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.

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.

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." :crazy:

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.

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

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.

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 :lol:

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"?

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.

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).

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

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.

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....

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

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 ?

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?

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.

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?


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!

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.

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

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.

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.....

holy shit.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

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

:p

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.'"

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.



:)

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

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.

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. :cool:

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.

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.

in terms of the news coverage, i was thinking that maybe the fact is that karl rove is the luckiest man alive.
think about it--this story breaks on the day after sandra day o'connor resigned. and then there's live8 and then there's a patriotic holiday.

if you or i had luck like his, any of us could be running the bush administration.
that is the type of good fortune that would make many of us begin to think being on a mission from god or something.

but apparently it happens: there are alot of people--lots of parameters, lots of trajectories, the law of averages, etc..overwhelming luck has to be possible, and because it really is distributed by chance, why could karl rove not simply be the beneficiary of some cycle or another?

but even still, this turn of events for rove is extraordinary.
as of the evening of 5 july, 2005, he is the luckiest man alive.

That's how I feel. Everyone deserves their fair trial.

i dont think anyone is arguing the contrary, folks.
that particular logic--that it is ok to hold people without trial indefinitely for example--is bushlogic. ethical beings do not apply that logic.

Miller has chosen not to reveal her source. Cooper has been given permission by his source to cooperate. Wouldn't that indicate two different sources?


Reporter Jailed for Refusal to Name Leak Source
The Associated Press

Wednesday 06 July 2005

Times' Miller disobeyed order to testify on disclosure of CIA agent’s name.
Washington - A US judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail Wednesday for refusing to divulge her source in the investigation of the leak of an undercover CIA officer's name.

"There is still a realistic possibility that confinement might cause her to testify," US District Judge Thomas Hogan said. Miller stood up, hugged her lawyer and was escorted from the courtroom.

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor's investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. "I am prepared to testify. I will comply" with the court's order, Cooper said.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, "Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again."

"I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions" for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

Floyd Abrams, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, told reporters after Miller's jailing, "Judy is an honorable woman, adhering to the highest tradition of her profession and the highest tradition of humanity." He called Miller's decision a choice "to take the personal burden of being in jail" rather than breaking her promise of confidentiality to her source.

Time Inc. previously surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.

The prosecutor, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, opposed a request that Cooper and Miller to be granted home detention - instead of jail - for remaining tight-lipped about their sources.

Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy the court order.

Last week, Time magazine said it was delivering the notes of reporter Matt Cooper to the special prosecutor investigating who in the Bush administration leaked the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.

The case is among the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Supreme Court in 1971 refused to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers.

The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the reporters’ appeal and the grand jury investigating the leak expires in October. The reporters, if in jail, would be freed at that time.

Time: 'Chilling Effect' on Press Freedom

In a statement released last week, Time said it believes "the Supreme Court has limited press freedom in ways that will have a chilling effect on our work and that may damage the free flow of information that is so necessary in a democratic society."

But it also said that despite its concerns, it would turn over the records to the special counsel investigating the leak.

"The same Constitution that protects the freedom of the press requires obedience to final decisions of the courts and respect for their rulings and judgments. That Time Inc. strongly disagrees with the courts provides no immunity," the statement said.

Novak Says He 'Will Reveal All' Eventually

Fitzgerald, the US attorney in Chicago, has been investigating who in the Bush administration leaked Plame’s identity days after her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, publicly undercut the president’s rationale for invading Iraq.

Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Novak told CNN he "will reveal all" after the matter is resolved, adding that it is wrong for the government to jail journalists.

Cooper wrote a story subsequently about Plame. Miller did some reporting but did not write a story.

Time turned over Cooper's notes and other documents last week, four days after the Supreme Court refused to consider the case. Cooper's attorneys argued that producing the documents made it unnecessary for him to testify.

Reporters Could Go to Jail Wednesday

Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when US District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

Fitzgerald said it would be up to the judge to decide whether to send Cooper to the District of Columbia jail or some other facility. On Friday, Cooper's lawyers argued against sending him to the D.C. jail, saying it is a "dangerous maximum security lockup already overcrowded with a mix of convicted offenders and other detainees awaiting criminal trials."

Miller's lawyers argue that there are no circumstances under which she will talk, but Fitzgerald disagreed.

"There is tension between Miller's claim that confinement will never coerce her to testify and her alternative position that this court should consider less restrictive forms of confinement," the prosecutor wrote.

Time magazine is part of the media company Time Warner Inc.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

Good for her.

Nice to see some people stand by their principles.


Mr Mephisto

I just heard on the news that Miller has a signed affidavit from her source granting her permission to reveal her source. She is standing her ground on principle.


(the was on the Jim Leher Report just a few minutes ago).

It seems to me that The Prosecution just committed themselves to HAVING to find Rove guilty, because if they don't, how are they going to justify sending Miller to prison? And I'm glad I'm not the guy who squealed to go free, while his female colleague is sent off to prison for having a spine.

As far as I can see, there is only one possible motivation for this case going forward like it has: Somebody wants Rove's head delivered on a platter at any cost.

How can the "prosecution" find Rove guilty, when he's not on trial?

