that Cooper called Rove on July 11, 2003, and that Cooper began the conversation by talking about welfare reform. After a brief talk about that issue, Luskin explained, Cooper then changed the subject to WMDs and the controversy surrounding former ambassador Joseph Wilson.
But when Cooper testified before the grand jury, he said he did not recall talking to Rove about welfare reform "I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11," Cooper wrote in his Time account of his testimony, "and I don't recall doing so." That, plus Cooper's statement that he was questioned closely about the issue during his grand-jury testimony, led to the current speculation that Rove might have given a false account of the conversation before the grand jury.
But there is more to the story. Just moments after finishing his conversation with Cooper, Rove wrote a description of the talk in an e-mail to Stephen Hadley, who was then the deputy national-security adviser. The e-mail indicates that the two men did indeed begin their conversation with welfare reform. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail, which was first reported by the Associated Press. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger..."
The e-mail appears to be solid, at-the-time evidence that the two men discussed welfare reform. "It appears that Rove's recollection of a conversation having been initiated about welfare reform is consistent with a contemporaneous e-mail he wrote to Hadley moments after he hung up the phone with Cooper," says a knowledgeable source.
In addition, in a less-quoted section of his article in Time, Cooper himself acknowledged that he might have inquired about welfare reform. Cooper wrote that after reviewing his e-mails from the days in question, "it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in Time on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law." Cooper also wrote that, "I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform." (The welfare story, Cooper wrote, was ultimately pushed aside by other news.)
It was not until Cooper went before the grand jury and was questioned at length about the welfare-reform issue did he discuss it with Rove? that Cooper got the idea that the topic might be important. The questioning, Cooper wrote, "suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform." But Cooper had no memory of that being part of the conversation.
Hence the conflict. But it is a conflict, at least from what is publicly known, between an account Rove's that is supported by an e-mail written at the time, and an account Cooper's that is based on a lack of recollection, hedged by Cooper's concession that he had, in fact, been working on a welfare reform story. That is not, experts suggest, the stuff of perjury.
"Even if [Rove] didn't have that contemporaneous e-mail, it has to be about something material," says Victoria Toensing, a former federal prosecutor who also, as a Capitol Hill aide, helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. "Whether [Cooper] called [Rove] about welfare reform or the price of milk, it wasn't at the heart of what the testimony was about, which was Valerie Plame. It would never be considered material."
Rather, Toensing says, the difference between Rove's and Cooper's account of their conversation falls within the normal differences in recollection that often occur when two people are asked about the same event. And if such differences were the basis for a perjury prosecution, Toensing says, one might as well speculate that Matt Cooper could face such charges. Both scenarios, she suggests, are ridiculous. "Somebody remembers something as happening on Tuesday, and somebody remembers it happening on Wednesday. People differ in their memory. It's not perjury."
dlabtot
07-25-2005, 02:57 PM
The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status.
Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, and his team have made no decision on whether to seek indictments, and there could be benign explanations for differences that have arisen in witnesses' statements to federal agents and a grand jury about how the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent who had worked undercover, was leaked to the media two years ago.
The investigation focused initially on whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, in a campaign to discredit Wilson after he wrote an op-ed article in The New York Times criticizing the Bush administration's grounds for going to war in Iraq.
According to lawyers familiar with the case, investigators are comparing statements to federal authorities by two top White House aides, Karl Rove and Lewis Libby, with testimony from reporters who have acknowledged talking to the officials.
The sources also said prosecutors are comparing the various statements to the FBI and the grand jury by Rove, who is a White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's chief political strategist. Rove in his first interview with the FBI did not mention a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, according to lawyers involved in the case. The White House aide has been interviewed twice by the FBI and made three appearances before the grand jury, they said.
MORE: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507240346jul24,1,2637497.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
Yes, Rove's lawyer is furiously spinning, however, it won't stop the indictments... Fitzgerald won't be swayed by the latest headlines, nor by the lastest spin from the National Review.
Richard_Head
07-25-2005, 03:38 PM
Where was all of this outrage and concern for CIA agent's being put at risk when John Kerry outed Fulton Armstrong during a Congressional Hearing last April ? That was OK I suppose since the attempted result of the outing was to shoot down GWB's UN nominee John Bolton ? Well at least no special prosecutor is necessary since the evidence is right there in the Congressional record ! The hypocracy is simply amazing.Actually Fulton Armstrong was outed a long time before Kerry mentioned his name.
Here's a link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007
dlabtot
07-25-2005, 03:42 PM
^^^ there you go attempting to introduce facts into the discussion, again!!!
