|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
<Looks at watch> ...
Wow it's been a while since the last Bush = Hitler post!
Anyways, as I said in all the other posts. Let it go to trial, if he's guilty give him the max sentence. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.
|
Advocating a wait of three or more years, for the outcome of a possible "trial", after a close aid to the POTUS, in an unprecedented (1) "dual role" of chief political consultant, as well as "special advisor to the president" is revealed to have, at the least, (as Rove's attorney admits, and Matt Cooper claims to have testified to)(2) violated his "Classified Non-Disclosure Agreement", (3), <b>seems like a partisan stance to take, on your part, Seaver.</b> You seem to have to overlook or ignore quite a bit, to have your opinion.
Luckily for us, <a href="http://www.omidyar.net/user/pierre/news/2/"> Pierre Omidyar</a> founder and CEO of Ebay, is a patriot, and believes in our "right to know". He has contributed funding to this site, with this link:<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/index.html"> Bush Administration Documents on Secrecy Policy</a> It is quite informative.
The tide of public opinion, Seaver, appears now to negate all of the denial, deceptive Mehlman/RNC talking points, and the threat of "loss of access" that presumably kept the White House Press Corps "gagged" during the four Scott McClellan "gaggles" that followed disclosure at the start of the July 4th weekend, that Rove had spoken to Time reporter Matt Cooper about "Wilson's wife", before Novak "outed" her as a CIA "operative" in his July 14, 2003
column. Note that the press asked Scottie more than once if Bush owes the Wilsons an "apology". Quite a change, indeed. Start keeping track of how many "allowances", and "distractions" you have to make when you attempt to defend these "senior administration officials". Do you just follow them over a cliff, or does there ever come a point where you start to question "things"?
Here is documentation of the status of this story as recently as July 8th....
Quote:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507080006
.....Plamegate: Why won't the White House press corps ask about Rove's role?
Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser known as "Bush's Brain," has become increasingly tangled up in the investigation into who outed CIA operative Valerie Plame. But the White House press corps has yet to ask a single question about Rove during any of the four White House press briefings held since Rove's lawyer admitted that Rove was a source for a reporter to whom information about Plame was leaked, as <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/08/corps-silent-6/">Think Progress</a> has noted........
|
And here are excerpts from yesterday's press "gaggle" with Scottie:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050718-2.html
Transcript: McClellan Defends President On Failure to Fire Rove
<a href="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000980698">By E&P Press</a>
Published: July 18, 2005 3:25 PM ET
NEW YORK It was another difficult press briefing for White House spokesman Scott McClellan today as reporters pounced on what appeared to be a changing presidential standard on what would prompt dismissal of Karl Rove or any other deputy: mere involvement in the Plame scandal or the committing of a crime? And if the latter, would an indictment be enough or would it take a conviction?
And why doesn't President Bush just walk down the hall and ask Rove for a full accounting?
Here's today's transcript of the relevant banter:
Q Scott, the President seemed to raise the bar and add a qualifier today when discussing whether or not anybody would be dismissed for -- in the leak of a CIA officer's name, in which he said that he would -- if someone is found to have committed a crime, they would no longer work in this administration. That's never been part of the standard before, why is that added now?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I disagree, Terry. I think that the President was stating what is obvious when it comes to people who work in the administration: that if someone commits a crime, they're not going to be working any longer in this administration. Now the President talked about how it's important for us to learn all the facts. We don't know all the facts, and it's important that we not prejudge the outcome of the investigation. We need to let the investigation continue. And the investigators are the ones who are in the best position to gather all the facts and draw the conclusions. And at that point, we will be more than happy to talk about it, as I indicated last week.
The President directed the White House to cooperate fully, and that's what we've been doing. We want to know what the facts are, we want to see this come to a successful conclusion. And that's the way we've been working for quite some time now. Ever since the beginning of this investigation, we have been following the President's direction to cooperate fully with it, so that we can get to the -- so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
Q But you have said, though, that anyone involved in this would no longer be in this administration, you didn't say anybody who committed a crime. You had said, in September 2003, anyone involved in this would no longer be in the administration.
