Karl Rove - Plame leaker? [Archive]

Naturist Mark

07-06-2005, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Recently there has been a fair amount of talk that there is proof that Rove is the Plame leaker.

If this is proven true, do you think he will face justice?

Qikdraw

It would be rare journalist from the New York Times who would go to jail for Karl Rove. No doubt it's a democrat. LOL </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Matthew Cooper is from Time Magazine, not the New York Times. Judith Miller IS from the New York Times, and is going to jail - she may be a Democrat, but if so she is a particularly NeoCon Democrat - her stories during the camplaign were notorious for their negative and unfair treatment of Kerry and light gloves treatment of Bush and she blythely (http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/22301/) served up the administration's disinformation (lies) leading up to the Iraq war - for which the NYTimes had to apologize.

-Mark

Qikdraw

07-06-2005, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
It would be rare journalist from the New York Times who would go to jail for Karl Rove. No doubt it's a democrat. LOL

So basically you are saying that Rove 'would' get away with being a traitor to the country. (If it was him of course, that hasn't been decided yet)

IF it was Rove, I really hope he doesn't get away with it. That would be the last straw for me with this administration. I mean I don't like this administration now, but that would set it over the top and just dismiss everything they say or do.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-06-2005, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
So basically you are saying that Rove 'would' get away with being a traitor to the country. (If it was him of course, that hasn't been decided yet)

IF it was Rove, I really hope he doesn't get away with it. That would be the last straw for me with this administration. I mean I don't like this administration now, but that would set it over the top and just dismiss everything they say or do.

Qikdraw

No I said it's not Rove. No journalist would go to jail for Rove.

Ren

07-06-2005, 09:31 PM

He's probably clogging up the Snake River. My buddy used to do raft trips on the Snake and he'd come in and shut it down to fish for a few hours.

P.J.

07-06-2005, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
Unfortunately Mark is probably right. Honesty and the rule of law mean nothing to this administration.

I'm afraid that honesty and the rule of the law didn't mean much to the previous adminstrations, and I'm not talking about just the Clinton adminstration either!

Qikdraw

07-07-2005, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
No I said it's not Rove. No journalist would go to jail for Rove.

Oh I see, thats what you were saying... Ok so I guess you just misunderstood my question then.

I said IF it was Rove would he face justice? I wasn't asking if you thought it was him or not. There is not enough info to make that claim.

But your democrat comment suggests you think a democrat ratted out Plame? I don't know how you would come up with this because I don't know of any democrat in this administration. And since it was an administration official who ratted out Plame, I would hazard a guess, mind you its just a guess, http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif that it was a republican who is a traitor.

Qikdraw

Qikdraw

07-07-2005, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by P.J.:
I'm afraid that honesty and the rule of the law didn't mean much to the previous adminstrations, and I'm not talking about just the Clinton adminstration either!

You make a very good point P.J.

Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate and Iran/Contra are 3 biggies that come immediately to mind.

Qikdraw

Ren

07-11-2005, 10:16 AM

Hey hey, so it was Rove!

It will be interesting to see if he faces justice for breaking the law. He's already started his spin machine.

Qikdraw

07-11-2005, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Ren:
Hey hey, so it was Rove!

It will be interesting to see if he faces justice for breaking the law. He's already started his spin machine.

I just woke up, do you hae a linky for me? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

Ren

07-11-2005, 01:00 PM

I logged onto my computer and gotAOL's source (http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050710183509990003&ncid=NWS00010000000001) with this headline: "White House Mum on Karl Rove Revelation ---
Bush Said Previously the Leaker of a CIA Agent's Name Would Be Fired"

We shall see.

hm0504

07-11-2005, 01:40 PM

For the edification of anyone wondering what this Rove/Plame thing is about, the suspicion is that in its efforts to intimidate those who felt the White House was being loose with the truth about Iraq's WMDs, the White House enabled the leaking of Valerie Plame's secret identity, as CIA operative on WMDs, to retaliate for her husband's, American ambassador Joseph Wilson, publication saying there was no credence to the Iraqi/Niger yellowcake "evidence" being used by the White House. By showing it was willing to stab the CIA in the back for trying to be straight with the Iraqi WMD story, the White House was able to secure its pro-war intelligence story.

Of course, who would believe that a God-fearing White House would do such a dastardly thing?

hm0504

07-11-2005, 01:44 PM

Naturist Mark wrote:

Will Rove ever face justice? Not a chance. The principals in this administration are literally above the law. The investigation will be shut down after a lesser scapegoat is thrown to the wolves (Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby), or Rove will receive a pardon.

Before this administration is over - all the top people will get pre-emptive pardons. Count on it.

As George W. Bush himself said, see
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
, "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is ... If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.".

jon71

07-11-2005, 01:48 PM

So, someone in the Bush white house is a criminal and a traitor. Is anyone surprised? I wonder if Bush knew in advance and approved, making him a traitor too.

KirkOntario

07-11-2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
So, someone in the Bush white house is a criminal and a traitor. Is anyone surprised? I wonder if Bush knew in advance and approved, making him a traitor too.

That would depend on whether any law was actually violated.

Naturist Mark

07-11-2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

That would depend on whether any law was actually violated.

Actually two laws were violated. One the constitutional offense of Treason. The other the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Karl Rove is now named as one of the Administration leakers, that is no longer being denied. The wiggle is in whether he violated the IIPA because he never "named" Valerie Plame, he merely identified her as Wilson's wife without giving her actual name.

Kinda reminds me of the what the definition of "is" is ...

So far the major media are very busy ignoring the Rove scandal, only giving it cursory coverage.

Here are some questions from the blogs (http://the-goddess.org/blog/2005/07/bush-aide-accused-of-cia-leak.html) to ponder:

Let's think this through for a minute. Karl Rove allegedly outed a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction while we are at war. Everyone is talking about him committing perjury when interviewed by the investigators. What about treason? He demonstrably impeded the war effort and put agents and others in harm's way.

* Does he still have a security clearance? Is he still allowed in the White House?

* Why was a political advisor privy to classified information?

* Should a traitor have access to our president in a time of war? Isn't that a breach of security?

* Valerie Plame's contacts may have been murdered; will he be charged with causing any deaths that might have resulted?

* Ms. Plame's training cost millions of dollars, as did setting up her cover. Is Karl planning to pay that back?

* Did the Justice Department know that Rove was the source of the leak from any of its investigation? How long have they known this and allowed him continued access to the White House?

* Why isn't he in jail?

More (http://tinyurl.com/bq4jg)

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-11-2005, 06:06 PM

Mark are u sure you haven't been duped by Karl Rove's uber strategy to make you think he's leaving the Whitehouse when he'll be running it and the entire world covertly from a basement in Sacremento?? Watch out, this might be one of his tricks. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Trailscout

07-11-2005, 06:22 PM

Rove needs to stand trial for these accusations. They are serious indeed. It would be premature to impute motive, but the result is bad no matter how this comes down.

I think Novak is guilty of a crime for publishing this information.

KirkOntario

07-12-2005, 04:08 AM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Rove needs to stand trial for these accusations. They are serious indeed. It would be premature to impute motive, but the result is bad no matter how this comes down.

I think Novak is guilty of a crime for publishing this information.

Rove answered a reporter's query. Doesn't look like he intended to reveal a CIA agent's name and indeed he never named her. He's got some defences there potentially. Also he did not know she was involved in covert operations as opposed to having a desk job in Washington. It may also have been well known that she was in the CIA the sort of gossip that runs around the town. Have to see how this one plays out.

Naturist Mark

07-12-2005, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Mark are u sure you haven't been duped by Karl Rove's uber strategy to make you think he's leaving the Whitehouse when he'll be running it and the entire world covertly from a basement in Sacremento?? Watch out, this might be one of his tricks. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It may be we are all being duped and Rove is drawing fire away from the 'other source'.

Speaking of which ... where IS Dick Cheney? It's been what, 3 weeks now since he was seen in public?