Melonie
07-25-2005, 04:18 PM
well the new Senate Intelligence Committee investigation should finally turn up the 'facts' behind special prosecutor Fitzgerald's 2 year investigation ...
(snip)"Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years."
It would appear that liberal democrats and mainstream media didn't know enough to quit while they were ahead ! The intent of the Senate Intelligence Committee is to draft and pass comprehensive new laws prohibiting leaks of sensitive information to the news media.
dlabtot
07-25-2005, 04:29 PM
^^^ maybe if they spend enough time and taxpayer money, they'll find out why Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald hates America.... http://anarchy.soak.net/smileys/eyes.gif
Destiny
07-25-2005, 10:45 PM
what do you know ... there WAS a new Rove story today
"July 25, 2005, 8:47 a.m.
A Rove Perjury Rap?
The speculation grows intense without any evidence.
by Byron York
Recent news reports and commentary have suggested that top White House adviser Karl Rove might be under investigation for perjury in the Plamegate affair. But sources familiar with the probe say the most frequently cited evidence for such speculation an apparent inconsistency between Rove's and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's accounts of a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation falls far short of being the basis for any prosecution, much less a perjury charge... Perjury? I thought it was established during the Clinton Administration that lying under oath was not a crime in D.C.?
Melonie
07-26-2005, 01:41 AM
Perjury? I thought it was established during the Clinton Administration that lying under oath was not a crime in D.C.?
Apparently that only applies to democratic politicians and reporters.
Actually, IMHO it is good news that the Senate Intelligence Committee is planning to get serious about leaks and leakers. However, I suspect that in the long run democrats and mainstream media will be more affected than republicans if/when stricter laws are enacted.
I'm also very curious to eventually find out which leaker that Judith Miller and the New York Times have been protecting !!!
dlabtot
07-26-2005, 09:57 AM
^^^ she's protecting herself, falsely claiming a non-existant absolute press privilege to cover up her own complicity in this criminal conspiracy.... look for Fitzgerald to up the ante from civil to criminal contempt....
Melonie
07-26-2005, 03:53 PM
here's an interesting bit of non-headline reporting ... with the majority of the content coming from the back pages of the New York Times.
dlabtot
07-26-2005, 04:13 PM
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence?
Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales said Sunday that he spoke with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card immediately after learning that the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity. But Gonzales, who was White House counsel at the time, waited 12 hours before officially notifying the rest of the staff of the inquiry.
Many details of the investigation led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald are unknown. Sources close to the case have said Fitzgerald is looking into possible conflicts between what President Bush's senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief Lewis Libby told a grand jury, and the accounts of reporters who spoke with the two men.
Gonzales said on "Fox News Sunday" that he is among top current and former Bush administration officials who have testified to the grand jury about the unmasking of Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. Gonzales, who has recused himself from the case, would not discuss details of his testimony but said he learned about Plame's work from newspaper accounts.
The New York Times reported Sunday that when Gonzales was notified about the investigation on the evening of Monday, Sept. 29, 2003, he waited 12 hours before telling the White House staff about the inquiry. Official notification to staff is intended to ensure that pertinent records are preserved.
Asked on CBS' "Face the Nation" about the report, Gonzales said the Justice Department had informed his office around 8 p.m. and that White House lawyers said he could wait until the next morning before notifying the staff. He did not say why he called Card.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507250170jul25,1,1326774.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed
I bet the shredders were busy that night!
Destiny
07-27-2005, 09:18 AM
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence? How do you know what his intentions were?
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 09:22 AM
I don't care what his intentions were, the fact is that he gave Card a heads-up, which gave the White House 12 hours in which to destroy evidence.
It is his unethical action that I am concerned with, not what he says his intentions were.
Destiny
07-27-2005, 09:30 AM
LOL, I don't care what his intentions were, the fact is that he gave Card a heads-up, which gave the White House 12 hours in which to destroy evidence. Well yes you do care what his intentions were because you ascribed an evil motive to him without any basis for it.
It is his unethical action that I am concerned with, not what he says his intentions were.Why was it unethical? If you recieved some important news would you call your boss and let him know? So it was unethical for him to tell one person (the chief of staff) about this, but would have been proper to start calling the entire White House staff at 8:00 at night and tell them?
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 09:40 AM
Well yes you do care what his intentions were because you ascribed an evil motive to him without any basis for it.
I suppose if someone robbed a bank and I said that he did it so that he'd have money, you'd say there was no basis for ascribing that motive...
again, he gave the WH a 12 advance warning of the impending investigation which gave them the opportunity to destroy evidence. If you want to believe this was done out of some noble motive, you are welcome to hold that viewpoint, lol.
