Karl Rove Source in Plame Case - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Elphaba · 07-02-2005, 01:17 PM

MSNBC might be jumping the gun, but it appears Rove was the one to out Plame in a nasty retaliation toward Ambassador Wilson.

______________________________________________________________

Editor's Note: This is not the first time Karl Rove's name has surfaced in this case. In August of 2003 Valerie Plames husband, Ambassador Joeseph Wilson said:

"It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."

______________________________________________________________

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
Editor & Publisher

Saturday 02 July 2005

New York - Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name - and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.
"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

guy44 · 07-02-2005, 02:10 PM

Yeah, everyone surprised that Karl Rove would willingly commit treason in order to exact petty revenge raise your hand. I'm reminded of American Dad, where Rove is dressed in a cloak and every time his name is spoken aloud a wolf howls in the background. Dude is evil.

filtherton · 07-02-2005, 04:19 PM

Everyone can take off their tin foil hats now. Apparently.

Elphaba · 07-02-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Everyone can take off their tin foil hats now. Apparently.

I think I will keep my hat on for the nonce. It blocks "the voices."

guy44 · 07-02-2005, 06:19 PM

To be fair, Rove may not have actually been the initial leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity. Popular rumor has it that Rove isn't being investigated for leaking the info, but for some other crime related to the incident. Speculation runs from perjury (he has already testified that he knew nothing about the leak) to conspiracy.

So it seems, anyway, that Rove is probably guilty of something. I'm just dying to know what.

Mantus · 07-02-2005, 07:09 PM

Well that explains why Time gave up the source now doesnt it.

Elphaba · 07-02-2005, 07:43 PM

The penalties associated with ignoring the Supreme Court ruling would have prohibited Time from doing anything else. They held back the original source until the Supremes ruled that they must.

Tophat665 · 07-02-2005, 07:46 PM

Way I figure it, I am not going to warm up the tar just yet, but I am definitely going to freshen my feather collection.

It would be nice to have the actual president run out of office so we can watch Bush flounder without help.

Regardless, though, look for Rove as UN Ambassador in 15 to 20 years.

Elphaba · 07-02-2005, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tophat665

Way I figure it, I am not going to warm up the tar just yet, but I am definitely going to freshen my feather collection.

It would be nice to have the actual president run out of office so we can watch Bush flounder without help.

Regardless, though, look for Rove as UN Ambassador in 15 to 20 years.

That was worthy of a snarf, Tophat. Thanks

moosenose · 07-02-2005, 08:17 PM

I'm thinking that a whole shiatload of people are about to get sued BIGTIME. And remember, while the reporters can not say "So and so gave us Plame's name" without setting a terrible precedent and violating their ethics code, they CAN say "Karl Rove did NOT give us Plame's name" WITHOUT violating their ethics or setting a bad precedent, if in fact he did not.

I'm popping popcorn and waiting for the Judicial Smackies to be administered. Can you say "Malice Aforethought"?

moosenose · 07-02-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Yeah, everyone surprised that Karl Rove would willingly commit treason in order to exact petty revenge raise your hand. I'm reminded of American Dad, where Rove is dressed in a cloak and every time his name is spoken aloud a wolf howls in the background. Dude is evil.

guy, how about you grab your copy of the Constitution, look at Article 3 § 3, and tell us EXACTLY how what Rove is accused of doing qualifies as "treason". Please be specific. Thanks.

Elphaba · 07-02-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

I'm thinking that a whole shiatload of people are about to get sued BIGTIME. And remember, while the reporters can not say "So and so gave us Plame's name" without setting a terrible precedent and violating their ethics code, they CAN say "Karl Rove did NOT give us Plame's name" WITHOUT violating their ethics or setting a bad precedent, if in fact he did not.

I'm popping popcorn and waiting for the Judicial Smackies to be administered. Can you say "Malice Aforethought"?

Moose, the Supreme Court forced the revealing of the source. If MSNBC jumped the gun and are proven wrong in their belief that it was Rove, you are correct in that their collective butts are in deep doodoo.

If they are correct, where is the "malice?"

moosenose · 07-02-2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Moose, the Supreme Court forced the revealing of the source. If MSNBC jumped the gun and are proven wrong in their belief that it was Rove, you are correct in that their collective butts are in deep doodoo.

