Rove not to be indicted, but still being investigated

[Simon W. Moon]

But the reporter already had Plame's identity. So Rove didn't leak anything that wasn't already known.

that someone named Valerie Wilson nee Plame existed was not classified. All that was classified was that she worked for the CIA. Knowing Plame's/Wilson's identity don't mean nothin. Confirming that she works for the CIA would have been exposing classified info.

 

[Donkey1499]

that someone named Valerie Wilson nee Plame existed was not classified. All that was classified was that she worked for the CIA. Knowing Plame's/Wilson's identity don't mean nothin. Confirming that she works for the CIA would have been exposing classified info.

But the reporter must've already known that Valerie was an agent. Cuz then why did the reporter ask Rove if she was an agent? Why even ask that question unless you already know? Cuz someone else told the reporter that Valerie was an agent and the reporter went to Rove to confirm it. Why go to Rove? I dunno. Maybe it was political.

But who cares about ONE agent's status being leaked? Is it really the end of the world? This whole case it just dirty politics pointed at Bush's staff. No one really cared when Sen. Leahy leaked info. Leahy still has his job. All he got was a slap on the wrist. But Rove could lose his job. And what the Hell was a "secret" agent doing in the public spotlight in a magazine? Agents aren't supposed to do that! It doesn't matter if her ID was "leaked" when she's in a friggin' magazine where everyone can see her.

Where's the guy/gal who "leaked" info about the CIA prisons in other countries? Where's the guy/gal who "leaked" the supposed "torture" stuff in Gitmo? Where are these people? Or is it because a Bush Staff Member MIGHT have "leaked" an identity?

 

[Donkey1499]

Well if that's the case, why, pray tell, is Rove under investigation? Your constant brown-nosing towards pro-war neocons is getting quite tiring.:lol:

Then don't go into the barn if you don't want to hear the ass heeing and hawing. LOL

 

[Simon W. Moon]

But the reporter must've already known that Valerie was an agent. Cuz then why did the reporter ask Rove if she was an agent? Why even ask that question unless you already know? Cuz someone else told the reporter that Valerie was an agent and the reporter went to Rove to confirm it. Why go to Rove? I dunno. Maybe it was political.

1st, these sorts of questions are standard practice to trick info out of public officials. All it mean is that the reporter suspects something.
2nd, even if the reproter did know it would not relieve someone of their obligations to protect classified material.

 

[kal-el]

But who cares about ONE agent's status being leaked? Is it really the end of the world?

Obviously the public cares. It's against the law to out a covert, CIA agent.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001433090

Then don't go into the barn if you don't want to hear the ass heeing and hawing. LOL

What? Is that your asinine attempt at making humor?:lol:

 

[Donkey1499]

1st, these sorts of questions are standard practice to trick info out of public officials. All it mean is that the reporter suspects something.
2nd, even if the reproter did know it would not relieve someone of their obligations to protect classified material.

Then MAYBE it was political. But how would the reporter even begin to suspect that Valerie was an agent, unless someone else said it first?

 

[kal-el]

Then MAYBE it was political. But how would the reporter even begin to suspect that Valerie was an agent, unless someone else said it first?

This isn't about it being political, it's a matter of justice.

This is a serious allegation that a senior administration official broke the law all in the cloak of spite. And, if you recall George H. W. Bush's remarks when he opened that new CIA building a few years back, some would gather that such an act is treasonous.

(For those of you who've forgotten, BUsh Sr. said, "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.") http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html

Will Rove, or whomever leaked the name, be held accountable? I tend to doubt it. The public often appears too apathetic about corruption anymore. (You can thank the Right for making so much ad nauseum noise over Clinton's Hummer-Gate that the average person doesn't care about anything political anymore...)

This is a whole lot more serious than any headwhops. This is about a "senior government official" compromising a CIA agent, because said agent's spouse said something critical about the administration. It was an act of petty revenge that broke the law and could have potentially compromised national security. If this had been a democrat adminstration who had done this, the Right would be calling for impeachment and riding their high horses all around the corrall we call Capital Hill.

 

[Donkey1499]

This isn't about it being political, it's a matter of justice.

This is a serious allegation that a senior administration official broke the law all in the cloak of spite. And, if you recall George H. W. Bush's remarks when he opened that new CIA building a few years back, some would gather that such an act is treasonous.

(For those of you who've forgotten, BUsh Sr. said, "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.") http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html

Will Rove, or whomever leaked the name, be held accountable? I tend to doubt it. The public often appears too apathetic about corruption anymore. (You can thank the Right for making so much ad nauseum noise over Clinton's Hummer-Gate that the average person doesn't care about anything political anymore...)