-Mark

naturalmanwa

07-12-2005, 06:03 AM

There are lots of questions about the revealing of the CIA agent's identity and if the law was violated enough for the guilty party to be charged. Basically, if it concerns the safety and security of the US and its citizens, it should be treason and tried as such. This includes reporters hiding behind "freedom of the press" but knowing the party in question.

smoothm

07-12-2005, 06:50 AM

Am I mistaken or wasn't the CIA Operative in this instance consequently killed? Help me out here. If she was, I think all the smoke and mirrors had better be cleaned up so that discussion on the real issue can take place. If I am mistaken, I appologise.

Ren

07-12-2005, 09:07 AM

Valerie Plame was not killed, but her position as a secret agent investigating WMD was compromised and she had to leave her job.

Dick Cheney made a public appearance entering a hospital last week to have his pacemaker checked. Word has it his health was fine.

It would be a slap in the face of justice if Karl Rove is let off. He's now parsing his words --- go figure --- and the Bush admin hasn't fired him yet as promised. As if they'd do anything honorable. And of course, the lockstep Republicans have been completely mum on this, too. Go figure, as if they'd do anything honorable.

If John McCain is truly a maverick (though he takes two steps back for every step forward he makes by sucking up to Team Bush) he'll be the first to step forward from his side, and he could regain my respect.

Naturist Mark

07-12-2005, 05:29 PM

Things are getting rough in the White House press room. Poor Scott McClellan. From the blogs (http://tomburka.com/): July 12, 2005

White House Cannot Confirm Ever Having Met Karl Rove

In a press conference yesterday, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan refused to confirm that the President knew a "Karl Rove" or that he had ever come across anyone by that name.

"I will not comment upon whether the name is even vaguely familiar to me," said McClellan, saying that "the White House has a policy of not giving potentially damaging information to the public at any time."

McClellan received questions from reporters about an incident wherein Mr. Rove -- today the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House -- compromised the nation's security in order to punish a former ambassador with whom he was displeased. In response, McClellan declined to say whether the President still had confidence in Rove, would not say whether the President had spoken to Rove about the "Plame incident," whether the President knew him, or had heard of him.

Finally, Mr. McClellan denied understanding the words "Karl Rove," merely shaking his head and shrugging his shoulders in a show of incomprehension.

The questioning soon turned to abuse, and reporters hurled threats, insults, and rolled-up newspapers at McClellan until he left the Briefing Room and was replaced by his assistant, Pamela Wiesenstadt.

Ms. Wiesenstatdt refused to confirm or deny the existence of any "Scott McClellan."

The real transcript (http://www.sebimeyer.com/?p=1089) is nearly as funny.

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-12-2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by smoothm:
Am I mistaken or wasn't the CIA Operative in this instance consequently killed? Help me out here. If she was, I think all the smoke and mirrors had better be cleaned up so that discussion on the real issue can take place. If I am mistaken, I appologise.

No she was not.

Naturist Mark

07-12-2005, 05:46 PM

Valerie Plame is alive and well. It is publicly unknown whether any of her clandestine contacts have been burned since her cover was blown by the White House. Her contacts were people deep in the production, procurement, and clandestine trade of weapons of mass destruction. Such people would be at huge risk if they were discovered to be in contact with the CIA. As the wife of a foreign service officer and Ambassador, Agent Plame had excellent opportunities to meet foreign government and industry officials on a seemingly informal basis. Now all such contacts will be under suspicion and many could end up dead. Thanks to Rove and Novak. In any case, those contacts are no longer of any use to the CIA because of this act of treason, and the effort to monitor and counter the clandestine trade in WMDs has been crippled. This is probably not the best thing to happen during a "War on Terrorism". If this had happened under Bill Clinton's watch, we would be building gallows on the National Mall.

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-12-2005, 05:48 PM

I 'm laughing to see the media and liberals going after Rove. Bit like closing the barn door after the horse bolted. Rove's job was to get Bush elected. He did. It's too late to get Rove. Shameful the way they try and make it look malicious as it appears to have been in no way malicious or an attempt to out an agent.

Naturist Mark

07-12-2005, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Rove's job was to get Bush elected. He did. It's too late to get Rove. Shameful the way they try and make it look malicious as it appears to have been in no way malicious or an attempt to out an agent.

So treason is OK as long as it gets your guy elected? Very moral.

The blowing of Valerie Plames cover was retaliation for Ambassador Wilson publicly contradicting the Administration lies about yellowcake sales from Niger. It is the very definition of malicious.

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-12-2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Rove's job was to get Bush elected. He did. It's too late to get Rove. Shameful the way they try and make it look malicious as it appears to have been in no way malicious or an attempt to out an agent.

So treason is OK as long as it gets your guy elected? Very moral.

The blowing of Valerie Plames cover was retaliation for Ambassador Wilson publicly contradicting the Administration lies about yellowcake sales from Niger. It is the very definition of malicious.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read the email it is not at all malicious. Nor was it in relatiation. It was in answer to a query from a reporter.

In fact his use of 'apparently' suggests this fact that she was an agent was well known. Why else does this woman pose for magazine covers if she is so covert and secret?
Treason is probably one of the most difficult offences to prove. They would not even attempt a treason charge. It's not.

Naturist Mark

07-12-2005, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

If you read the email it is not at all malicious. Nor was it in relatiation. It was in answer to a query from a reporter.

In fact his use of 'apparently' suggests this fact that she was an agent was well known. Why else does this woman pose for magazine covers if she is so covert and secret?.

It was not a secret that she was married to an American Ambassador. That was her cover! Duh... of course she was a semi-public figure - but she was NOT publicly identified as a CIA operative until Rove, Libbey, Cheney & Co. outed her.

What motive do you think there was for the outing? Just plain old curiosity? Matthew Cooper - who has identified Lewis "Scooter" Libbey and Karl Rove as his sources, wrote that it was retaliation against Ambassador Wilson.

-Mark

jon71

07-12-2005, 06:34 PM

Bush promised to fire anyone behind this. Who thinks Bush will keep a promise? Has he yet?

slo

07-12-2005, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
"Who thinks Bush will keep a promise? Has he yet? "

In response to your questiopn, No! I don't think he will. He is a lame duck President in the 1st year of his 2nd term and his heir apparent is not quite apparent yet so he will weather the Rove storm This riff will soon blow over because of the real White House focus will be stacking the Supreme Court. Rhemquist (sp) will retire by years end and join O'Connor.

As an aside, this situation reminds me alot of what Arnie is doing in CA. Saying he is going to do one thing and ends up doing the opposite. Only difference is Arnie (a GOP) is sleeping with a Democrat and playing up to her familial legions.

SLO

KirkOntario

07-13-2005, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by jon71:
Bush promised to fire anyone behind this. Who thinks Bush will keep a promise? Has he yet?

He promised to 'take care of' anyone who 'broke the law.'

KirkOntario

07-13-2005, 04:43 AM

It's funny to hear democrats all indignant about this, crying about national security and protecting CIA covert operations saying Rove should be tried for treason? Do they not realize that the American people know how hypocritical and disingenuous it sounds to them?

Also they have built Rove into much more than he is raising his stature considerably. If he left the Whitehouse because he holds no office he would still be an adviser, one of many.

07-13-2005, 04:56 AM

It's funny to hear democrats all indignant about this

Tell me how do you know they are democrats?

Naturist Mark

07-13-2005, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
It's funny to hear democrats all indignant about this, crying about national security and protecting CIA covert operations saying Rove should be tried for treason? Do they not realize that the American people know how hypocritical and disingenuous it sounds to them?

What I hear people saying is that it is ridiculous to hear the right wingnuts defend Rove because he didn't utter Valerie Plame's name. That he only identified her as the wife of Ambassador Wilson. That he only confirmed her as being in the CIA, but didn't know she was a CIA operative.