If they are correct, where is the "malice?"

If they are correct, there's still malice, because the person who is naming Rove is a long-time anti-Rove/Bush person. Either way, malice or no malice, it doesn't matter if he is correct and Rove leaked the name, because truth is generally an affirmative defense to charges of libel and/or slander. If Rove actually leaked her name, O'Donnell is fine. If Rove did NOT actually leak her name, HUGE judicial smackies are almost certain to be coming O'Donnell's way (MSNBC's too).

host · 07-02-2005, 09:01 PM

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ed#post1823205

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...

moosenose, in view of the example above and the link to it's context, you seem to reach hasty conclusions as to who is, or isn't a suspect.

I find your tone intimidating. Rove is a public figure. The comments on this thread, and in the media that speculate about his complicity in the Plame outing are not actionable. Perhaps you are confusing UK civil libel law with U.S. law.
http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml

You have no way of knowing anymore about Rove's involvement than anyone else who posts here. Can you support your comments and conclusion ?

moosenose · 07-02-2005, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Rove is a public figure. The comments on this thread, and in the media that speculate about his complicity in the Plame outing are not actionable. Perhaps you are confusing UK civil libel law with U.S. law.
http://www.newsdesk-uk.com/law/libelcheck.shtml

You have no way of knowing anymore about Rove's involvement than anyone else who posts here. Can you support your comments and conclusion ?

Actually, you are wrong, they are very actionable, IF Rove is NOT the person that leaked the name. It's entirely possible that Rove did leak the name, but given the way the left treat his intellect (the Evil Genius behind Bush), I find it kind of doubtful that he would be so stupid. If he did leak the name, O'Donnell is in the clear. If he did not in fact leak the name, and O'Donnell lied about it when he said Rove did, and there is "actual malice", he certainly CAN be liable. The only remaining issue would be how to quantify damages (both compensatory and punitive).

I don't know if Rove leaked the name or not. Without good, solid evidence to the contrary, I'd say he probably didn't. And remember, the standard in the US for a public figure is: a) was the statement actually false, and b) was it published with "actual malice" and c) is there damage to reputation. Now SPECULATION is an entirely different matter, but that's not what O'Donnell did. As an example, and just to let you know the difference, saying "I think Michael Jackson is a babyrapist" is very different than saying "Michael Jackson raped that baby." One would be actionable, and the other would not.

roachboy · 07-03-2005, 07:28 AM

gee. moosenose, you act as though you are worries about some kind of action being launched without adequate information as to whether the basis for it is accurate or not. or an action being launched on false pretenses. come on--this is america damn it--as americans we would never undertake an action under false pretenses, pursue a destructive path based on only vague suspicions.

and of course you are correct about the importance of due process, of the presumption of innocence as well--and god knows that the bush administration has been a staunch champion of due process and the presumption of innocence.

yes, you certainly speak from a strong position on these questions of adequate evidence, the importance of protecting basic legal rights, as a supporter of the present regime

as for the question of whether rove was behind the leak--i haven't seen much about it yet. but this is already a very dangerous story for the right machine. bad timing for you folk, isnt it? the prospect of being de-roved must keep you guys up at night.

but we'll see how things plays out....

Elphaba · 07-03-2005, 11:47 AM

In today's paper, Cooper's attorney announced that Rove was the source. Rove's attorney denies it.

moosenose · 07-03-2005, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

and of course you are correct about the importance of due process, of the presumption of innocence as well--and god knows that the bush administration has been a staunch champion of due process and the presumption of innocence.

yes, you certainly speak from a strong position on these questions of adequate evidence, the importance of protecting basic legal rights, as a supporter of the present regime

That's what is so funny about this. The Far Left is foaming at the mouth for the chance to go after Rove. They don't seem to realize just HOW fucked they will be in the future if they manage to get him. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", and all that...

BTW, I'm not particularly fond of Bush. I just am not the kind of person who runs around committing sedition or betraying my country or wishing harm upon people who are serving our country because I don't like who is in office. I DID vote for Bush, but that was because I see him as by far the lesser of two evils. The Democrats could have had my vote on '04, all they had to do was nominate somebody to the Right of Lenin. They didn't.