Why was it unethical? If you recieved some important news would you call your boss and let him know? So it was unethical for him to tell one person (the chief of staff) about this, but would have been proper to start calling the entire White House staff at 8:00 at night and tell them?
So now I'm supposed to pretend that I believe you really don't understand what is unethical here? http://anarchy.soak.net/smileys/eyes.gif
Destiny
07-27-2005, 09:43 AM
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence? If true, the White House Counsel would be guilty of obstruction of justice, a serious crime. Do you have any evidence to back up such a serious charge or not?
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 09:46 AM
^^^ as far as what he did, he's admitted it in numerous press interviews, for example on Face the Nation.
As far as your interpretation of the law, it is up to you to support your opinion with an argument, I have no desire to engage your strawmen.
It will be up to Fitzgerald to determine what crimes have been committed.
Destiny
07-27-2005, 09:51 AM
^^^ as far as what he did, he's admitted it in numerous press interviews, for example on Face the Nation.Gonzales stated on Face The Nation that he called Andrew Card was so the White House could destroy evidence?
It will be up to Fitzgerald to determine what crimes have been committed. I thought it would be up to a jury.
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 09:56 AM
Again, I don't care what he SAYS his motivations were, it is his actions that are in question.
The prosecutor decides who to indict and then there is a trial, yes. I eagerly await the jury verdicts.
Destiny
07-27-2005, 10:00 AM
Again, I don't care what he SAYS his motivations were, it is his actions that are in question...Okay, well don't let the total lack of evidence keep you from jumping to conclusions.
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 10:03 AM
^^^ the evidence is, he's admitted he did it, lol
Gonzales Says He Told Card About CIA Probe
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday that he notified White House chief of staff Andy Card after the Justice Department opened an investigation into who revealed a covert CIA officer's identity, but waited 12 hours to tell anyone else in the executive mansion.
The White House did not respond to questions Sunday about whether Card passed that information to top Bush aide Karl Rove or anyone else, giving them advance notice to prepare for the investigation.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/07/24/national/w131014D80.DTL
Destiny
07-27-2005, 10:06 AM
^^^ the evidence is, he's admitted he did it, lolYou mean when you say he admitted on Face The Nation that the reason he called Card was so the White House could destroy documents? Please. You have absolutely no facts to back up your groundless charge. Your willingness to believe the worst of people you disagree with does not validate innuendo.
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 10:08 AM
^^^ (for what, the 20th time?) it is his actions that are at issue, not what he says his motivations were
devilsadvocate667
07-27-2005, 10:10 AM
Sorry kiddo, your wonton willingness to trust anything the adminsitration does and believe that republicans are incapable of wrongdoing conflicts with the reality that Rove already has said he was involved, when before he lied to Bush and said he wasnt and lied to the American people. If he didnt lie to Bush, then Bush lied to the AMeircan people. But you know what? Nothing you say has any relevance. Nothing you accuse libs of doing "jumping to conclusions" "accusing and innocent man" none of it. Know why? Because ther is a federal grand jury doing the investigating. A grand jury who jsut widened the scope to include other members of the admiistration. And it was the CIA who requested the investigation adn grand jury, not your favorite sacpe goats the democrats.
Now stop trying to find new creative ways to appease treason, and get on board with America rather than your party!
Destiny
07-27-2005, 10:12 AM
No one is disputing that a phone call was made. But since when is it a crime to call your boss?
You stated the reason Gonazles called Card was so the White House could destroy evidence. I've asked you for evidence to support this. Obviously you have none.
dlabtot
07-27-2005, 10:14 AM
LA Times editorial, July 27, 2005
Operation Coverup
Scandals metastasize. That is the pattern since Watergate. What starts out looking like a small, isolated incident gradually reveals itself to be part of a larger abuse of power. Meanwhile, an unraveling coverup adds new elements. Is that happening now with the scandal over White House leaks of the identity of a CIA agent?
Some folks say that as we learn more, the scandal is getting smaller, not larger. Valerie Plame was a CIA functionary commuting openly to agency headquarters, not a spy working behind enemy lines. The law against revealing the identities of intelligence agents is complicated and probably wasn't broken in this case. And the story line gets muddier: Journalists may have revealed Plame's identity to White House honchos.
We don't buy it. However they came to learn about this juicy factoid, people in the Bush administration misused an intelligence secret to discredit a critic of its Iraq policy. And outing Plame, whether illegal or not, did harm to our national security. Plame may work in Langley, Va., but she worked with others who work in more dangerous locales. You only need to imagine how Republicans would have treated such a leak in the Clinton administration to dismiss their protestations that it's all no big deal.