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, we've been through these issues over the course of the last week. And I know --
Q But we haven't talked about a crime.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- well what was said previously. You heard from the President today. And I think that you should not read anything into it more than what the President said at this point. And I think that's something you may be trying to do here.
Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it at what the President said.
Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.
MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.
Q Why?
MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --
Q Why doesn't he ask him?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --
Q You talked about it to reporters.
MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.
Q Scott, we don't know all the facts, but we know some of the facts. For example, Matt Cooper says he did speak to Karl Rove and Lewis Libby about these issues. So given the fact that you have previously stood at that podium and said these men did not discuss Valerie Plame or a CIA agent's identity in any way, does the White House have a credibility problem?
MR. McCLELLAN: No. You just answered your own question. You said we don't know all the facts. And I would encourage everyone not to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.
Q But on the specifics -- on the specifics, you made statements that have proven to be untrue.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let me answer your question, because you asked a very specific question. The President has great faith in the American people and their judgment. The President is the one who directed the White House to cooperate fully in this investigation with those who are overseeing the investigation. And that's exactly what we have been doing. The President believes it's important to let the investigators do their work, and at that point, once they have come to a conclusion, then we will be more than happy to talk about it.
The President wants to see them get to the bottom of it as soon as possible. I share that view, as well. We want to know what the facts are, and the investigators are the ones who are drawing those -- are pulling together those facts, and then drawing conclusions.
Go ahead, Bob.
Q Given the new formulation "if somebody committed a crime," would that be a crime as determined by an indictment, or a crime as determined by a conviction?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, Bob, I'm not going to add to what the President said. You heard his remarks, and I think I've been through these issues over the course of the last week. I don't know that there's really much more to add at this point.
Q But the importance is the question of would -- if it is the latter, the strategy would be to run out the clock?
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I indicated to you earlier that everyone here serves at the pleasure of the President. And the White House has been working to cooperate fully with the investigators. That was the direction that the President set. That's what we've been doing. We hope they come to a conclusion soon.
Q Scott, going back to the President's statements from earlier -- if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration -- it makes me go back to the question I asked you last Wednesday, is there regret from this administration of what it has done to the Wilson family, with the CIA leak? And I talked to Mr. Wilson prior to going into the East Room, and he basically said, the American people deserve an apology, and that his family was basically collateral damage in a bigger picture.
MR. McCLELLAN: All these questions are getting into prejudging the outcome of the investigation, and we're not going to do that.
Q But if someone -- if the President acknowledged that there was a problem, and it could be a criminal problem, if he acknowledged that, isn't there some sort of regret?
MR. McCLELLAN: It's a criminal investigation. We don't know all the facts to it.
Go ahead.
Q Well, is there any regret from this White House that it has caused an American family who worked for this government --
MR. McCLELLAN: I heard what you had to say and I've already answered it.
Q No, you didn't.
MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.
Q Scott, the President talked about if a crime were committed. But a year ago and beyond, he also talked about -- he denounced leaks out of this executive branch, other parts of Washington. He said, things are wrong. If it's only a leak, will he take some appropriate action?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think you should look back at what the President said again. I would not read anything into it more than what he said. The President has said for a long time that this is a very serious matter, and that's why he directed the White House to cooperate fully, so that the investigators can get to the bottom of it.
***
Q Scott, I just want to sort of go back over this. Insofar as you're telling us that we shouldn't read anything new into the President's comments today, should we then take that to mean that if there is criminal activity, that person would be fired, but this does not render inoperative those things that the President has said "yes" or responded in the affirmative to in the past when asked, for instance, if you would fire somebody if they were involved in a leak?
MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't read anything into it. You said, "new." I wouldn't read anything into it beyond what he said.
Q So the previous statements remain operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, once the investigation is concluded, then we can talk about it at that point. But those are decisions for the President to make.
***
Q Scott, back in October 2003, you did assure us that you'd spoken with Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams, and they'd all assured you that they weren't involved in any of this. So with regard to Libby and Abrams, do you still stand by that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Last week I think I assured you that I want to do everything I can to help the investigators get to the bottom of this. I will be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete. I've been stating that position for a long time now, and that's where it stands.