I don't hate my country just because I am not enthused about my President. That's not true of a great many people on the far left, who hate America because we are a great nation that has stood up to their favorite governments, like the Soviet Union and the communist government of Cambodia/Kampuchea. For example, on another board that I've been known to read (DU), there's a poster named Tinoire who came out and spoke her mind, saying that she supported the insurgents in Iraq, and that she hoped that a lot of US servicemen died in Iraq. In my opinion, her statements crossed the line from "free speech" to "adherence to the enemy". The admin over there quickly pulled her posts, probably because they didn't want the legal liability for being accomplices for hosting and distributing such comments.

host · 07-03-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

That's what is so funny about this. The Far Left is foaming at the mouth for the chance to go after Rove. They don't seem to realize just HOW fucked they will be in the future if they manage to get him. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander", and all that...

BTW, I'm not particularly fond of Bush. I just am not the kind of person who runs around committing sedition or betraying my country or wishing harm upon people who are serving our country because I don't like who is in office. I DID vote for Bush, but that was because I see him as by far the lesser of two evils. The Democrats could have had my vote on '04, all they had to do was nominate somebody to the Right of Lenin. They didn't.

I don't hate my country just because I am not enthused about my President. That's not true of a great many people on the far left, who hate America because we are a great nation that has stood up to their favorite governments, like the Soviet Union and the communist government of Cambodia/Kampuchea. For example, on another board that I've been known to read (DU), there's a poster named Tinoire who came out and spoke her mind, saying that she supported the insurgents in Iraq, and that she hoped that a lot of US servicemen died in Iraq. In my opinion, her statements crossed the line from "free speech" to "adherence to the enemy". The admin over there quickly pulled her posts, probably because they didn't want the legal liability for being accomplices for hosting and distributing such comments.

I am growing more concerned about your participation on this forum and the
veiled but obvious tone of intimidation that I perceive in your posts, especially the ones that you direct toward (at) me. Are you here to threaten, investigate, prosecute, or all three ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

I disagree with you. I watch our government at work on a daily basis, being yet another cog in the machine. I think that there is probably a LOT more idealism at work in our government than you give it credit for. I know that I signed up not for the money (which is 1/10th of what I'd reasonably be expected to make outside of Tha G) or for the power (which is beyond fleeting) but rather out of a genuine desire to do what I do for the good of the People. And rest assured, what I do IS for the EXCLUSIVE good of the People.

Of course, I just see "my little corner"...but I know a lot of people, and the opportunistic assholes are most definitely a rarity from what I've seen with my own eyes.
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...34&postcount=3

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

Saddam was not a nice man. Your defense and support of his rule is duly noted. "Aid and comfort", "aid and comfort", my "friend"...
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ed#post1823205

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

So let me see if I've got this right...there's a guy who says he committed a felony, and then spent seven years living as a fugitive from justice, who thinks he did the right thing, and is encouraging others to do the same. Then there's another guy who says "breaking the law is bad", so he's the bad guy here. Does that about sum it up?
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/newrepl...eply&p=1735417

If you are an employee of a federal agency with investigatory, law enforcement, or prosecutorial responsibilities or associations, isn't your very presence here enough to give pause to those of us who disagree with you politically or philosophically? The mods are here to preserve order and a civil discourse. Are you here to discourage our right to express our opinion or our dissent freely and publicly?

ratbastid · 07-03-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

the prospect of being de-roved must keep you guys up at night.

Bullseye. But notice how cool they're playing it. Hoping some white noise on the media machine will drown out the story, perhaps. Typical W-Administration media manipulation--and guess whose filthy mitts are on the strings. Wonder why it isn't working this time? The puppeteer has no clothes!

moosenose: Right of Lenin? Hyperbole like that only demeans you, and it has no place in reasoned discussion. It makes you sound like a Fox News parrot. I know you're more intelligent than that.