The assertion by the right that anyone who doesn't fall into step with extremist right wing positions is anti-American has fallen flat. Americans aren't buying it.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-13-2005, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
(Bush) promised to 'take care of' anyone who 'broke the law.'

So Rove gets a pardon, right?

-Mark

nunne

07-13-2005, 09:08 AM

It's funny to hear the right wingers and Republicans now trying to poo-poo what Rove did. At the time the source was revealed, the President felt it was serious enough to promise a full investigation and would "take care" of anyone in the White House who had anything to do with it. Apparently what he meant was that Rove would be protected, which is what he meant when he said he would "take care" of him or her.

I really do get tired of listening to right wingers calling it treason to criticize the war in Iraq, but suggest that committing an act which is specifically criminalized as treason, should be overlooked because it's just a bunch of Democrats who are on a witch hunt.

hm0504

07-13-2005, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
(Bush) promised to 'take care of' anyone who 'broke the law.'

So Rove gets a pardon, right?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Or, as the Daily Show suggests, one of those vacant Supreme Court positions! That'll show those Dems who cry and whine every time some politico puts the future of the U.S. at risk.

jon71

07-13-2005, 01:30 PM

If I used Robert Novac to make public v.p. Cheney's "secure undisclosed" location would the Republican party defend me.

Ren

07-13-2005, 03:35 PM

I just read an AOL poll.

Overwhelmingly, the people are saying Rove should be fired (in the 70%s), and equally overwhlemingly, understanding the cynicism of the Bush Admin say that nothing will actually happen to Rove (almost 60%).

Naturist Mark

07-13-2005, 03:39 PM

The law: (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html)

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

Release date: 2005-03-17

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

<LI> (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

<LI> (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

<LI> (d) Imposition of consecutive sentences A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment. [/list]

U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

<LI> The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. [/list]

US CODE. TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. CRIMES
CHAPTER 37. ESPIONAGE AND CENSORSHIP

18 USCS @ 794 (2004)

@ 794. Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> (a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [50 USCS @ 1801(a)]) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy. [/list]

Naturist Mark

07-13-2005, 04:27 PM

From the blogs: (http://www.dailykos.net/archives/004382.html)

Plame's former classmate vents

Who is Larry Johnson? A former CIA analyst and classmate of Valerie Plame. He's also a Republican.

And he had this to say on the NewsHour:

TERENCE SMITH: Larry Johnson, explain what the dangers are that are inherent in identifying an undercover operator. What is the worry here?

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on September 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat [...]

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

This transcript is proving extremely influential. It's gotten attention from Drudge, which led Andrew Sullivan to admit that perhaps, just maybe, this whole thing is a big deal after all. Tweety got the chair of the RNC to agree this would be worse than Watergate.

Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.

KirkOntario

07-13-2005, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
(Bush) promised to 'take care of' anyone who 'broke the law.'

So Rove gets a pardon, right?

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I rather doubt he committed a crime. It was the media and Novak in particular that released her name to the public.

KirkOntario

07-13-2005, 04:37 PM

Treason there is so much mens rea in this offence no prosecutor would ever charge Rove with treason. It would be foolish. It would go nowhere.

KirkOntario

07-13-2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The law: (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html)

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

Release date: 2005-03-17

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> (a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

<LI> (b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

<LI> (c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

<LI> (d) Imposition of consecutive sentences A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment. [/list]

]
Having read this over it looks rather good for Rove doesn't it?

Naturist Mark

07-13-2005, 05:24 PM

Some people in the know (i.e. "leakers") are suggesting that Fitzgerald is preparing a case under the Espionage Act: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/10/42259/4958)

The Espionage Act of 1917

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Sec. 1
<LI> (e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. [/list]
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> Sec. 5
<LI> Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. [/list]

John Dean - of all people - pointed out the following re: that statute...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> The Espionage Act of 1917

The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.

In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.

Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?

The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.

The Espionage Act, though thrice amended since then, continues to criminalize leaks of classified information, regardless of the reason for the leak. Accordingly, the "two senior administration officials" who leaked the classified information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak (and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime. [/list]

KirkOntario

07-13-2005, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Some people in the know (i.e. "leakers") are suggesting that Fitzgerald is preparing a case under the Espionage Act: (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/10/42259/4958)

The Espionage Act of 1917

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>Sec. 1
<LI> (e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. [/list]
<UL TYPE=SQUARE> Sec. 5
<LI> Whoever harbours or conceals any person who he knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to commit, an offence under this title shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. [/list]

John Dean - of all people - pointed out the following re: that statute...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> The Espionage Act of 1917

The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.

In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.

Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?

The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.

The Espionage Act, though thrice amended since then, continues to criminalize leaks of classified information, regardless of the reason for the leak. Accordingly, the "two senior administration officials" who leaked the classified information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak (and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime. [/list]

There are no photos or documents involved. There is no relation to the facts of the current situation. I don't understand your post.

KirkOntario

07-15-2005, 02:56 PM

Quiet thread...oh here's why!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0.html

Annies on the case too...

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Democratic hubris? If i were a democrat, Id' forget Rove and try to find a direction for the party other than punishing others for their own loss of the election.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Naturist Mark

07-15-2005, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Quiet thread...oh here's why!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0.html

Annies on the case too...

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

Democratic hubris? If i were a democrat, Id' forget Rove and try to find a direction for the party other than punishing others for their own loss of the election.

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Interesting time machine Rove uses. He told Matt Cooper information about Valerie Plame 4 days before he knew it. Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

By his own words, Rove admitted to the FBI (http://tinyurl.com/2pq5o) that it was political retribution - not "correcting" a story about Wilson being selected by Cheney as Rove's apologists now claim - which Matt Cooper (supported by his notes) denies happened. Rove also told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that Valerie Plame was "Fair game".

Ask Martha Stewart about the consequences of lying to the FBI.

Naturist Mark

07-15-2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:

Interesting time machine Rove uses. He told Matt Cooper information about Valerie Plame 4 days before he knew it.

Ah ha! So now an informant (http://tinyurl.com/dmlw4) tells the FBI that Karl Rove spoke with Novak 3 days before Cooper - contradicting Rove's earlier claims to the FBI.
Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too."

So if Novak was his source, how did Rove learn of it from Novak and how could he be Novak's second "confirming" high adminisration source?

Martha Stewart's ankle bracelet will soon be available.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-15-2005, 07:26 PM

Rove supporters continue to "defend" him by attacking Ambassador Wilson - as if that justifies blowing the cover of an undercover operative and the continuing operations she was involved in.

Getting even with Wilson was what got them in trouble in the first place. Continuing to do so just digs them into a deeper hole - it doesn't matter that Wison was right, even if he was wrong it still doesn't excuse treason as political payback.

So what harm did it do? Wasn't Valerie Plame just a Desk Jockey?

Turns out it did a lot of harm: CIA Identity Leak Far Worse Than Reported. (http://www.rense.com/general42/worse.htm)
WASHINGTON -- It's just a 12-letter name - Valerie Plame - but the leak by Bush administration officials of that CIA officer's identity may have damaged U.S. national security to a much greater extent than generally realized, current and former agency officials say.

Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson, was a member of a small elite-within-an-elite, a CIA employee operating under "nonofficial cover," in her case as an energy analyst, with little or no protection from the U.S. government if she got caught.

Training agents such as Plame, 40, costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called "legends," including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas.

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, whose name has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, formerly the agency's chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis.

Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with - whether on business or not - may be in danger. The DO is conducting an extensive damage assessment.

And Plame's exposure may make it harder for American spies to convince foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said.

Bush partisans tend to downplay the leak's damage, saying Plame's true job was widely known in Washington, if unspoken. And, they say, she had moved from the DO, the CIA's covert arm, to an analysis job.

But intelligence professionals, infuriated over the breach and what they see as the Bush administration's misuse of intelligence on Iraq, vehemently disagree.

Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame's in the CIA's case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as "the Farm" - predicted that when the CIA's internal damage assessment is finished, "at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives."