This is a whole lot more serious than any headwhops. This is about a "senior government official" compromising a CIA agent, because said agent's spouse said something critical about the administration. It was an act of petty revenge that broke the law and could have potentially compromised national security. If this had been a democrat adminstration who had done this, the Right would be calling for impeachment and riding their high horses all around the corrall we call Capital Hill.

Alright, what did Valerie do to Rove and the "others" to make them "leak" her identity? And why is it political one way, but not the other? And if Rove did "leak" her identity first, then throw his ass in jail; but stop blaming the rest of the Bush admin for ONE man's "actions".

 

[kal-el]

Alright, what did Valerie do to Rove and the "others" to make them "leak" her identity? And why is it political one way, but not the other? And if Rove did "leak" her identity first, then throw his ass in jail; but stop blaming the rest of the Bush admin for ONE man's "actions".

She did nothing. Her husband critized this Administration, so I guess that justifies breaking the law?:2razz: It's been established that Karl Rove DID leak Plame's identity to Time reporter Cooper THREE DAYS prior to Novak's now-infamous disclosure of Plame's ID.

Rove's a smart cookie; he might not have broken the law (but that remains to be seen) but he did all but name Plame in his communication to Cooper.

The guy's a scumbag and should be fired by the White House immediately. I would say the same if it was Michael Whouley or James Carville in his place.

 

[Donkey1499]

She did nothing. Her husband critized this Administration, so I guess that justifies breaking the law?:2razz: It's been established that Karl Rove DID leak Plame's identity to Time reporter Cooper THREE DAYS prior to Novak's now-infamous disclosure of Plame's ID.

Rove's a smart cookie; he might not have broken the law (but that remains to be seen) but he did all but name Plame in his communication to Cooper.

The guy's a scumbag and should be fired by the White House immediately. I would say the same if it was Michael Whouley or James Carville in his place.

I don't ever justify breaking the law. Hell, I still think that Tom Delay and Mel Martinez are both crooks (they both just happen to be republicans too. Hmm).

What makes Rove a scumbag, IYO? Is it because he's fat with a cherry-pink face and chuckles a lot? LOL

And if confirming that someone is an agent is a crime, then lock him up and the newspaper for printing the article. If he or the paper/reporter didn't do anything wrong, then leave them alone.

 

[cnredd]

Right. You just changed your stance.:2razz: You're now saying it doesn't matter whether Novak BELIEVED Plame to be covert or not.

And I suppose Novak is completely trustworthy? Please, he's the mouth of the Bush Administration.

Why are you under the assumption that I'm standing up for Novak?...All I said was that he never wrote that she was covert...

Take a look at my past comments about Novak and realize I'm not as much as a mouthpiece for the Cons as you think I am...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=43520&postcount=288

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=43533&postcount=290

These are from three months ago...

 

[kal-el]

I don't ever justify breaking the law. Hell, I still think that Tom Delay and Mel Martinez are both crooks (they both just happen to be republicans too. Hmm).

What makes Rove a scumbag, IYO? Is it because he's fat with a cherry-pink face and chuckles a lot? LOL

And if confirming that someone is an agent is a crime, then lock him up and the newspaper for printing the article. If he or the paper/reporter didn't do anything wrong, then leave them alone.

Come on, Donkey. If this was Lincoln Log Leg Hillary, you couldn't type fast enough. If Rove did exactly what it is becoming increasingly likely he did, he outed a CIA agent to score a brownie point. To the liberal media, no less.

That's wrong and no one should tolerate it. Especially Bush

Originally posted by cnredd
Why are you under the assumption that I'm standing up for Novak?...All I said was that he never wrote that she was covert...

Take a look at my past comments about Novak and realize I'm not as much as a mouthpiece for the Cons as you think I am...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...&postcount=288

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...&postcount=290

These are from three months ago...

Ok, sorry man.:2razz:

 

[kal-el]

Are federal trials televised?
If Rove goes to trial it promises to be one amazing drama. Consider the witness list. Headlined by Dick Cheney. Featuring "Bush's brain" Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, Tim Russert, & the NY Times Judy Miller. Betrayal, Backstabbing, Intrigue at the highest levels of government.:lol: Backdrop of an increasingly unpopular war.

 

[cnredd]

Are federal trials televised?
If Rove goes to trial it promises to be one amazing drama. Consider the witness list. Headlined by Dick Cheney. Featuring "Bush's brain" Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer, Tim Russert, & the NY Times Judy Miller. Betrayal, Backstabbing, Intrigue at the highest levels of government.:lol: Backdrop of an increasingly unpopular war.