It's a good bet that there has already been some lying under oath. One theory about the puzzling tenacity and ferocity of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald why he is sending journalists to jail for refusing to provide information he already has about an activity that probably wasn't even a crime by people other than the ones he is persecuting is that he's switched his attention from the leak itself to perjury by White House officials who were asked about it earlier in the investigation.
Perjury is your classic coverup method, and still is used when other methods have failed. Advances in the science of spin since Watergate, however, have made a high-risk, Nixon-style coverup unnecessary in many situations.
President Bush says he won't publicly comment about the Plame case while the investigation continues. But the reason the investigation continues is partly his fault. He should have determined early on who leaked Plame's CIA identity to members of the press, and dealt with it.
Why didn't Bush two years ago just ask Karl Rove and a few others in the administration whether they had leaked Plame's identity to Bob Novak and the others? Why doesn't he ask Rove now? Is it because he knows the answer? Or because he doesn't want to have to fire Rove?
As a precaution against such a catastrophe, Bush now says he will fire anyone found to have broken the law by outing an undercover intelligence operative. Previously he had said he would fire anyone who outs an intelligence officer, period.
The coverup, in short, is going well.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-rove27jul27,0,6859842,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials
Destiny
07-27-2005, 08:49 PM
Sorry kiddo, You can save your patronizing monikers for the club. I'm not a kid, I'm a grown woman. Perhaps you're another one of the men that post here that feel threatened by women who actually think for themselves?
your wonton willingness to trust anything the adminsitration does and believe that republicans are incapable of wrongdoing conflicts with the reality that Rove already has said he was involved, when before he lied to Bush and said he wasnt and lied to the American people. If he didnt lie to Bush, then Bush lied to the AMeircan people. A wonton is a chinese dumpling that's usually boiled in soup or fried. I believe the word you are searching for is wanton. wan·ton Immoral or unchaste; lewd. Yep, I've definitely been accused of being wanton. Funny, I don't recall stating that I believed the administration in this thread. I quoted CNN and The Washingont Post, but not the Bush Administration. But then you don't strike me as the the type to let facts get in the way of a baseless allegation.
But you know what? Nothing you say has any relevance. Nothing you accuse libs of doing "jumping to conclusions" "accusing and innocent man" none of it. dlabtot accuses the Attorney General of the United States of conspiracy to obstruct justice, a very serious crime. What does he based this on? Absolutely nothing. I'm sorry, I'd like to see a little documentation. In the absence of which then yes, he is jumping to conclusions.
Know why? Because ther is a federal grand jury doing the investigating. A grand jury who jsut widened the scope to include other members of the admiistration. Is this the same grand jury that you claim is now investigating treason? Is this the same grand jury testimony that you have access to and that shows Karl Rove committed perjury. I thought by law grand jury testimony was secret. Who leaked the testimony you cliaimed to have read? Shouldn't we appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this?
And it was the CIA who requested the investigation adn grand jury, not your favorite sacpe goats the democrats. Where did I blame the democrats? Was that in the secret grand jury testimony you saw as well?
Now stop trying to find new creative ways to appease treason, and get on board with America rather than your party!What party is that? You know how I vote? Wow, access to secret grand jury testimony and my ballot as well. Is there no end to your powers? "Get on board" huh? No, thanks, rather than follow the herd I think I'll keep thinking for myself.
dlabtot
07-28-2005, 10:37 AM
dlabtot accuses the Attorney General of the United States of conspiracy to obstruct justice, a very serious crime
That is a falsehood. Actually I have only said the things that I have said, and that was not one of the things I've said. It will be up to Patrick Fitzgerald whether to file charges against Gonzalez.
Please stop these lame attempts to put words in my mouth.
Destiny
07-28-2005, 10:59 AM
That is a falsehood. Actually I have only said the things that I have said, and that was not one of the things I've said. It will be up to Patrick Fitzgerald whether to file charges against Gonzalez.
Please stop these lame attempts to put words in my mouth.I'm not putting words in your mouth, here are your own words:
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence?
I bet the shredders were busy that night! What you are accusing the Attorney General of is obstruction of justice. Ever hear of Arthur Anderson and Enron? I'm not going to let you smear someone's reputation simply because you disagree with their politics. Either back up your charges with facts or retract them.
dlabtot
07-28-2005, 11:13 AM
The fact is that your post clearly indicates that what I said is:
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence?
Your continuing assertion that this means something other than what I said is tedious, repetitive BULLSHIT.