"This is not just another leak. This is an unprecedented exposing of an agent's identity," said former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, who's now a prosecutor in Royal Oak, Mich., and who also did CIA training with Plame.

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-15-2005, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Rove supporters continue to "defend" him by attacking Ambassador Wilson - as if that justifies blowing the cover of an undercover operative and the continuing operations she was involved in.

Getting even with Wilson was what got them in trouble in the first place. Continuing to do so just digs them into a deeper hole - it doesn't matter that Wison was right, even if he was wrong it still doesn't excuse treason as political payback.

-Mark

Wilson has told so many lies that is why he got into this in the first place. He lied about who sent him to Iraq. As he finally admitted today when her identity was revealed by Novak she was not a covert agent. No law violated. Not even the dems are trying to maintain that fiction.

It came out today that almost everyone knew this woman worked at the CIA: friends, neighbours, journalists.

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times."

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/64/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg

I suppose when she posed for the cover of Vanity Fair she was trying to protect those fellow agents she supposedly worked with on covert operations?

Sorry Mark but the 'scandal' fizzled. It's all over. There was no payback. Wilson concocted a false story about being sent over to Iraq by the Whitehouse, he got caught, word was out why he was sent over and Rove corrected a reporter's error based on what he was told by various reporters. Zero crime. Zero 'treason'. Not even a scandal. Didn't I tell you the Dems had fallen into one of Rove's tricky traps? Maybe so.

You would think a party that had just lost an election, the Whitehouse, the Senate, the House and has been shut out of power for years--since 1994 in Congress!-- would try to reconstruct itself rather than punish Rove for being a good campaigner. Ideas guys. Get some. The well is totally dry!

Naturist Mark

07-16-2005, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Wilson has told so many lies that is why he got into this in the first place. He lied about who sent him to Iraq. As he finally admitted today when her identity was revealed by Novak she was not a covert agent. No law violated. Not even the dems are trying to maintain that fiction.

LOL, so if Plame wasn't a covert agent why didn't the CIA tell the FBI? Why is there an independent Counsel? And why keep attacking Joseph Wilson - that has no bearing on whether it was legal to disclose Valerie Plame's identity - it only reinforces the motive of political retribution for the crime.

Sounds like desperation to me:
1) Everyone knew about Valerie Plame, except
2) Rove didn't know until Novak told him and then Rove told it back to Novak to become one of his confirming sources
3) Burning Valerie Plame's cover was OK because Joseph Wilson was a liar (whose lies turned out to be true).
4) It was OK to disclose Valerie Plame's cover in July 2003 because she appeared in a January 2004 article in Vanity Fair (she did not appear on the cover, but there is a large two page photo at the beginning of the article - do you recognize (http://img.slate.msn.com/media/64/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg) her?)
5) Attorney General John Ashcroft was so careless that he appointed a special counsel to investigate a non-crime.

Did I miss any?

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-17-2005, 08:40 AM

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050716/D8BC7F500.html

Rove did everything right. Watched the Sunday news shows today. This story is officially dead. The media could only frame the issue --in their typically anti-Bush way--surrounding the Whitehouse statement that Rove was not involved and whether the Whitehouse had lost credibility. Clearly Rove was not inolved in the leak because he did not leak the information. The media did and Plame herself was the leak.

We see here the hubris of the anti-Bush folks. They keep getting burned by their own attempts to undermine the war and George Bush. Poetic justice if there ever was such an example. The Left should try to purge itself of its obsessive hatreds and desire to punish and get on with building a party that actually has ideas and postive vision for America.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050715.shtml
http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jon71

07-17-2005, 10:12 AM

What irony. This began with a petty attack from Rove over Ambassador Wilson telling the truth. This is growing all the time with congressional hearings likely. I anticipate Rove will eventually resign and there is a chance, unfortunately small, of impeachment coming about over this. Sadly Republicans will do all they can to stop that no matter how appropriate it will be so that's a long shot no matter how deserved. Clinton gets an inappropriate b.j. and he's impeached, Bush harbors a traitor and odds are Bush will dodge that consequence. That's bass-ackwards if anything ever was.

John Spooner

07-17-2005, 11:43 AM

Just for my Aussie information as this is a US topic, who or what is "ROVE" ? Also what is a "plame" as that word is not used here.
regards. John S.

jon71

07-17-2005, 12:49 PM

Rove is Karl Rove, an advisor to Pres. Bush. Plume is Valerie Plume who is a c.i.a. agent. Her name was given to the media by Karl Rove because her husband went public about some of the lies the Bush administration told about the Iraq war. MakingPlume's name public was a federal crime and could potentially endanger not only her life but the lives of others. At times she has worked undercover and without diplomatic immunity. This was petty retaliation and an act of treason.

Qikdraw

07-17-2005, 02:01 PM

Now its the GOP attack on the media. This is fitting exactly into the typical GOP style.

Its to get you to forget about what Rove actually did, and instead blame the 'nasty' media.

Also is the framing of responces to have you believe the media is biased against Bush. The so-called "liberal" media. This is just another attack on the media to get people to forget what the issue really is.

Qikdraw

Trailscout

07-17-2005, 02:21 PM

A lot of what Jon alleges is just that: allegations. Rove needs to stand trial to clear his name or accept punishment. This is not clear-cut and should not be tried in the media or on this forum.

Qikdraw

07-17-2005, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Trailscout:
A lot of what Jon alleges is just that: allegations. Rove needs to stand trial to clear his name or accept punishment. This is not clear-cut and should not be tried in the media or on this forum.

Nothing wrong with talking about the issue, although you are correct that it is not clear cut.

What is not allegation is that Rove is involved, what people are now argueing about is semantics. What did he know, when did he know it, etc...

I think that at the very least Bush is going to have to fire Rove, or he'll take a large credibility hit. He had said that anyone from the White House involved in this would not work at the White House any more. If Bush goes back on that word, the Republican party will take a hit that will hurt them in the next election.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-17-2005, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
Rove is Karl Rove, an advisor to Pres. Bush. Plume is Valerie Plume who is a c.i.a. agent. Her name was given to the media by Karl Rove because her husband went public about some of the lies the Bush administration told about the Iraq war. MakingPlume's name public was a federal crime and could potentially endanger not only her life but the lives of others. At times she has worked undercover and without diplomatic immunity. This was petty retaliation and an act of treason.

Just to clarify for our Australian friend. Plame's husband, Wilson, went on a 'fact finding mission' to Africa. He was sent there by none other than his wife who worked in the CIA. Both are anti-Bush and sought to embarrass the administration. Wilson claimed he found no 'proof' that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellow cake to assist him in his nuclear weapons program. (How one finds a negative is the very question we should be asking) However there is ample evidence to show he did try to buy yellow cake and we know from two previous nuclear programmes that he intended to acquire nukes and still intended to develop them right up until the war. Wilson came back from Africa and announced he had been sent over and had found nothing.

Wilson lied about who sent him claiming the Vice President's office had sent him. When reporters called Rove to ask why the Admin would sent someone out to embarass themselves, he told them that this was not the case; Rove had heard via the media and everyone else that Plame was Wilson's wife, she had sent him and that she was in the CIA. Hence there was no leak---it was leak into the Whitehouse, not out and the information was public knowledge.

There was no malice and to top it all off Plame was not even undercover at the time. Wilson has admitted this.

Once this 'non-scandal' occurred Plame and Wilson became darlings of the left wing media and posed on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine, because they held out to monied liberal eastern intelligensia the hope that they would dispense with a Conservative low-brow Texan in the 2004 election. They were sorely disapponted. When Rove's name came out recently they wanted revenge on Rove for the Republican decimation of liberalism in the 2004 eleciton. Consumed with their petty hatreds they demanded his head.

When the facts came out it was pretty clear no crime had been committed, Rove had done nothing wrong, there was no cover to blow, and the media along with Wilson himself had blown his wife's so-called cover.