Not saying it will never happen, but why do you speculate on a Rove trial when he hasn't been indicted for anything?...:roll:

 

[kal-el]

Not saying it will never happen, but why do you speculate on a Rove trial when he hasn't been indicted for anything?...:roll:

Because I was trying to picture it in my mind, and it would be funny as hell, seeing the pro-war nuts take the stand!:lol:

 

[Binary_Digit]

But who cares about ONE agent's status being leaked? Is it really the end of the world? This whole case it just dirty politics pointed at Bush's staff. No one really cared when Sen. Leahy leaked info. Leahy still has his job. All he got was a slap on the wrist. But Rove could lose his job. And what the Hell was a "secret" agent doing in the public spotlight in a magazine? Agents aren't supposed to do that! It doesn't matter if her ID was "leaked" when she's in a friggin' magazine where everyone can see her.

Standard FOX news talking points. I wish they would quit regurgitating these inaccuracies for people to be duped.

First, Valerie Plame's secret status was not the only thing compromised. Brewer-Jennings Associates, the CIA front company she worked for, was also exposed and is now useless. They were responsible for gathering intelligence on nuclear and chemical weapons programs abroad. This outing of "ONE agent's status" not only ruined her career, it seriously compromised national security.

Second, Plame and Wilson appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair ONE MONTH AFTER Novak's article. She had already been outed, everyone knew her identity. The Vanity Fair cover picture means absolutely nothing.

Where's the guy/gal who "leaked" info about the CIA prisons in other countries? Where's the guy/gal who "leaked" the supposed "torture" stuff in Gitmo? Where are these people? Or is it because a Bush Staff Member MIGHT have "leaked" an identity?

I would like to know too. I think there's a "whistle blower" clause where people who expose corruption or illegal activities are protected, and that might apply to Abu Graib/Gitmo, but I don't know about the CIA black prison leak.

 

[Archon]

I would only like to make a few suggestions here. What the CIA does is not for public eyes. That's why the Wilson/Plame case has been such an issue. One in the same, such secret prisons are meant to be secret. I don't exactly agree with the war on terror (as the term is used generally to facilitate attacking anyone Bush deems profitable), however I do think we need to deal with certain terrorist (or extremist Jihad factions) namely Al-Qaeda. I would suggest that the American people should rest assured that the people that are being detained in such "secret prisons" are of utmost interest to the real concern of the American People. These are not prisons which slam a door on muslims, iraqis, or middle easterners because of ther ethnicity or presumed guilt... These are intelligence based prisons in which the objective is to gain practical and valuable information from key players in Al-Qaeda and those closest to them. This is not something that should be subject to public domain. THe leak of these prisons is comparable to the leak of Plames' identity.

The fact is that although this leak about the Prisons is being used by liberals to denounce the war the ramifications of the existence of such prisons are quite opposite. One must consider the sensitive nature of intelligent operations when determining what should, or should not be of public domain.

Again, just suggestions.

 

[Archon]

Yet in your own exasperated attempt to disregard factual quoted notions about something they all the sudden polarized it into a debate upon party affiliation instead of doing what needed to be done back in '91; you blinded yourself as you always do to the facts. He was never saying anyhting about all abidation of a particular party or a government. However, he is right about something you do need another hobby. :rofl

Tisk Tisk.

I made a mistake. I misquoted CNREDD. I apologized. I owned up. I admitted. That's all there was too it.

I have never at any point subjected myself to any particular party affiliation in terms of bias. That's the thing so many people don't seem to understand... bias is the most grand fallacy in sincere debate.

Say what you will. It is of no concern to me. My conscience is clear.

 

[cnredd]

Tisk Tisk.

I made a mistake. I misquoted CNREDD. I apologized. I owned up. I admitted. That's all there was too it.

I have never at any point subjected myself to any particular party affiliation in terms of bias. That's the thing so many people don't seem to understand... bias is the most grand fallacy in sincere debate.

Say what you will. It is of no concern to me. My conscience is clear.

Misquote me all you want...that seems to be the norm around here...

But NEVER capitalize my name!...:2wave:

 

[dragonslayer]

That is to bad. We keep people in prisons without trial, and now we fail to indict criminals.

Wow this is bad. Poor America. Does this mean the end of the Constitution?


After the Neoconservative destroy the Constitution, they should change the name of our country from the Unite States Of America, to some Name that reflects the AntiAmerican Ideals of Neoconservatives.

How about United States of Cheneyia. That is reflect the values of hate, and greed of the Neo Cons.:mrgreen:

 

[kal-el]

 

[KCConservative]

That is to bad. We keep people in prisons without trial, and now we fail to indict criminals.

Wow this is bad. Poor America. Does this mean the end of the Constitution?

Just for you.

 

[oldreliable67]

I only watch Hardball a couple of times a week, but did catch it last nite. Llast nite Dana Millbank and a reporter from the New York Daily News whose name escapes me just now (DeFrank?) were on. I've noticed before that Mathews really gets excited when the subject of Rove and especially Cheney being indicted comes up. He practically jumps up and down in his chair and visibly salivates.