You are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the fact that he admitted what he did, but pretending that I said or meant something other than what I actually said is dishonest.
stant
07-28-2005, 06:26 PM
The fact is that your post clearly indicates that what I said is:
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence?
Your continuing assertion that this means something other than what I said is tedious, repetitive BULLSHIT.
You are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the fact that he admitted what he did, but pretending that I said or meant something other than what I actually said is dishonest.
Destiny is right. The plain meaning of "so they could destroy evidence" is exactly what she says, a conspiracy to obstruct justice. "So they could" implies his intent and communication of intent, not simply opportunity. You'll no doubt argue that "could" implied an opportunity, not an instruction to destroy. Hence the reason for the "conspiracy" term. If his intent was to give them the opportunity, and he communicates this, he's guilty of conspiracy.
What you did not say, but possibly meant was "Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a notification of the investigation, giving them a potential opportunity to destroy evidence?"
In my opinion, his reasoning was more likely to ensure that they would preserve evidence, a standard and quite reasonable practice of notification when the destruction of documents may occur inadvertantly or routinely. Give Gonzales some credit on this one. Do you really think he'd risk prison time, not to mention fucking up the rest of his life, just to cover the ass of evil smiling fat boy Rove. More likely he wants Rove gone too.
If the Grand Jury investigation was secret and he was privy to it, this is a different issue entirely.
This mess will be interesting to watch as it unravels, but let's not kangaroo court the entire WH just yet. The kitchen staff is probably 100% innocent of any wrongdoing.
Destiny
07-29-2005, 10:03 AM
The fact is that your post clearly indicates that what I said is:
Did you see how Gonzales gave the White House a heads-up so they could destroy evidence?
Your continuing assertion that this means something other than what I said is tedious, repetitive BULLSHIT.
You are welcome to draw your own conclusions from the fact that he admitted what he did, but pretending that I said or meant something other than what I actually said is dishonest.What is tedious and repetitive is your continued refusal to back up your claims. You stated that the purpose of Gonzales' call was to allow the White House to destroy documents. I've asked you how you know that and you've refused to answer.
It's interesting how when I post facts that don't fit into your narrow-minded ideology, I'm immediately called a liar. Yet you can post defamatory claims about the Attorney General and expect them to go unchallenged? All I've asked you to do is to back up your allegations of document shredding. Obviously you have nothing to back up your claims, and that's what is so frustrating. You refuse to admit that you are engaged in smearing someone's reputations simply because you don't like his politics. How is what you are doing to Mr. Gonzales any different from what you claim the White House did to Mr. Wilson? It looks to me like you are engaged in the exact same behavior.
oh brother, talk about narrow minded ideology, go look in a mirror honey.
Btw, anyone got any more Karl Rove cartoons ? I loved the bullseye one :)
dlabtot
07-29-2005, 02:58 PM
Btw, anyone got any more Karl Rove cartoons ?
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2005/td050723.gif
Destiny
07-30-2005, 09:20 AM
"What I Told the Grand Jury" (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083899,00.html)
By MATTHEW COOPER
...After a fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the wheels of justice have stopped grinding--for me, anyway. Last week I testified before the federal grand jury investigating the leak.
So here's what happened last Wednesday...
I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office... I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me...
Rove went on to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and, I believe from my subsequent e-mails--although it's not in my notes--that Rove added that Dick Cheney didn't send him either. Indeed, the next day the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, told me Cheney had not been responsible for Wilson's mission...
[b] As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. [another true statement] This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife...
So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.
Melonie
07-30-2005, 10:55 PM
the Rove story now mutates ...
It will again be extremely interesting to see which 'leaker' Judith Miller is protecting ! The liberal journalism 'establishment' is seriously starting to circle the wagons in an effort to make sure that she's released without providing this information to the grand jury. This would lead one to believe that Judith Miller's 'source' comes from the other side of the aisle. Hopefully we'll soon find out whether Fitzgerald is interested in discovering the 'whole truth' or just one politically convenient version.
Destiny
07-31-2005, 11:36 AM
In an editorial published on Oct. 2, 2003, the New York Times called on then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to bring in an outside prosecutor to vigorously pursue an investigation of the leak. Now the Times is doing everything it can to hinder the investigation it called for.
Melonie
07-31-2005, 11:52 AM
In an editorial published on Oct. 2, 2003, the New York Times called on then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to bring in an outside prosecutor to vigorously pursue an investigation of the leak. Now the Times is doing everything it can to hinder the investigation it called for.