KirkOntario

07-17-2005, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
I think that at the very least Bush is going to have to fire Rove, or he'll take a large credibility hit. He had said that anyone from the White House involved in this would not work at the White House any more. If Bush goes back on that word, the Republican party will take a hit that will hurt them in the next election.

Qikdraw

He did not say that 'anyone involved' would not be working at the Whitehouse. He said if anyone had committed a crime they would be dealt with. --presumably reprimanded or dismissed.

Naturist Mark

07-17-2005, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Just to clarify for our Australian friend. Plame's husband, Wilson, went on a 'fact finding mission' to Africa. He was sent there by none other than his wife who worked in the CIA. Not exactly, he was sent by the CIA, his wife didn't have the authority to send him herself. Both are anti-Bush and sought to embarrass the administration. Wilson was a career diplomat who worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations, he grew up Republican in a prominent California Republican family (he is the nephew of former Republican governor of California Pete Wilson.) He served President George H.W. Bush as acting ambassador to Iraq replacing the disgraced April Glaspie, where he was, to be blunt, a genuine hero (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3156166.stm) . <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>As acting ambassador to Iraq in the run-up to the first Gulf War, he was the last US diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in 1991.

He very publicly defied the Iraqi strongman by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners.

He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie.

He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope." [/list]
However, I have no problem believing that he is NOW a Democrat. Wilson claimed he found no 'proof' that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellow cake to assist him in his nuclear weapons program. (How one finds a negative is the very question we should be asking) However there is ample evidence to show he did try to buy yellow cake and we know from two previous nuclear programmes that he intended to acquire nukes and still intended to develop them right up until the war. Wilson came back from Africa and announced he had been sent over and had found nothing. What Joseph Wison found was proof that the document procured by British Intellgence detailing the Iraqi yellowcake caper was a forgery. That along with the lack of ANY supporting evidence is as close to proving a negative as you can get.
Wilson lied about who sent him claiming the Vice President's office had sent him. Also not true. Wilson never claimed that Cheney sent him, what he said was that the Vice President's office made inquiries (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a8dab8rni_Do&refer=us) to the CIA about the British yellowcake document: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Bush supporters such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich contend that Wilson lied in claiming that Vice President Dick Cheney dispatched him on the mission to Niger. That echoes a Republican National Committee talking-points memo sent to party officials.

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions.

``The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office,'' Wilson wrote. [/list]

Read this article before repeating Ann Coulter's or Bill O'Reilly's lies: Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a8dab8rni_Do&refer=us)

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-17-2005, 08:40 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

He did not say that 'anyone involved' would not be working at the Whitehouse. He said if anyone had committed a crime they would be dealt with. --presumably reprimanded or dismissed.
Quote-a-rama!: (http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120004)

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

<LI> Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

<LI> McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.

[...]

Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Q: At a minimum?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum. [/list]
Sounds like a promise to fire the leakers to simple old me.

-Mark

jon71

07-17-2005, 09:13 PM

Wilson did seek to embarrass the Bush administration. He told the truth and exposed a pack of Bush lies about the "reason" for war.

Naturist Mark

07-18-2005, 04:23 PM

LATimes 3-fer:

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson (http://tinyurl.com/75p8f)

If Rove Wasn't Initial Source of Leak, Who Was? (http://tinyurl.com/a7jae)

Memo May Hold Key to CIA Leak (http://tinyurl.com/9nrdk)

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-18-2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
LATimes 3-fer:

Top Aides Reportedly Set Sights on Wilson (http://tinyurl.com/75p8f)

If Rove Wasn't Initial Source of Leak, Who Was? (http://tinyurl.com/a7jae)

Memo May Hold Key to CIA Leak (http://tinyurl.com/9nrdk)

-Mark

I love all the facts the MSM leaves out about Wilson, the fact the CIA revealed Plames identity all prior to this and that the media's own brief before the court says no crime was comitted. The MS forgets the bloggers; the alternative media can blow these stories away in a minute.

Far from being after Wilson, Rove was taking calls from the media. If Wilson had not lied no one would have called Rove. Now Wilson tries to portray himself as a victim. LOL

KirkOntario

07-18-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by jon71:
Wilson did seek to embarrass the Bush administration. He told the truth and exposed a pack of Bush lies about the "reason" for war.

But what about the yellow cake that Saddam actually HAD when the U.S army invaded, they found it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

By April 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein had stockpiled 500 tons of yellowcake uranium at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant south of Baghdad.

That intriguing little detail is almost never mentioned by the big media, who prefer to chant the mantra "Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction" while echoing Joseph Wilson's claim that "Bush lied" about Iraq seeking more of the nuclear material in Niger.

Naturist Mark

07-18-2005, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

But what about the yellow cake that Saddam actually HAD when the U.S army invaded, they found it.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

Interesting, so is this an admission that Wilson was right and its time to change the subject?

As to the Newsmax story, I'd like to check it out, but it cites no sources that can be checked. Perhaps it was leaked under super double secret backgournd? However, I do have Google (http://tinyurl.com/9yds9) so...

That 500 tons was already there before the FIRST Gulf War, it was not accumulated afterwards under UN Sanctions. It was inspected and accounted for by weapon inspectors.

When the Marines took possession of al Tuwaitha in 2003 the plant was not well guarded, to say the least. It was massively looted. 1.8 tonnes of slightly enriched yellowcake was removed to the US. The rest of the 500 tons that used to be there is unnaccounted for. A small portion was literally on ground in the area around the plant (spead deliberately or spilled by looters?), but the rest is not in US or Iraqi government custody.

Newsmax: Iraq Survey Chief Says Saddam Was Developing Nukes (http://tinyurl.com/8vmjc)

Fate of Al-Tuwaitha nuclear material unclear (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/prine/s_132913.html)

Al-Tuwaitha, Iraq: the Iraq Nuclear Complex Turned into a Horrific Uranium-contamination Zone (http://japan.indymedia.org/newswire/display/400/index.php)

Somebody else's problem (http://weblog.greenpeace.org/iraq/archives/000465.html)

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-18-2005, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

I love all the facts the MSM leaves out about Wilson, the fact the CIA revealed Plames identity

Cite?

If the CIA leaked Mrs. Wilson's identity, why doesn't it tell Special Counsel Fitzgerald? Are you accusing the CIA of lying?

The actual disclosure appears to be the result of a (properly) classified memo (http://tinyurl.com/9nrdk) sent to the White House staff by secure transmission to Air Force One. Once there it appears to have been handed about - not a crime - but it was still classified information, so no one had the right to talk about it to the press. This is a plausible and likely explanation of how Karl Rove, Scooter Libbey and the so far mysterious "other source" learned about Valerie Wilson.

Matthew Cooper has confirmed that he was first told about Mrs. Wilson being a CIA agent working in the field of WMDs by Karl Rove.

Robert Novak confirms that Karl Rove was one of his sources. Rove's supporters claim that Rove learned about Mrs. Wilson from Robert Novak ... Someone is lying. Ask Martha Stewart about the consequences of lying to the FBI even if you aren't under oath.

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-18-2005, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

I love all the facts the MSM leaves out about Wilson, the fact the CIA revealed Plames identity

Cite?

If the CIA leaked Mrs. Wilson's identity, why doesn't it tell Special Counsel Fitzgerald? Are you accusing the CIA of lying?

The actual disclosure appears to be the result of a (properly) classified memo (http://tinyurl.com/9nrdk) sent to the White House staff by secure transmission to Air Force One. Once there it appears to have been handed about - not a crime - but it was still classified information, so no one had the right to talk about it to the press. This is a plausible and likely explanation of how Karl Rove, Scooter Libbey and the so far mysterious "other source" learned about Valerie Wilson.

Matthew Cooper has confirmed that he was first told about Mrs. Wilson being a CIA agent working in the field of WMDs by Karl Rove.

Robert Novak confirms that Karl Rove was one of his sources. Rove's supporters claim that Rove learned about Mrs. Wilson from Robert Novak ... Someone is lying. Ask Martha Stewart about the consequences of lying to the FBI even if you aren't under oath.