Note that I'm not a regular visitor of Tilted Politics--I only dropped into this thread because I'm deeply interested in the afore-mentioned handcuffed frogmarching. I may or may not ever read any replies to this post. PM me if you have to.

host · 07-04-2005, 12:26 PM

An update on Rove/Plame and, to followup on comments in my last post here, an observation that our American Library Assoc. would not deem it necessary to "use servers in Canada" to search the internet to gather info for it's study of post 9/11 law enforcement inquiries of U.S. library patrons' reading activity, if the folks that Rove enables have not achieved a "chilling effect" on the habits and activities of Americans who believe that peaceful expression of dissent and advocacy of non-violent civil disobedience are appropriate response to the takeover of their government
by thugs who fail to be faithful to their oaths of office! What are our elected officials turning our formerly "free" nation into, and at what price to our ability to express ourselves and to petition our government for a redress of grievances?

Quote:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39315670-ec...00e2511c8.html
Rove talked but did not tattle, attorney says
By LA Times, 4 Jul 2005
Published: July 4 2005 14:00 | Last updated: July 4 2005 14:00

..........Luskin said Rove had been assured by prosecutors that he was not a target of the investigation. “We were advised recently that his status has not changed,” he added.

”It is certainly my understanding that Karl has testified absolutely truthfully about all his conversations about everybody that he has been asked about during that week,” Luskin added. “Nobody has suggested to us ever that they think that there are any problems about whether they think he is being candid.”

But Newsweek magazine reported on its website Saturday that Rove was one of Cooper’s sources identified in notes that Time turned over to Fitzgerald. And separately, MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell said in a taped TV program that he had information indicating Rove was one of Cooper’s sources. O’Donnell’s comments were made in a segment of “The McLaughlin Group” that was set to air in Los Angeles on PBS Saturday night.

Cooper’s lawyer, Richard Sauber, declined to discuss Rove’s role in Cooper’s work, saying in response to an e-mail message, “We’re not going to discuss one way or another what the [documents turned over by Time]..........

Quote:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/
Secrets and Leaks

By (Page 2 of 3)
Newsweek
Updated: 8:56 a.m. ET Oct. 6, 2003

Irked by Wilson’s public charges, administration officials promptly set about undermining Wilson’s credibility.........

..........The next day Wilson got a call from Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC show “Hardball.” According to a source close to Wilson, Matthews said, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game.” (Matthews told NEWSWEEK: “I’m not going to talk about off-the-record conversations.”)............

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...ian-edit_x.htm
Posted 5/17/2005 8:45 PM
Librarian's brush with FBI shapes her view of the USA Patriot Act
By Joan Airoldi

.........Since the passage of the Patriot Act in October 2001, the FBI has the power to go to a secret court to request library and bookstore records considered relevant to a national security investigation. It does not have to show that the people whose records are sought are suspected of any crime or explain why they are being investigated. In addition, librarians and booksellers are forbidden to reveal that they have received an order to surrender customer data.

Our government has always possessed the power to obtain library records, but that power has been subject to safeguards. The Patriot Act eliminated those safeguards and made it impossible for people to ask a judge to rule whether the government needs the information it is after. In the current debate over extending or amending the Patriot Act, one of the key questions is whether a library or any other institution can seek an independent review of an order. Even the attorney general conceded in a recent oversight hearing that this is a problem with the law as written.

Fortunately for our patrons, we were able to mount a successful challenge to what seems to have been a fishing expedition. If it had returned with an order from a secret court under the Patriot Act, the FBI might now know which residents in our part of Washington State had simply tried to learn more about bin Laden.

With a Patriot Act order in hand, I would have been forbidden to disclose even the fact that I had received it and would not have been able to tell this story.

Joan Airoldi, a librarian, is director of the library district in Whatcom County, Wash.

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/20/news/patriot.php
U.S. demanded data from libraries, study finds
By Eric Lichtblau The New York Times

TUESDAY, JUNE 21, 2005
.........."What this says to us," said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the library association's Washington office, "is that agents are coming to libraries and they are asking for information at a level that is significant, and the findings are completely contrary to what the Justice Department has been trying to convince the public".............

.......The survey also found what library association officials described as a "chilling effect" caused by public concerns about the government's powers. Nearly 40 percent of the libraries responding reported that users had inquired about changes in practices related to the Patriot Act, and about 5 percent said that they had altered their professional activities over the issues; for instance, by reviewing the types of books they bought........

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a0zD3TZdq1Pc

Libraries, Challenging FBI, Shape Patriot Act Debate (Update1)

June 20 (Bloomberg) -- When the American Library Association surveyed U.S. libraries for a report on the impact of the USA Patriot Act, it went out of its way -- far out of its way -- to house the information.