Speculation in conservative circles is of course that the TRUE origin of the whole Wilson Yellow Cake Uranium incident lies with 'Clintonista' holdovers at the CIA wishing to discredit GWB and his approach to fighting Islamic Terrorism, and that the TRUE leaker comes from the liberal side of the aisle. Actions by the New York Times to hinder the leak investigation at this stage of the game would tend to add creedence to that speculation.
At any rate the Rove story would appear to be yesterday's news at this point. And Fitzgerald's investigation is already approaching the end of it's authorized period of activities, which will run out of time this coming October unless specific action is taken to re-impanel the grand jury. Perhaps this is what the Times is seeking ... a terminal delay such that the investigation will be disbanded before potentially damaging additional information can be uncovered/substantiated which could exonorate Rove and blow the entire Wilson Yellow Cake Uranium incident wide open as a politically motivated 'dirty trick'.
Destiny
07-31-2005, 07:45 PM
oh brother, talk about narrow minded ideology, go look in a mirror honey. When I look in the mirror, I see Destiny, the same person I've been since I first got on SW. Can you say the same Tigerlilly?
stant
08-01-2005, 03:58 AM
"What I Told the Grand Jury" (http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1083899,00.html)
By MATTHEW COOPER
...After a fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the wheels of justice have stopped grinding--for me, anyway. Last week I testified before the federal grand jury investigating the leak.
So here's what happened last Wednesday...
I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office... I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me...
Rove went on to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and, I believe from my subsequent e-mails--although it's not in my notes--that Rove added that Dick Cheney didn't send him either. Indeed, the next day the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, told me Cheney had not been responsible for Wilson's mission...
[b]As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. [another true statement] This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife...
So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.Destiny....don't you know to edit out the actual conclusion of the cited material if it contradicts your purposes? You make it too easy. [Seriously what you did was cool, what I'm suggesting would be intellectually dishonest.] In any case, the key quote by Cooper is:
Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes.
The inescapable flaw in the "Rove didn't actually use her name" argument is that what Rove DID say was an unambiguous, specific identification of Plame as a NOC agent. Unless of course Wilson was a polygamist. But since he had only one wife, Rove fingered her with far more accuracy than if she had been in a police line up. Eye witness testimony is flawed. Rove's ID was dead on.
Rove needs to pack his bags and resign. What an arrogant bunch to think for a second they can slip this one by. He's going down. I'd bet the farm on this one. [Then again I thought OJ was going down... so....maybe I'll just bet the back 40] I wonder if Vegas has a line on Rove?
Destiny
08-01-2005, 08:30 AM
Destiny....don't you know to edit out the actual conclusion of the cited material if it contradicts your purposes? You make it too easy. [Seriously what you did was cool, what I'm suggesting would be intellectually dishonest.]...
Rove needs to pack his bags and resign. What an arrogant bunch to think for a second they can slip this one by. He's going down. I'd bet the farm on this one. [Then again I thought OJ was going down... so....maybe I'll just bet the back 40] I wonder if Vegas has a line on Rove? Actually, I only edit for size, not content. I know that if I copied and pasted entire articles, no one would bother reading them.
Yes, I fully realize that some would come to your conclusion. But what I find most interesting about Cooper's article is that he is basically confirming what Rove's lawyer said. That Rove was attempting to squelch a story filled with misstatments and erroneous conclusions. Would Time have rather Rove let them publish an erroneous story and then demanded a retraction? Was Rove doing this in the interests of, "The Truth"? Of course not. Wasn't it Mark Twain that said, "a lie can make it halfway across town before the truth gets it shoes on"? If you know something in the headlines is wrong or questionable, its far better to get out in front of it before it becomes ingrained in people's mind. If Wilson's assertions were wrong, they were wrong, no matter the motivation of those that were pointing that out.
Furthermore, it may very well be that neither Rove nor Libby knew that Ms. Plume was covert. Cooper himself states that Rove never said Ms. Plume as a covert agent. This is important since the law states that someone must knowingly name a covert agent. Libby has stated that he was told of Plume's postion by a member of the news media. Perhaps he passed on the info to Rove while standing at the water cooler? Also consider this. We keep hearing how serious it was that Rove hinted to Cooper who Wilson's wife was. Yet her position was on Google the following week. It looks to me like by the time Rove and Cooper spoke, her position was an open secret in D.C. and some have said it was prior to this matter as well.
"Rove needs to pack his bags and resign" Okay. What about Time Magazine? Should Cooper be forced to resign as well? What about the editors of Time? Should they be fired for their role in "outing" a covert agent? What about jail? How can anyone demand jail time for Rove and not demand the same sentence for the writers and editors of Time?