There's a gun there. Why don't you jump it? :)

With regards to the male squealing and the female sticking to her principles, I agree with you 100%. But according to a story I've seen, he's got written consent from his source to testify; ie, they waived their anonymity.


Mr Mephisto

He didn't "squeal" he had permission in writing from the source to disclose the source. Once the source says they don't care about anonymity any more, it's up to the journalist whether to reveal it.

The court has NO right to compel a journalist to give up anything that wasn't in the original story. To attempt to seize that right is #1 legislating from the bench and #2 a clear attempt to kill the 1st amendment.

PC, I read somewhere (CRS sucks) that Judith Miller's intentions may not be as honorable as it appears. I will try to find that article before saying anything more.

What pushed this case into the limelight was a supposed link to Rove, that HE either condoned someone else in the WH to out the CIA agent, or revealed her name himself. They are going after Rove, no?

Do you think this would be news if Rove were not involved?

shakran, you are right - he said he had permission to rat out his source. It looks like his employer (Time) put him in the position where he had no choice because they gave the court his notes (which contained his sources), so he was screwed from the word GO wasn't he? As for the court legislating from the bench, well, the judge ordered the journalists to reveal their sources. I'm not a lawyer (thankfully), but isn't it automatically 'contempt of court' if you don't follow the court's instructions?

Elphaba, I think all of us here would be very interested to hear about these alterior motives you speak of. I do wonder if she is ONLY standing on priniciple. Some have been known to voluntarily go to jail to escape something or someone. Do tell! :hmm:

I'm searching, but going through my trash is not a pretty thing. I should have something by tomorrow.

Just call me the "Cookie Monster" :)

I don't understand why you keep bringing this up.
The Plame leak was news long before anyone knew or seriously suspected Rove of being involved.

You seem to keep trying to reframe the issue questioning why this would be news...but I have to ask you: regardless of Rove's involvement, should it be news?
Do you take the hypothetical of whether this would be news and conclude that it should not be news?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be news. Nothing should be covered up.


Why this is about Rove:

"At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."

-Joe Wilson (Plame's husband, and former US ambassador to Baghdad)
source

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"In Washington, so-called leak investigations—formal inquiries by the Justice Department into the publication of classified information—are like endless replays of the movie “Casablanca”: the authorities round up the usual suspects, nothing much happens, and life goes on.

Without leaks, arguably, the U.S. government could not function. Trial balloons could not be floated, political scores could not be settled, wrongs would go unexposed, policy could not be made. It is against the law to reveal government secrets that might harm national security, but as a practical matter, journalists (protected by the First Amendment) are very rarely pressed to reveal their sources. Leak investigations are launched about every other week in Washington, but only occasionally is the leaker caught, and it has been two decades since anyone was criminally punished."

source

My impression of why it's about Rove is because the investigators found evidence of phone conversations between him and the journalist. Is that inaccurate?

I gave up on searching my trash and googled for "Judith Miller WMD" and found numerous articles. The first article is far too long to post here, but here is a relevant snippet. (I can't get a good link for some reason).

______________________________________________________________



The Source of the Trouble
Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabi—helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong.

By Franklin Foer

:snip:

The phrase “among others” is a highly evocative one. Because that list of credulous Chalabi allies could include the New York Times’ own reporter, Judith Miller. During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein’s ambition and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by Chalabi and his allies—almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.

For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi’s credibility into question. But never once in the course of its coverage—or in any public comments from its editors—did the Times acknowledge Chalabi’s central role in some of its biggest scoops, scoops that not only garnered attention but that the administration specifically cited to buttress its case for war.

The longer the Times remained silent on Chalabi’s importance to Judith Miller’s reporting, the louder critics howled. In February, in the New York Review of Books, Michael Massing held up Miller as evidence of the press’s “submissiveness” in covering the war. For more than a year, Slate’s Jack Shafer has demanded the paper come clean.

But finally, with Chalabi’s fall from grace so complete—the Pentagon has cut off his funding, troops smashed his portrait in raids of the INC office—the Times’ refusal to concede its own complicity became untenable. Last week, on page A10, the paper published a note on its coverage, drafted by executive editor Bill Keller himself. The paper singled out pieces that relied on “information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors, and exiles bent on ‘regime change.’ ” The note named Ahmad Chalabi as a central player in this group.

________________________________________________________________

The short of it is that Miller's reputation was seriously damaged. Marching into jail holding her head high may serve to burnish her reputation. Honorable? Perhaps. Cooper's source has released him. Considering the Miller claimed to have talked to sources, but never wrote anything about the Plame case strikes me as very odd.


My apologies if this has gone too far off from the original thread.

Rove should pay for his crimes. He's as guilty as the day is long..

Don't you think we should wait for him to be accused of something by officers of the court?
And then maybe charged?
Perhaps tried?
Who know? Maybe even found guilty?