The choice: a computer server in Canada, beyond the reach of U.S. authorities. ``Not that I'm paranoid or anything,'' said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the Chicago-based library association's Washington office.

The library association's report, released today, said that U.S. law enforcement authorities made more than 200 requests for information from libraries since October 2001, the month the Patriot Act was signed into law......

........... The administration draws the line at amending the law to exempt library records.

``Libraries and booksellers should not become safe havens for terrorists and spies,'' Deputy Attorney General James Comey told lawmakers on May 11.

Administrative Subpoenas

Even as the library association and its allies press to limit the Patriot Act, some in Congress hope to expand the power to seize records. The Senate Intelligence Committee voted to let investigators demand records without the approval of any judge or grand jury, using so-called ``administrative subpoenas.'' The full Senate hasn't considered the proposal.

The library privacy issue isn't new. In 1973 the FBI started recruiting librarians as Cold War-era informants through an ``appeal to their patriotism'' to report on scientific research being done by foreign nationals, according to research by Herbert Foerstel, former head of branch libraries at the University of Maryland.....

Quote:

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/ar...0620171426.asp
........."We're concerned about protecting people's privacy," she said. "People will say to me, 'I've read about the Patriot Act, and does that mean the government can come in and ask you what I'm reading?' And my answer to them has to be, 'Yes, they can,' and quite frankly, I can't even tell anyone if that happened, because there's a gag order."...........

How did we get to the point where I am prompted to ask another TFP member if his activities here include surveillance of the content of my posts? My research convinces me that I am not overreacting, and that the intended "chilling effect" that these thugs have orchestrated, is working!

shakran · 07-04-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by moosenose

I'm thinking that a whole shiatload of people are about to get sued BIGTIME. And remember, while the reporters can not say "So and so gave us Plame's name" without setting a terrible precedent and violating their ethics code, they CAN say "Karl Rove did NOT give us Plame's name" WITHOUT violating their ethics or setting a bad precedent, if in fact he did not.

Well, actually, no we can't. Eliminate all the "didn't do its" and you come up with who did. If we say we won't reveal a source, we won't reveal ANYTHING about that source, even if it's just to say that someone else is not the source. To do otherwise would be to blow our future chances at getting sources.

powerclown · 07-05-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...bad timing for you folk, isnt it? the prospect of being de-roved must keep you guys up at night.

Bad timing, indeed.
Why wasn't this story exposed during the presidential election, when it would have actually mattered?
Who cares now, 8 months after Rove got Bush re-elected???

Game, Set, Match: Rove

roachboy · 07-05-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Who cares now, 8 months after Rove got Bush re-elected???

this is the right's line on everything that this administration has done, isnt it?
on the war in iraq, on conflict of interest within the administration, on rove...

the advantage of this line is that it enables supporters of the administration to act as though they already knew about this story and to declare that knowledge irrelevant to themselves and everyone else. reading it is lilke encountering some new kind of teflon, some new and improved no stick surface. with it, conservatives can almost encounter aspects of reality that they do not like--they can almost deal with it--but no worries, in the end, like all other dissonant information, these pesky bits of unpleasant reality just slide right off.

what's even better in powerclown's post in general is that you also get duplicity modelled as a sporting event---well yes, we lied, well tyes we broke these measly laws that are binding to others but not to conservative ubermenschen in positions of power---but so what? we kept you from finding out until after the election. ha ha. you loose.

so once again, the conservative line on personal responsibility turns out to be a line that conservatives only apply to other people--for their boy, anything goes.
the bushpeople exercize a politics of impunity--and no matter where the administration goes, a segment of the fox news set loyally follows.

it must be getting more difficult to maintain the fantasyworld that is right ideology--the mechanisms for defending it against an unpleasant reality are becoming more extreme. maybe somewhere there is a sense of crisis--but you surely woudl never know that reading posts or in conversation with elements of the foxnews set---for them, everything is cool and the politics of impunity is a kind of flinstone powertrip.

powerclown · 07-05-2005, 09:16 AM

You must admit, this is another political non-sequitur for the Dems.
Attacking Rove 8 months after the fact. Seems like bitter dregs to me.