Last nite's discussion, sparked by the special prosecutor's appearance before the new grand jury, included renewed interest in Rove's possible indictment. Unfortunately for Mathews, Woodward's revelations about having learned the identity of Plame a month before Libby is supposed to have 'outed' her, have confused the picture somewhat. But every time the prospect of Rove being indicted, even if for the same perjury and/or obstruction charges for which Libby was indicted, Mathews was at first, ecstatic, but then disappointed - first ecstatic at the prospect, any prospect, of Rove's indictment, but then disappointed because it still isn't (if it happens) not for the 'outing' charge. Even worse, from Mathews viewpoint, they haven't gotten Cheney yet.

What drives Mathews to such heights of ecstasy at the prospect of Rove and especially the VP being indicted? Mathews is unabashedly anti-war and liberal, but I don't recall him being so demonstrative over other ant-Bush or anti-conservative issues. Anyone have an opinion?

 

[aps]

I only watch Hardball a couple of times a week, but did catch it last nite. Llast nite Dana Millbank and a reporter from the New York Daily News whose name escapes me just now (DeFrank?) were on. I've noticed before that Mathews really gets excited when the subject of Rove and especially Cheney being indicted comes up. He practically jumps up and down in his chair and visibly salivates.

Last nite's discussion, sparked by the special prosecutor's appearance before the new grand jury, included renewed interest in Rove's possible indictment. Unfortunately for Mathews, Woodward's revelations about having learned the identity of Plame a month before Libby is supposed to have 'outed' her, have confused the picture somewhat. But every time the prospect of Rove being indicted, even if for the same perjury and/or obstruction charges for which Libby was indicted, Mathews was at first, ecstatic, but then disappointed - first ecstatic at the prospect, any prospect, of Rove's indictment, but then disappointed because it still isn't (if it happens) not for the 'outing' charge. Even worse, from Mathews viewpoint, they haven't gotten Cheney yet.

What drives Mathews to such heights of ecstasy at the prospect of Rove and especially the VP being indicted? Mathews is unabashedly anti-war and liberal, but I don't recall him being so demonstrative over other ant-Bush or anti-conservative issues. Anyone have an opinion?

OMG, oldreliable, I am laughing because my husband and I have suspicions that Matthews is a republican. Yes, he worked for Carter, but based upon the way he treats republicans versus democrats, we thought he favored republicans. On top of that, on his show this week, he showed footage of his brother who is running for Lieutenant Governor in Pennsylvania (I believe) as a republican. The minute Matthews said "Republican," my husband said, "I knew he (meaning Matthews) was a republican." LOL I really don't think he is a democrat. I think this is a juicy story, and he's fascinated by it.

Okay, I watched last night's show too. I think Rove is in trouble. Was it this program (I watch Hardball and Countdown) that they showed a former special prosecutor saying that to round up a new grand jury did not speak well for Rove?

I don't believe that the issue is related to who outed her first to the public--it's who provided classified information to someone who was not entitled to such information. This may not be Fitzgerald's primary concern. I think it relates to whether Rove perjured himself. Rove was interviewed in 2003 and 2004 and he made no mention of talking about Plame with Cooper. Subsequently, Cooper is subpoenaed by Fitzgerald to testify. Then Cooper is ordered to testify. Two days after Cooper was ordered to testify, suddenly, Rove has a memory recall and admits that he and Cooper may have talked about Plame.

My gut tells me that he felt that Cooper was not going to have to be forced to testify and he was banking on it. The minute he realized that Cooper was going to be forced to testify, he admitted the conversation took place. So in 2003 he didn't remember the conversation, but then a year later he did? Hmmmmm

 

[oldreliable67]

aps,

I get all that about Rove's memory being refreshed by discovering a forgotten e-mail. :lol:

And lets not forget that the prosecutors reason-for-being is the alleged Plame outing. The fact that it turns out that there may have been no crime other than perjury or obstruction on the part of grand jury interviewees, which suggests that either 1) those being interviewed were trying to do a cyoa or 2) they actually didn't remember some of the details of the conversations that they were being asked about, or 3) some combination of 1) and 2). Personally, I am under the impression that all interviewed have so far simply been trying to say whatever they thought would get them in the least trouble and out of the prosecutors crosshairs the fastest and simply haven't paid enough attention to the prosecutors ability to corroborate.

But more specifically, Mathews just gets so excited at the prospect of a Rove or (and especially) a Cheney indictment! At some time in the past, did Rove or Cheney fire Mathews from a job or cause Mathews some loss of money or prestige or something???? What explains Mathews near-orgasmic frenzy at the mere discussion of a Rove and/or Cheney indictment?