To me, this type of thing appears to be standard operating procedure in D.C. The news media keeps wringing their collective hands and telling us how serious this is. But how many of them will vow never again to publish sensitive data? How about they refuse to use unnamed sources? That way we can all evaluate the motives of their sources and determine for ourselves their credibility? Prior to the final court hearing for Cooper and Miller, 36 of the leading news organizations in the country filed a brief with the court stating that it was highly doubtful any crime was even committed in this matter. Then when they found out one of the source was Rove, it suddenly becomes a matter of national security? Please. This entire media circus is designed to deflect attention away from the slimy practices of the news media.
stant
08-01-2005, 02:14 PM
.....Furthermore, it may very well be that neither Rove nor Libby knew that Ms. Plume was covert. Cooper himself states that Rove never said Ms. Plume as a covert agent. I see you've given up on the absurdity of claiming Plame wasn't identified. Again, however, this assertion that an indirect outing is not an outing is equally ridiculous. For example, if you work ostensibly as a teacher, then one day a senior White House staff member tells a reporter you are a CIA agent working on WMD, the absence of the word "covert" is quite the pathetic defense for exposing you. Of course this distinction is meaningless because the truth is patently obvious. Rove outed her. He revealed the identiy of a CIA NOC agent for political gain and retribution against a percieved enemy, their spouse. This aspect makes his actions particularly despicable. Instead of attacking Wilson head on, Rove went after his wife.Let's add coward to the laundry list of Mr. Rove's traits.
This is important since the law states that someone must knowingly name a covert agent. This is not a good road to go down for your cause if you insist on backing this lame horse. First, by plain meaning, Rove is guilty of violating a law with those words. "knowingly name a covert agent" is pretty much a dead on definition of what Rove did. However, Rove's actions were MUCH worse. He committed them as a malicious act of retribution. HE also misused his position of power illegally for political gain and retribution. The list goes on and on and on. I think John Dean has him at 9 crimes so far. The man is toast. Time to dump this architect of evil and clean house.
This isn't lying about a blow job. Blathering on about red herrings won't change a thing. People get this, including most Republicans. Rove's reckless and malicious actions were truly evil and damaging to our country.
It is dificult to fathom even a modicum of support for this traitor. Every 5th grader knows you don't reveal the identity of your own spies to the enemy. Hello? Dump the asshat and jail him already. This is not a cause to fight for and stand behind if you want to keep any credibility for openmindedness.
---
Regarding your lengthy comments about a totally irrelevant topic, some culpability of Time magazine, again, I'd ask you to take another look at the position you are supporting. Rove has top secret clearance and access to CIA NOC identities. This is the root source. This is the PURPOSE of giving people clearance. You make DAMN sure they know what is secret and you make DAMN sure they can be trusted. Rove slipped it to a reporter at the water cooler??? Dump and jail him. I've not heard even the slightest shred of evidence to suggest any alternative would be just.
I'm in total disbelief that anyone can seriously continue to support this criminal. Of course I feel that way about Cheney too, so what the fuck do I know?
dlabtot
08-01-2005, 03:09 PM
It is dificult to fathom even a modicum of support for this traitor. Every 5th grader knows you don't reveal the identity of your own spies to the enemy. Hello? Dump the asshat and jail him already. This is not a cause to fight for and stand behind if you want to keep any credibility for openmindedness.
It's simple to me: If you reveal this kind of information to the enemy, you are a traitor. If you defend a traitor, you are a traitor.
Destiny
08-02-2005, 12:32 AM
---
Regarding your lengthy comments about a totally irrelevant topic, some culpability of Time magazine, again, I'd ask you to take another look at the position you are supporting. Rove has top secret clearance and access to CIA NOC identities. This is the root source. This is the PURPOSE of giving people clearance. You make DAMN sure they know what is secret and you make DAMN sure they can be trusted. Rove slipped it to a reporter at the water cooler??? Dump and jail him. I've not heard even the slightest shred of evidence to suggest any alternative would be just. What position is that? Assuming all your theories are true, how can it be wrong to tell one person (Cooper) but okay to tell a million (Time Magazine)? And how is it irrelevant? The subject is, "Karl Rove Outed Valerie Plume..." Well even assuming that is the case, he didn't mail millions of letters to people, Time did that for him. I see you ignored the essence of the questions which is this. If Karl Rove is guilty, how can Matthew Cooper and Time Magazine not share in that guilt? If it's wrong for Rove to tell Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at, "the agency" how can it be okay for Time to publish that information? Until we see people that claim to be concerned about the seriousness of this calling for punishment for the members of the media that were invovled, this will continue to appear as just what it is. Nothing more than a hypocritical, politically motivated exercise in political retribution.