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't believe me; it's in the media brief filed by the court. This woman was no covert agent. Nor did anyone out her which is why after she was allegedly outed she posed on the magazine cover of Vanity Fair. No covert agent would ever do that, in a campy scarf or not.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

Qikdraw

07-18-2005, 08:39 PM

Mo wonder you think the way you do Kirk with the web sites you visit.

NewsMax & National Review are both heavily conservative rags.

'Sometimes' you can find a good article in there, but mostly its stuff that is just Republican talking points.

Qikdraw

jon71

07-18-2005, 09:18 PM

Valerie Plume has worked as an undercover agent and without diplomatic immunity, very brave. In addition to herself those she had worked with, military and civilian, could be at risk by Rove's and Novac's disgusting stunt. Rove's actions were deeply unethical and probably illegal. I think an indictment is likely and Rove's best chance to aviod conviction is either a pardon or stacking the jury with conservatives and going for nullification. Bush has already flip-flopped in his response (from dealing with anyone involved to only acting "if a crime was committed") and will probably back pedal more. I guess who can be surprised that a deserter like Bush is spineless.

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 03:39 AM

Originally posted by jon71:
Valerie Plume has worked as an undercover agent and without diplomatic immunity, very brave. In addition to herself those she had worked with, military and civilian, could be at risk by Rove's and Novac's disgusting stunt. Rove's actions were deeply unethical and probably illegal. I think an indictment is likely and Rove's best chance to aviod conviction is either a pardon or stacking the jury with conservatives and going for nullification. Bush has already flip-flopped in his response (from dealing with anyone involved to only acting "if a crime was committed") and will probably back pedal more. I guess who can be surprised that a deserter like Bush is spineless.

There was no flipflop period. Go back and read what Bush said.

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
Mo wonder you think the way you do Kirk with the web sites you visit.

NewsMax & National Review are both heavily conservative rags.

'Sometimes' you can find a good article in there, but mostly its stuff that is just Republican talking points.

Qikdraw

Sorry but criticizing the source doesn't cut it in an argument. The article is referring to affidavits filed with the court by media lawyers.

Naturist Mark

07-19-2005, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Don't believe me; it's in the media brief filed by the court. This woman was no covert agent. Nor did anyone out her which is why after she was allegedly outed she posed on the magazine cover of Vanity Fair. No covert agent would ever do that, in a campy scarf or not.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

Interesting article, and unlike some people I usually credit the National Review with solidly researched opinion reporting (unlike NewsMax which is notoriously innaccurate). However this article leaves me with some lingering unanswered questions: <UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI> Why didn't the CIA tell Fitzgerald that they were the source of the leak so that Fitzgerald could immediately shut down the investigation? <LI> If "everyone" in Washington knew about Mrs. Wilson, why did Rove have to learn about it from Novak (as his supporters claim), and then repeat it back to Novak as a confirming source? [/list]

As for the Vanity Fair story, that came long after the Novak story and all the media frenzy following it. The Wilson's were the target of a White House (http://tinyurl.com/75p8f) led defamation campaign (that is still ongoing). Mrs. Wilson's cover (and that of the up to then active cover of Brewster-Jennings) was all over the press. At that point it wasn't indiscrete in the slightest for them to tell their side in Vanity Fair.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-19-2005, 06:00 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

There was no flipflop period. Go back and read what Bush said.

Flip: # BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

# Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:

Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

BUSH: That's up to --

Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

Flop:
Bush now says he'll fire anyone who broke the law after they are charged, tried, and convicted. That's a far cry from after they "find the facts".

-Mark

Qikdraw

07-19-2005, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry but criticizing the source doesn't cut it in an argument.

Uhmmmm... Isn't cross examining a witness in court a criticism of the source? If they have lied once during their testimony you tell the jury to view the rest of their testimony with great suspicion.

If I posted up sources from National Enquirer, would you take issue with my sources? Of course you would. Some places are simply more credible than others. National Review and NewsMax are heavily biased, and as such need to be scrutinized.

Plus you've gone after sources before as well, so to now say I can't go after your biased sources is hypocritical.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Sorry but criticizing the source doesn't cut it in an argument.

Uhmmmm... Isn't cross examining a witness in court a criticism of the source? If they have lied once during their testimony you tell the jury to view the rest of their testimony with great suspicion.

If I posted up sources from National Enquirer, would you take issue with my sources? Of course you would. Some places are simply more credible than others. National Review and NewsMax are heavily biased, and as such need to be scrutinized.

Plus you've gone after sources before as well, so to now say I can't go after your biased sources is hypocritical.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your argument is totally invalid. Period. As for National Inquirer after the O.J. Simpson trial they stopped making up sources and they went legit. National Review is an excellent magazine. Simply because you do not agree with the politics means nothing.

07-19-2005, 05:42 PM

Your argument is totally invalid. Period.

So are about every one of yours and it hasn't even slowed you down! LOL!

Don't you ever get tired of having your posts torn to shreds? The boys are doing a great job at providing the facts. After awhile though I think it's just a waste of time though because you don't seem to learn from it.

Qikdraw

07-19-2005, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Your argument is totally invalid. Period. As for National Inquirer after the O.J. Simpson trial they stopped making up sources and they went legit. National Review is an excellent magazine. Simply because you do not agree with the politics means nothing.

Oh you're such a card Kirk. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That had me in stitches.

I guess I should just respond to every one of your posts, "Your argument is totally invalid. Period." or "*covers ears* LALALALALALAlalalalalaalalalalalalaaa I'm not listening to you! LAlalalalalalalalalalaaaa!!!!"

I'm glad you're around Kirk, you keep me laughing.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Your argument is totally invalid. Period. As for National Inquirer after the O.J. Simpson trial they stopped making up sources and they went legit. National Review is an excellent magazine. Simply because you do not agree with the politics means nothing.

Oh you're such a card Kirk. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

That had me in stitches.

I guess I should just respond to every one of your posts, "Your argument is totally invalid. Period." or "*covers ears* LALALALALALAlalalalalaalalalalalalaaa I'm not listening to you! LAlalalalalalalalalalaaaa!!!!"

I'm glad you're around Kirk, you keep me laughing.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look up logical fallacies on google. You cannot respond to an argument by merely stating you distrust or dislike the source. The point is you do nothing akin to cross examining the article you dismissed it out of hand.

I'd prefer it if you didn't respond if you are going to respond as you did above.

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 06:34 PM

http://frum.nationalreview.com/

David Frum today (hint to Qikdraw, don't tell me David Frum was Bush's speechwriter; that's irrelevant) made an interesting point about a similar event that happened in the Clinton years.

"Imagine if an e-mail had surfaced showing that a top aide to Clinton--say, Sid Blumenthal--had told a reporter about a covert CIA agent." And as it happens, we know the answer.

As a matter of fact, a Clinton aide - not a top aide, but a political appointee - did release personal information about one of Clinton's accusers, highly embarrassing information at that: I am referring of course to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Kenneth Bacon's decision to release Linda Tripp's 3-decade old arrest record to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer.

Bacon's actions - unlike anything Karl Rove is said to have done - were clearly illegal. And what happened in that case? Basically a big pile of nothing. There was never much media interest in the matter, and when eventually Bacon was reprimanded and issued an apology of sorts, the matter dropped from sight. Tripp's reputation suffered irreparable permanent damage; Bacon went on to a distinguished post-governmental career as president of Refugees International."

--Clinton of course tried to smear and destroy everyone woman who complained or even exposed under supoena his appalling behaviour. Double standard? Yup http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ren

07-19-2005, 07:17 PM

David Frum was Bush's speechwriter. Very relevant.

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Ren:
David Frum was Bush's speechwriter. Very relevant.

It's irrelevant to his point.

Ren

07-19-2005, 07:32 PM

I was just having fun, Kirk.