Q So with regard to that, how concerned is the President and you that, notwithstanding that you don't want to talk about it, that Ken Mehlman and other senior Republicans are all over the airwaves doing just that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you can direct those questions to the Republican National Committee.
Ken, go ahead.
Q Scott, without asking about the content of the conversation, has the President asked Karl Rove to detail any involvement he might have had in any leaks?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President directed the White House to cooperate fully. This is a serious matter. As the President indicated, he doesn't know all the facts. And we all want to know what the facts are. He'll be glad to talk about it once the investigation is complete, and we hope that the investigators get to the bottom of it soon. And that's the -- I think that's the response to that.
Q Has the special prosecutor made any request to this White House that prevents the President from speaking to his top aides about any topic?
MR. McCLELLAN: You can ask the prosecutors those questions, if they want to comment more on it.
Go ahead, Richard.
Q Has anyone here in the White House been assigned with coordinating with the Republican National Committee and other Republican members of Congress speaking out about this issue, the Karl Rove issue?
MR. McCLELLAN: I think I've addressed these issues. Some of this came up last week and again today.
Go ahead.
***
Q Scott, I just wonder -- Scott, on a personal, human note, how are you holding out? Are you enjoying this? (Laughter.) Seriously. And are you consulting with any of your predecessors who have also gone through crises, Mike McCurry --
MR. McCLELLAN: There are so few things I enjoy more. (Laughter.) Connie, this is nothing personal. Everybody is doing their job here, and I respect the job that you all are doing in this room. And I look forward to having a continuing constructive relationship with everybody in this room.
|
<h4>If the following ABC News polling, combined with the dramatic increase in the level of curiousity is any indication, Seaver, of the damage the POTUS is doing to his own credibility, by how he and his administration are "handling" this crisis,</h4> IMO, you can "stand down" now. You don't have to keep up the pretense that we can "just wait" for a trial. This is going to stick. This is a competition between a POTUS leaking credibility on too many fronts, a sleazy politcal advisor who tried to make examples of two people, the Wilsons, who served their country with distinguished and unblemished records. We know Rove's resume, and his track record of destroying people, it isn't working now, and even his attorney, Luskin, formerly an unknown, has a "taint" (4), similar to Rove's.
Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/print?id=949950
Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe
Most Say Rove Should Lose Job if He Leaked Classified Information
Analysis by GARY LANGER
Jul. 18, 2005 - Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a number that's declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.
Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.
This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans -- much higher, but still under half in the president's own party. And doubt about the administration's cooperation has grown as much among Republicans -- by 22 points since September 2003 -- as it has among others.
There's less division on consequences: 75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike -- 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively.
At the same time, in September 2003 more Americans -- 91 percent -- said someone who leaked classified information should be fired. The question at that time did not identify Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and one of George W. Bush's closest advisers, as the possible source of the information.
Should Karl Rove Be Fired If He Leaked Classified Information?
Yes No
All 75% 15%
Republicans 71 17
Independents 74 17
Democrats 83 12
A Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, said this weekend that Rove told him that the wife of a former ambassador was a CIA officer, without giving her name. Cooper testified last week before the grand jury investigating the matter, saying his source had released him to do so.
Bush today appeared to raise the bar on a dismissable offense, saying he'd fire anyone who committed a crime. Previously the administration said anyone who'd disclosed the CIA agent's identify would be removed, without specifying a criminal act.
Miller
This poll finds majority support for another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, who's gone to jail rather than disclose her confidential source in the case. Sixty percent say she's done the right thing, ranging from 49 percent of Republicans to about two-thirds of Democrats and independents.
That view comports with an ABC News/Washington Post poll in May that found majority support for the use of confidential sources by news reporters -- 53 percent in general, rising to 65 percent if it's the only way to get an important story.
Serious
The leak investigation is seen as a meaningful issue: About three-quarters call it a serious matter, and just over four in 10 see it as "very" serious. These are down slightly, however, by five and six points respectively, from their level in September 2003.