stant
08-02-2005, 04:24 AM
What position is that? Assuming all your theories are true, how can it be wrong to tell one person (Cooper) but okay to tell a million (Time Magazine)? And how is it irrelevant? The subject is, "Karl Rove Outed Valerie Plume..." Well even assuming that is the case, he didn't mail millions of letters to people, Time did that for him. I see you ignored the essence of the questions which is this. If Karl Rove is guilty, how can Matthew Cooper and Time Magazine not share in that guilt? If it's wrong for Rove to tell Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at, "the agency" how can it be okay for Time to publish that information? Until we see people that claim to be concerned about the seriousness of this calling for punishment for the members of the media that were invovled, this will continue to appear as just what it is. Nothing more than a hypocritical, politically motivated exercise in political retribution.
These are separate issues. I'm hesitant to characterize the nature of your suggestion, but it is akin to a young person defending themselves to an adult by claiming that others are guilty of the same action. In the world of grown ups, each person accused of a crime is charged and tried separately, with the potential exception of conspiracies and cases with identical fact issues for a jury to resolve. The possibility of charges against another party is irrellevant to Rove's treason.
The most important issue, however, which I already mentioned, is the fact that Rove had the clearance to legally posses this information, and was entrusted as such by the government. He had primary responsibility to maintain secrecy. This is the definition of having a security clearance.
Would you know how to identify a document as NOFORN, Confidential, Secret, Top secret, or Special projects? And what each of these classifications demands of the person entrusted with temporary possession of them? You aren't expected to. And neither is Time magazine. Rove was entrusted with this responsibility by the American people and he betrayed us for his own political motives.
Time magazine, et.al. may be facing their own problems down the road. ....[edit] Upon further review, it is likely that Time magazine had an absolute right to publish this information. In fact it might have been covered under the rules of prior restraint, meaning that once in possession of it, they cannot be forcibly prevented from publishing it. See NYTimes vs. US. (1971) A landmark for the freedom of the press.
how can it be wrong to tell one person (Cooper) but okay to tell a million (Time Magazine)? Again this is not relevant to Rove, for all the above reasons, but keep in mind he told a reporter, not his wife or friend in confidence (which would also presumably be unlawfull). Tell a reporter is in fact announcing this information to ALL possible enemies. Plame was toast. And so must Mr. Rove be. Maintaining the "but he did it too" argument is not only a problem for it's irrelevancy, it's an admission of guilt. Time for a little Gitmo vacation for Rove.
Destiny
08-02-2005, 11:52 AM
I've maintained all along that this was of little real importance and that only hard-core Bush-haters even care. I still think that. Frankly, I'm amazed we are still discussing it. That must mean Roberts is going to be easily confirmed since he hasn't pushed this issue aside on here.
I'm not using, "he did it too" as a justification for anything. What I'm saying is this. People keep talking about how "serious" this is, that it is "treasonous". Okay. How come I don't see anyone taking it seriously then?
Since it's too damn hot outside to do anything, I'll play along. For the sake of argument lets agree that anyone that divulges the identity of a covert CIA agent is guilty of treason.
Okay, again, what about Time magazine? Now, no one there might know exactly what the differences are between "classified" and "secret". Though it wouldn't surprise if someone there did. Yet you really expect me to believe that Time finds out someone works at the CIA and the thought never crosses their mind that that person may work there in a covert capacity? Please. Yet where is the condemnation of Time for their role in "outing" Ms. Plume? I'll admit I've not read the NY Times v. U.S. case, though I do know it has to do with the Pentagon Papers. But are you really claiming that Rove should go to jail for telling one person, and Cooper and Time should got unpunished for publishing that information to the world?
What about the New York Times? Two years ago, they called for a vigorous investigation of the leak. Now, they are doing everything in their power to frustrate and hinder the very investigation they called for. If it is so serious, shouldn't they put the welfare of the country first?
What about Judith Miller? I think we can safely assume that the source she is protecting is not Karl Rove. If anyone that divulges the name of a covert agent is guilty of treason, then Judith Miller appears to be protecting the identity of a traitor. Furthermore, her continued silence is allowing a traitor to the United States to remain in a position of authority, where he or she is in a position to leak the names of other covert agents. Do you hear any outrage at this? No. What we are treated to is stories about Tom Brokaw visiting her in jail and endless editorials about what a threat to the first amendment this is and how "brave" she is.
Again, I'm not atempting to justify anything by saying, "look at them". What I am saying, is that its hard to view this issue as anything more than politically motivated gamesmanship when only the participants of one political ideology are castigated.