KirkOntario

07-19-2005, 07:34 PM

Originally posted by Ren:
I was just having fun, Kirk.

me too http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Naturist Mark

07-19-2005, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

"Imagine if an e-mail had surfaced showing that a top aide to Clinton--say, Sid Blumenthal--had told a reporter about a covert CIA agent." And as it happens, we know the answer.

As a matter of fact, a Clinton aide - not a top aide, but a political appointee - did release personal information about one of Clinton's accusers, highly embarrassing information at that: I am referring of course to former Assistant Secretary of Defense Kenneth Bacon's decision to release Linda Tripp's 3-decade old arrest record to New Yorker writer Jane Mayer.

Linda Tripp was an undercover CIA agent? DO TELL!

-Mark

jon71

07-19-2005, 08:55 PM

Kirk (and others) of course sources matter. Imagine down the road I'm helping my daughter on a history report about the lunar landing. I get on the computer and find one article put out by nasa and one put out by the royal flat Earth society. Should I give them equal consideration? As an intelligent human being of course I go with the source that acknowledges scientific advancement of the last 500 years. Some things are simply more credible than others, wishful thinking won't change that.

Qikdraw

07-19-2005, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Look up logical fallacies on google. You cannot respond to an argument by merely stating you distrust or dislike the source. The point is you do nothing akin to cross examining the article you dismissed it out of hand.

You dismiss many things out of hand.

I'd prefer it if you didn't respond if you are going to respond as you did above.

I'm sorry you don't like the way I post. I find your posts funny. I'd prefer if you didn't respond with comments that totally dismiss people's points, misdirect, support lies, etc... But hey I find your posts funny, so they have some value. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-20-2005, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by jon71:
Kirk (and others) of course sources matter. Imagine down the road I'm helping my daughter on a history report about the lunar landing. I get on the computer and find one article put out by nasa and one put out by the royal flat Earth society. Should I give them equal consideration? As an intelligent human being of course I go with the source that acknowledges scientific advancement of the last 500 years. Some things are simply more credible than others, wishful thinking won't change that.

If they want to argue the world is flat you read their arguments. Some people out there think Nasa faked the moon landing...they probably are on this board.

KirkOntario

07-20-2005, 04:13 AM

Originally posted by Qikdraw: I find your posts funny. I'd prefer if you didn't respond with comments that totally dismiss people's points, misdirect, support lies, etc... But hey I find your posts funny, so they have some value. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Qikdraw

I'm happy for you. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

KirkOntario

07-20-2005, 03:13 PM

Matthew Cooper’s first-hand account more bad news for Rove-haters

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18815
"But the real story is that Karl Rove has been further vindicated.

Though the ultimate arbiter of any legal issues will be special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the aforementioned grand jury, the political case against Bush’s right-hand man is quickly crumbling. Cooper’s story—on Time’s new cover—confirms that Rove was not “shopping” for an outlet to “out” Plame, but that he was merely warning Cooper not to “get too far out on Wilson.”

Much of what was in the account was covered in Mike Isikoff’s Newsweek scoop on the contents of the e-mail Cooper wrote to his editor almost immediately after his 2-minute phone conversation with Rove. From the Newsweek article, it was established that Cooper called Rove—not the other way around—and that it was the Time reporter, not the supposed evil genius, who brought up the topic of Joe Wilson."

Interesting how liberals have just celebrated the life of Deepthroat --who leaked from the Whitehouse-- while pretending to be shocked and appalled that Rove might have done so (clearly he did not). Now we know they don't care about secrets being revealed; we know they don't care about the CIA operatives...We also know they don't care about smearing someone's character since Clinton did it regularly. so what Do they care about? --Revenge on Rove.

Naturist Mark

07-20-2005, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Matthew Cooper’s first-hand account more bad news for Rove-haters

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm2005

"But the real story is that Karl Rove has been further vindicated.

Your link is dead, here is a live link to Matthew Cooper's article: "What I Told The Grand Jury" (http://tinyurl.com/9kzfu).

Far from vindicating Karl Rove, Matthew Cooper confirms that he did not know anything about Mrs. Wiison before Karl Rove told him about her (so much for the story that her role in the CIA was "common knowledge" in Washington - one of the the leading political reporters in town knew nothing about her). He confirms that Karl Rove, a White House Official with Security Clearance told him that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA agent - information which Matthew Cooper did not have security clearance to receive. He confirms that this all happened well before Novak's column was published.

Karl Rove's only defense is to claim he didn't know what he was saying - which is essentially the real defense being presented - other than the ridiculous "Joe Wilson was a liar so it was OK to blow his wife's CIA cover" defense.

-Mark

Naturist Mark

07-22-2005, 05:19 PM

Looks like Rove and Libbey are in deeper trouble, their grand jury testimony is now exposing them to perjury charges: Rove, Libby Accounts on Plame Differ With Reporters' (http://tinyurl.com/ab3r9)

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-22-2005, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
Looks like Rove and Libbey are in deeper trouble, their grand jury testimony is now exposing them to perjury charges: Rove, Libby Accounts on Plame Differ With Reporters' (http://tinyurl.com/ab3r9)

-Mark

What happened to 'treason'? We've come a bit down from there haven't we? Perjury charges don't merely result from conflicting accounts, conflicting recollections of what said what. It's a very difficult charge which redounded to the LAST president's benefit as you recall. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Qikdraw

07-22-2005, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
What happened to 'treason'? We've come a bit down from there haven't we? Perjury charges don't merely result from conflicting accounts, conflicting recollections of what said what. It's a very difficult charge which redounded to the LAST president's benefit as you recall. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Uhmmm if you are a lawyer Kirk, you know that perjury is lying about a material fact in the case. They went after Clinton about Paula Jones, not his affair with Monica. His affair with Monica was not a material fact of the case. Rove & Libby have said some very different things than the reporters have. Either the reporters have, or Rove & Libby have lied. In either case its a felony.

Plus if Rove & Libby are found to have lied about it, then their leaking Plame IS treason. Just because we are talking about perjury does not mean the charge of treason is going away.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-22-2005, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
What happened to 'treason'? We've come a bit down from there haven't we? Perjury charges don't merely result from conflicting accounts, conflicting recollections of what said what. It's a very difficult charge which redounded to the LAST president's benefit as you recall. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Uhmmm if you are a lawyer Kirk, you know that perjury is lying about a material fact in the case. They went after Clinton about Paula Jones, not his affair with Monica. His affair with Monica was not a material fact of the case. Rove & Libby have said some very different things than the reporters have. Either the reporters have, or Rove & Libby have lied. In either case its a felony.

Plus if Rove & Libby are found to have lied about it, then their leaking Plame IS treason. Just because we are talking about perjury does not mean the charge of treason is going away.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are 1000 's upon 1000's of cases in which the testimony of litigants differs from one another. Saying different things from what others say is part and parcel of litigation. Happens daily in courtrooms all over the world. Rare is a charge of perjury. It is a very difficult charge to prove and jumping to the conclusion that someone is lying because there testimony differs is just that, jumping to a conclusion.

Talk of a treason charge is not out there in the press they have lowered it to an 'ethical breach'.

Qikdraw

07-22-2005, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
There are 1000 's upon 1000's of cases in which the testimony of litigants differs from one another. Saying different things from what others say is part and parcel of litigation. Happens daily in courtrooms all over the world. Rare is a charge of perjury. It is a very difficult charge to prove and jumping to the conclusion that someone is lying because there testimony differs is just that, jumping to a conclusion.

Well you're right of course. Perjury is very hard to prove, and also very specific. Which is why I find it odd that you brought the whole Clinton thing in, you know that it wasn't perjury, but you were trying to imply that CLinton got away with perjury because it is so difficlut to prove.

If Rove & Libby are found to have lied about it, then it does become perjury. Rove & Libby are saying they got the information from the reporters, the reporters are saying they got it from Rove & Libby. This is not quite the same as having litigants being wrong on what time they were somewhere.