Fifty-three percent are following the issue closely -- a fairly broad level of attention. Those paying close attention (who include about as many Republicans as Democrats) are more likely than others to call it very serious, to say the White House is not cooperating, to say Rove should be fired if he leaked, and to say Miller is doing the right thing.
Methodology
This ABC News poll was conducted by telephone July 13-17, 2005, among a random national sample of 1,008 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa.
<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/986a1CIALeak.pdf">Click here for PDF version with full questionnaire and results.</a>
|
Footnotes:
Quote:
<a href="http://www.kaet.asu.edu/horizon/transcripts/2003/june/june2_2003.htm">(1)</a>
June 2, 2003
Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
A new book looks at the power and influence of White House Senior Advisor Karl Rove;
.........James: I think it's unique in the sense that what we're seeing in the white house is a couple of things. We have a political advisor being paid by you the taxpayer to advise the president on politics. Usually the political advisor is outside, hired gun, comes to the white house. Karl Rove, they created a hybrid, what he claims his title is is the director of policy and political liaison for the president. He claims he takes the president's policies out of the white house and tries to build support for those. In fact, what he does is the opposite, goes out of the white house, tries to find out what is politically expedient, what will help the president and brings that back in and turns it into policy. I have been told I am somewhat cynical in what Karl is driving the president to do. It is not an accident a year ago, when we couldn't find Osama bin Laden, when the economy was on its knees, the national political discourse turned away from our inability to prosecute the war on terrorism and inability to fix the economy, we are concentrating on an issue we can do something about, and the national concentration moved toward Iraq and Saddam Hussein. That wasn't an accident. That was design..............
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700755.html">(2)</a>
Reporter: Rove Told Him of Plame's CIA Tie
Bush Adviser Did Not Say She Was A Covert Operative
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 18, 2005; Page A02
........Although Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said Cooper called Rove to talk about welfare reform and switched topics during the conversation, Cooper said he initially left a message about welfare reform but when he reached the White House aide, they talked only about Wilson.
Fitzgerald asked several times whether Rove had indicated how he knew Plame worked at the CIA; Cooper said he did not. About one-third of the questions, he said, came from the grand jurors, a majority of whom are black and predominantly women.
In a CNN interview, Cooper said Rove's tone "was disparaging toward Wilson." He also said he was "upset" with Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine's decision to turn over his e-mails after losing all legal appeals, which revealed Cooper's sources before he had agreed to testify.
"I really disagreed with it, because I thought we were fighting for an important principle and I thought there would be a lot of fallout from handing over the notes," Cooper said. "And I think events have borne that out."
Part of the Republican defense, as expressed by Mehlman on NBC, is that Rove did not know Plame's name or that she was a covert operative. Mehlman cited a New York Times report that, in his words, "says Karl Rove was not Bob Novak's source, that Novak told Rove, not the other way around. . . . This information at least came to Mr. Rove from journalists, not from a classified source."
But the article said that when syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who was the first to report Plame's name and CIA job in July 2003, mentioned her, Rove replied he had "heard that too," indicating Rove had obtained the information elsewhere...............
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html">{3}</a>
Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement
(Standard Form 312)
Briefing Booklet (Question 19 is loc. near the bottom of the page.....)
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?
Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
|
Quote:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/15/BL2005071500507.html">(4)</a>
Rove's Legal Beagle
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 15, 2005; 8:18 AM
I'd never heard of Robert Luskin before he became Karl Rove's lawyer, but he's sure getting his moment in the spotlight now.
I'm sure he's a fine attorney, and it can't be easy handling a supercharged case like this. But I've been wondering about Luskin's role since he started giving interviews on behalf of his embattled client.......
..........Ultimately it's unfair to blame the lawyer. Rove could have a press conference today and clear up the questions about this, without interfering with the investigation in any way. But if Luskin is going to act as his spokesman, it's fair to hold him accountable for what he says.
Turns out that Luskin, in 1998, had to return $245,000 in fees from a client convicted of drug-money laundering. The settlement with the Justice Department, which argued that the attorney should have known he was receiving tainted money, followed the disclosure that Luskin had accepted half a million of his payment in gold bars..............
|
|