Seriously, what is the point in going after Rove NOW? And don't give me any of this "doing whats right" nonsense, this is Washington DC we're talking about.

host · 07-05-2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

You must admit, this is another political non-sequitur for the Dems.
Attacking Rove 8 months after the fact. Seems like bitter dregs to me.

Seriously, what is the point in going after Rove NOW? And don't give me any of this "doing whats right" nonsense, this is Washington DC we're talking about.

Well. for starters.....

Quote:

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20050703Young.html
I SMELL A MEDAL OF FREEDOM!
by Steve Young

July 3, 2005 -- HOLLYWOOD

.........And as Sean Hannity sets up his live broadcast outside the hospice maintaining Rove's political career on life support, the question on Helen Thomas's sumptuous lips will be, "Did the President know?" And if he did, "When?" This time no longer will anyone be able to look to the Brain for the answer.

powerclown · 07-05-2005, 10:50 AM

holy shit.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

I kept host to under 5 sources.
I must have been right.

Elphaba · 07-05-2005, 02:59 PM

I found the following snippet today from an editorial piece. It would appear that the attorney for Rove has shown his hand, and it looks to be a good one.

"Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link on Friday, wrote on the Huffington Post blog today, that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly.

"Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent '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.'"

roachboy · 07-05-2005, 03:32 PM

the defense seems a bit implausible to me.
but what is interesting is that it amounts to a de facto admission that rove was the source along with an attempt to divert things onto the problematic matter of intent.

why is this story not getting more play?

Elphaba · 07-05-2005, 03:57 PM

RB, too many things are not getting sufficient attention. Our mainstream media seems to have a perpetual snooze alarm until they are embarassed by other media sources.

Mephisto2 · 07-05-2005, 04:18 PM

Or they're afraid of the slap-down they'll get for raising the issue.

Non-right wing news media are now so afraid of publicly discussing the issues that they let perfectly appropriate (and important) stories go by. They don't want to be another Dan Rather.

Fox News, and the right in general, have done such a good job in manipulating the social and media dynamic, that open discussion and "investigative journalism" has a bad name and is immediately attacked for being "anti-American" or Bush bashing.

Welcome to 1984... today.

Mr Mephisto

j8ear · 07-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

...it amounts to a de facto admission that rove was the source along with an attempt to divert things onto the problematic matter of intent.

It does? How so?

Rove was ~a~ source of this Cooper Character. That's it, and this is still unconfirmed. So far. I mean seriously, how many "reporters" can list Rove as a 'source'

We'll see how this plays out.

I don't see anything but emabarrassment for the, "White-House-treasonously-leaked-a-covert-CIA-agents-name-in-retaliation, but-when-reporters-must-reveal-who-leaked, no-crime-was-commited-because-the-CIA-agent-wasn't-covert, yet-rove-needs-to-fry" crowd. Again so far.

I mean really, can you play into Karl's hands any more then that.

It's just amazing.

-bear

roachboy · 07-05-2005, 06:29 PM

bear:
i was just riffing on the two quoted paragraphs, which were a summary of a summary from msnbc. geez...

Seaver · 07-05-2005, 06:39 PM

Let it go to court. If found guilty those his ass in jail for as long as law allows.

Some may be surprised at my stance, but this is treason. Intolerable whichever their stance is politically. However... let it go to court.

powerclown · 07-05-2005, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Or they're afraid of the slap-down they'll get for raising the issue.

Non-right wing news media are now so afraid of publicly discussing the issues that they let perfectly appropriate (and important) stories go by. They don't want to be another Dan Rather.

Fox News, and the right in general, have done such a good job in manipulating the social and media dynamic, that open discussion and "investigative journalism" has a bad name and is immediately attacked for being "anti-American" or Bush bashing.

Welcome to 1984... today.

Mr Mephisto

This simply illustrates that you aren't closely following the case, which is fine.
But 1984?? Right-Wing News World Domination? Sensitivity to criticism...from the Left??
Howard Dean, sensitive? Ted "KARL ROVE IS WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN" Rall, intimidated by Fox News?