This is also a material fact of the case. So if ROve & Libby did release the info, then more charges can be brought in.

Talk of a treason charge is not out there in the press they have lowered it to an 'ethical breach'.

Of course, the media is co-opted by this administration. Why do you think Bush put out his Supreme Court nominee now? To get the press off Rove's back, and the press obediantly obliged.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-23-2005, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:Well you're right of course. Perjury is very hard to prove, and also very specific. Which is why I find it odd that you brought the whole Clinton thing in, you know that it wasn't perjury, but you were trying to imply that CLinton got away with perjury because it is so difficlut to prove.

If Rove & Libby are found to have lied about it, then it does become perjury. Rove & Libby are saying they got the information from the reporters, the reporters are saying they got it from Rove & Libby. This is not quite the same as having litigants being wrong on what time they were somewhere.

This is also a material fact of the case. So if ROve & Libby did release the info, then more charges can be brought in.

Qikdraw

Oh you are very quick to absolve Clinton of perjury. I don't think a charge could be made out against him but he basically lied on an affidavit when asked if he has sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as part of the Paul Jones civil law suit. He cut a deal at the end --5 years disbarrment --of his presidency though again perjury can be hard to get a conviction on.

Naturist Mark

07-23-2005, 05:52 AM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

What happened to 'treason'? We've come a bit down from there haven't we?

Nope, that crime is still in play. Perjury is just an additional count.

Here's another, by "confirming" the Plame story to Novak and Cooper - Cooper says he was the original source and Novak says he was one of the sources - but even if he wasn't the source and only confirmed the story - he has violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (PDF file) (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.dss.mil/files/pdf/new_sf312.pdf) he had to sign upon becoming White House staff:

Media ignored Rove's apparent violation of nondisclosure agreement (http://tinyurl.com/bbxdp)

-Mark

KirkOntario

07-23-2005, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:

What happened to 'treason'? We've come a bit down from there haven't we?

Nope, that crime is still in play. Perjury is just an additional count.

Here's another, by "confirming" the Plame story to Novak and Cooper - Cooper says he was the original source and Novak says he was one of the sources - but even if he wasn't the source and only confirmed the story - he has violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (PDF file) (http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.dss.mil/files/pdf/new_sf312.pdf) he had to sign upon becoming White House staff:

Media ignored Rove's apparent violation of nondisclosure agreement (http://tinyurl.com/bbxdp)

-Mark </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From treason, to perjury, to now violating an agreement with his employer? Hmmm...things are not looking good for your side are they?

Qikdraw

07-23-2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Oh you are very quick to absolve Clinton of perjury. I don't think a charge could be made out against him but he basically lied on an affidavit when asked if he has sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as part of the Paul Jones civil law suit. He cut a deal at the end --5 years disbarrment --of his presidency though again perjury can be hard to get a conviction on.

Kirk

You can't be a very good lawyer if you do not know what perjury is. While Clinton lied, he did not commit perjury.

The reason perjury is so hard to get a conviction on is that it is very specific.

You should know that, but I find you are being deliberately obtuse on this.

From treason, to perjury, to now violating an agreement with his employer? Hmmm...things are not looking good for your side are they?

As Mark has said, the charges are not replacing the other, they are in addition to.

Again being deliberately obtuse. You're showing your troll face right now Kirk. C'mon you're smarter than that, so stop trying to act stupid.

Qikdraw

KirkOntario

07-23-2005, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Oh you are very quick to absolve Clinton of perjury. I don't think a charge could be made out against him but he basically lied on an affidavit when asked if he has sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky as part of the Paul Jones civil law suit. He cut a deal at the end --5 years disbarrment --of his presidency though again perjury can be hard to get a conviction on.

Kirk

You can't be a very good lawyer if you do not know what perjury is. While Clinton lied, he did not commit perjury.

The reason perjury is so hard to get a conviction on is that it is very specific.

You should know that, but I find you are being deliberately obtuse on this.

From treason, to perjury, to now violating an agreement with his employer? Hmmm...things are not looking good for your side are they?

As Mark has said, the charges are not replacing the other, they are in addition to.

Again being deliberately obtuse. You're showing your troll face right now Kirk. C'mon you're smarter than that, so stop trying to act stupid.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Clinton lied under oath which might be enough to make out a prima facie case of perjury against him. Lying is an essential element of perjury. I am glad you are affording Mr. Clinton the benefit of the law that you would perhaps deny to Mr. Rove.

What I am saying about Mark is that they are falling away and down from their inital gleeful claims of treason to now 'breaching an agreement.' You go towards the lesser when you cannot make out the former but that of course does not stop Mark and company from dreaming.

Example: you think you have a great case of murder against X. When you start talking about charging him with speeding or assault, that's a sign you are no longer confident of your more serious charge being successful against him. Get it now, QD?

Qikdraw

07-23-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Clinton lied under oath which might be enough to make out a prima facie case of perjury against him. Lying is an essential element of perjury.

Lying is an essential part of perjury, however it is lying about a material fact of the case. Perjury is very specific about that. While Clinton did lie, he did not lie about anything that had to do with material facts about the case at hand.

I am glad you are affording Mr. Clinton the benefit of the law that you would perhaps deny to Mr. Rove.

Read through my responces about this. I cannot recall anywhere where I stated he was guilty of perjury. I said if he was found to be lying. Its either the reporters or Rove & Libby who are lying about it. We have to find out which one, and the one that lied commited perjury.

What I am saying about Mark is that they are falling away and down from their inital gleeful claims of treason to now 'breaching an agreement.' You go towards the lesser when you cannot make out the former but that of course does not stop Mark and company from dreaming.

I don't think Mark is dreaming, he is mearly stating the facts as we know them. You are the one saying that the charges are falling down from treason, not Mark.

Example: you think you have a great case of murder against X. When you start talking about charging him with speeding or assault, that's a sign you are no longer confident of your more serious charge being successful against him. Get it now, QD?

I get what you are saying, but does that happen in every case? I don't think so. You would be correct to say that some cases go that way, but not all cases will. It certainly could appear that way to some people, but it doesn't make it so.

Basically we'll have to wait and see how it goes.

Qikdraw

hm0504

07-24-2005, 08:12 AM

I thought "sexual relations" was specifically, legally defined as "sexual intercourse" so when Clinton said he had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, he was not technically not lying.

KirkOntario

07-24-2005, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by hm0504:
I thought "sexual relations" was specifically, legally defined as "sexual intercourse" so when Clinton said he had not had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, he was not technically not lying.

If he was innocent of perjury then why did he settle with Paula Jones for $900,000(his credibility was impeached by that answer) and why did he agree to have his Arkansas licence to practice law yanked for 5 years? Clinton cut a deal because the risks were too high.

Clinton's more more closely a matter of perjuy because unlike conflicting recollections or accounts he directly intended to deceive and mislead through that answer.

Ren

07-24-2005, 11:23 PM

Is railing against Clinton (from 6+ years ago) the only way conservatives can weasel out of indefensible positions? It's tired; it's played; it's predictable. Is Kirk really Ann Coulter in disguise?

clothesareuseless

07-25-2005, 02:07 AM

In case anybody wants to read the Perjury Statute, here it is:

§ 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court

You can also be tried of providing false statements to hinder an investigation, even when not under Oath, which isn't perjury. (Ask Martha Stewart what happens to people who do that)

(a) Whoever under oath (or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code) in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) This section is applicable whether the conduct occurred within or without the United States.
(c) An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if—
(1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and
(2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section.
In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true.
(d) Where, in the same continuous court or grand jury proceeding in which a declaration is made, the person making the declaration admits such declaration to be false, such admission shall bar prosecution under this section if, at the time the admission is made, the declaration has not substantially affected the proceeding, or it has not become manifest that such falsity has been or will be exposed.
(e) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt under this section is sufficient for conviction. It shall not be necessary that such proof be made by any particular number of witnesses or by documentary or other type of evidence.