The following news agencies are all directly involved in this case, and countless others are reporting what they know so far:

-New York Times
-Washington Post
-Newsweek
-MSNBC

There has been a torrent - a DELUGE - of reporting on this case going on. Nobody is intimidated, nobody is silent. No story is "going by". Nobody is afraid of being "slapped down". Quite the contrary. It seems to me that the prosecution is in the process of sorting out which direction it wants to go, so there's not much to report...yet. Most of it is just a re-hash of the established scenario, and commentary of aforementioned.

What I find compelling is the fact that 2 high-profile journalists are being threatened with jailtime for withholding their sources from the prosecution. This could mean one of 2 things: the prosecution has a strong case and is determined to go to lengths that would include jailing someone during its investigative process, or, they are bluffing, stalling for time to find some - any - legal angle with which to nail Rove. Obviously the first is the good scenario for Rove-bashers, and the second not so good. So, while the prosecution is keeping a tight lid on the investigation, let there be no mistake that there is a furious amount of activity going on behind the scenes that will be reported on in due time.

Mephisto2 · 07-05-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

But 1984?? Right-Wing News World Domination? Sensitivity to criticism...from the Left??

The reference to 1984 was a tongue-in-cheek comment, evidenced by the smiley.

I never said anything about "right-wing news world domination". Stop tilting at windmills.

My opinion, that the right wing and Fox News et al. have done a good job of framing journalistic and political debate, still stands. They have done a good job. A damn good job.

Mr Mephisto

Elphaba · 07-05-2005, 07:37 PM

PowerClown, my sister sent me the link you posted from Yahoo.news. It wasn't even worthy of a response to her. The man is foaming at the mouth and certainly not a source of mainstream news.

powerclown · 07-05-2005, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

The reference to 1984 was a tongue-in-cheek comment, evidenced by the smiley.

A rather juicy bit of journalistic license, on the surface.
Put it down to the inherent fuzziness of discussion board communication.

Par for the course around here, lately.

powerclown · 07-05-2005, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

PowerClown, my sister sent me the link you posted from Yahoo.news. It wasn't even worthy of a response to her. The man is foaming at the mouth and certainly not a source of mainstream news.

As much as you and I both agree that the man is a stark raving lunatic, I would go out on a limb and say he would likely find a sympathetic audience in certain corridors of the TFP itself. This place has opened my eyes, in more ways than one.

Elphaba · 07-05-2005, 08:08 PM

Your "opened eyes" were very cute as Gleason. I'm still getting used to Shemp.

Going totally off topic... who is "Howard for '08?"

Apologies to everyone for wanting just one silly moment in politics.

07-02-2005, 01:17 PM	#1 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Karl Rove Source in Plame Case MSNBC might be jumping the gun, but it appears Rove was the one to out Plame in a nasty retaliation toward Ambassador Wilson. ______________________________________________________________ Editor's Note: This is not the first time Karl Rove's name has surfaced in this case. In August of 2003 Valerie Plames husband, Ambassador Joeseph Wilson said: "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." ______________________________________________________________ MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case Editor & Publisher Saturday 02 July 2005 New York - Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name - and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove. Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks: "What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is. "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

07-02-2005, 02:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Yeah, everyone surprised that Karl Rove would willingly commit treason in order to exact petty revenge raise your hand. I'm reminded of American Dad, where Rove is dressed in a cloak and every time his name is spoken aloud a wolf howls in the background. Dude is evil. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

07-02-2005, 06:19 PM	#5 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	To be fair, Rove may not have actually been the initial leak of Valerie Plame's CIA identity. Popular rumor has it that Rove isn't being investigated for leaking the info, but for some other crime related to the incident. Speculation runs from perjury (he has already testified that he knew nothing about the leak) to conspiracy. So it seems, anyway, that Rove is probably guilty of something. I'm just dying to know what. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

07-02-2005, 07:46 PM	#8 (permalink)
Tophat665 Minion of the scaléd ones Location: Northeast Jesusland	Way I figure it, I am not going to warm up the tar just yet, but I am definitely going to freshen my feather collection. It would be nice to have the actual president run out of office so we can watch Bush flounder without help. Regardless, though, look for Rove as UN Ambassador in 15 to 20 years. __________________ Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

07-03-2005, 07:28 AM	#16 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	gee. moosenose, you act as though you are worries about some kind of action being launched without adequate information as to whether the basis for it is accurate or not. or an action being launched on false pretenses. come on--this is america damn it--as americans we would never undertake an action under false pretenses, pursue a destructive path based on only vague suspicions. and of course you are correct about the importance of due process, of the presumption of innocence as well--and god knows that the bush administration has been a staunch champion of due process and the presumption of innocence. yes, you certainly speak from a strong position on these questions of adequate evidence, the importance of protecting basic legal rights, as a supporter of the present regime as for the question of whether rove was behind the leak--i haven't seen much about it yet. but this is already a very dangerous story for the right machine. bad timing for you folk, isnt it? the prospect of being de-roved must keep you guys up at night. but we'll see how things plays out.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-02-2005, 04:19 PM	#3 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	Everyone can take off their tin foil hats now. Apparently.

07-02-2005, 07:09 PM	#6 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	Well that explains why Time gave up the source now doesnt it.

07-02-2005, 07:43 PM	#7 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	The penalties associated with ignoring the Supreme Court ruling would have prohibited Time from doing anything else. They held back the original source until the Supremes ruled that they must.

07-02-2005, 08:17 PM	#10 (permalink)
moosenose Banned	I'm thinking that a whole shiatload of people are about to get sued BIGTIME. And remember, while the reporters can not say "So and so gave us Plame's name" without setting a terrible precedent and violating their ethics code, they CAN say "Karl Rove did NOT give us Plame's name" WITHOUT violating their ethics or setting a bad precedent, if in fact he did not. I'm popping popcorn and waiting for the Judicial Smackies to be administered. Can you say "Malice Aforethought"?

07-03-2005, 11:47 AM	#17 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	In today's paper, Cooper's attorney announced that Rove was the source. Rove's attorney denies it.

07-05-2005, 09:16 AM	#25 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	You must admit, this is another political non-sequitur for the Dems. Attacking Rove 8 months after the fact. Seems like bitter dregs to me. Seriously, what is the point in going after Rove NOW? And don't give me any of this "doing whats right" nonsense, this is Washington DC we're talking about.

07-05-2005, 10:50 AM	#27 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	holy shit. Ho. Lee. Shit. I kept host to under 5 sources. I must have been right.

07-05-2005, 02:59 PM	#28 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I found the following snippet today from an editorial piece. It would appear that the attorney for Rove has shown his hand, and it looks to be a good one. "Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link on Friday, wrote on the Huffington Post blog today, that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly. "Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent '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.'" Last edited by Elphaba; 07-05-2005 at 03:02 PM.. Reason: spelling

07-05-2005, 03:32 PM	#29 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the defense seems a bit implausible to me. but what is interesting is that it amounts to a de facto admission that rove was the source along with an attempt to divert things onto the problematic matter of intent. why is this story not getting more play? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-05-2005, 03:57 PM	#30 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	RB, too many things are not getting sufficient attention. Our mainstream media seems to have a perpetual snooze alarm until they are embarassed by other media sources.

07-05-2005, 04:18 PM	#31 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Or they're afraid of the slap-down they'll get for raising the issue. Non-right wing news media are now so afraid of publicly discussing the issues that they let perfectly appropriate (and important) stories go by. They don't want to be another Dan Rather. Fox News, and the right in general, have done such a good job in manipulating the social and media dynamic, that open discussion and "investigative journalism" has a bad name and is immediately attacked for being "anti-American" or Bush bashing. Welcome to 1984... today. Mr Mephisto

07-05-2005, 06:29 PM	#33 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	bear: i was just riffing on the two quoted paragraphs, which were a summary of a summary from msnbc. geez... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-05-2005, 06:39 PM	#34 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Let it go to court. If found guilty those his ass in jail for as long as law allows. Some may be surprised at my stance, but this is treason. Intolerable whichever their stance is politically. However... let it go to court.

07-05-2005, 07:37 PM	#37 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	PowerClown, my sister sent me the link you posted from Yahoo.news. It wasn't even worthy of a response to her. The man is foaming at the mouth and certainly not a source of mainstream news.

07-05-2005, 08:08 PM	#40 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Your "opened eyes" were very cute as Gleason. I'm still getting used to Shemp. Going totally off topic... who is "Howard for '08?" Apologies to everyone for wanting just one silly moment in politics.