Mr Mephisto

Mr. M. Of course you are right to a point. Before standing him up in front of the wall and releasing the starving pigs on him, he should really be found guilty in the formal sense, which is to say by a jury of his peers. (Picturing such a jury, I see a number of cockroaches, a paycheck casher, a personal injury lawyer, 2 hagfish, and a pint glass full of pond scum.) However, the fact remains that he is guilty as sin of many, many things. The push polling he did in Georgia to discredit Max Cleland and elect Saxby Chambliss, or the one in South Carolina to discredit McCain ought to earn him a savage beating with tire irons if there were any justice in the world.

Right or wrong, it has become taboo to compare Shrub with Hitler*, but comparing Rove to Goebbels is about dead on.

Bottom line: If he really thinks we're the devil, then let's send him to hell.

* Hitler was better-looking than Bush, he was a better dresser than Bush, he had better hair, he told funnier jokes, and he could dance the pants off of Bush!

I wouldn't say it's inaccurate.
Which journalist are you referring to?
Was there a documented conversation between Rove and a journalist pertaining to this case?
Do you know what was said? Links?

Same here...sounds fishy. There is talk that Plame's name was leaked informally, at a party in DC, that Miller was attending. She might have got together with 'sources' there who told her about Plame.

where's that last claim from, powerclown?
sounds like an extension of the frat boy prank line on torture--that is, limbaughesque.

here is a good overview of where things apprently stand at the moment in this case from today's washington post:

roach, if rove is in fact the guilty party, why wasn't it made public during the 2004 elections? Some bush-hater, somewhere would have known and shared it with the world.

i don't have an answer to that one, stevo.
the question is playing out now. so it is relevant now.

I don't think the first amendment should protect these reporters. A reporters job is to report the news not aid and abet a crime. These reporters by taking (even though it was given) confidential information commited a crime. By publishing it they furthered that crime. The first ammendment does not give a reporter the right to participate in a crime and not get in trouble.

This is exactly what the Supreme court decided. A very narrow decision that refuted the first amendment right when a potential crime has been committed.

Time to stick a fork in him?
 

Rove, architect of Bush's career for the last 32 years, will employ every excuse that he and his lawyers can think of, primarily that he did not "know" that Plame was a covert agent. Has he met his match in prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald? Have the "terrorist" bombings in the London tubes distracted the attention of the public to the extent that Isikoff's new newsweek story will not stay in the headlines?
It is apparant from Scottie's carefully worded answer to a reporter during the WH October 10, 2003 press briefing, that Rove's defense hinges on maintaining the talking point that he did not "knowingly" leak "classified information". It will most likely come down to prosecution of Rove, if there is one, on a perjury charge if his attorney, Robert Luskin was correct when he claimed that Rove did not discuss the matter of Joe Wilson's wife with news reporters before Novak's July 13 column. If Isikoff's report is accurate, Rove did dicuss "Wilson's wife" with at least one reporter before Novak published.

Link to Novak's July 14, 2003 "Mission to Niger" http://www.townhall.com/columnists/r...20030714.shtml

Your understanding of the law is flawed.

They committed no crime. If you have a government secret and you come and blab it to me, it is YOU who are the criminal. I'm not responsible for what YOU say.

Furthermore, once a reporter (or anyone else for that matter) has information, the government CANNOT stop them from publishing it. That's called prior restraint and it's illegal as hell.


And by refusing to give up her source, she's protecting the ability of journalists across the country to get the news out.



But I will say that it's rather frightening that so many people think as you do, that receiving information and passing it on is a crime. An ignorance of such a basic tennet of our democracy indicates the very real possibility that such freedoms WILL be removed some day and the people will allow to happen.

an edito on all this from this morning's new york times.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/op...10rich.html?hp

to echo shakran, above:

as much i would like to see rove brought down--few people in memory are more deserving of it--i still find time magazine's capitulation to be foul.

i dont think conservatives in general want an other-than-free press...they just prefer one that helps them feel more themselves when they watch it--no dissonance to manage, no opposing viewpoints to get in the way of the indentificatory circuit that thier politics are really about (who am i? i am america. who am i? i am america). it is a tightly controlled press that talks alot about how free it is, as if what organizes information is a kind of spontaneity and not a centralized information apparatus. but the foxnews set can believe what it likes about their preferred televisual narcotic--whatever they think about it, i still find it odd to read arguments floating from the right in support of time's actions.

i do not understand what conservatives who applaud time's capitulation see as resulting from it--what good is served for them by the erasure of confidentialty, what conection they might see between the protection of confidential sources and an actual free press. i do not think the statements about the interpretation of law are really germaine here...what i wonder about is if the foxnews folk have been convinced that tightly controlled information **is** free information and that the entire system that would sometimes see the press working in opposition is somehow antithetical to it. if this confusion is floating around out there, then we find ourselves facing a new and improved dangerous scenario emanating from the intellectual ooze that is conservative ideology--a new and improved mode of self-immolation--a centrally controlled press that cheerleads the dominant order is a free press.

i wonder if any who think time did the right thing could explain what the motivations are for their thinking so. because frankly, i do not see how other motivations can explain this position.

shakran,

I wouldn't argue that the reporters did anything illegal. But I do wonder whether you think they did something unethical by placing someone's life in danger...

That's my take on it--that they didn't do anything legally wrong but the way in which they went about it, how they chose to report her name and etc. was morally wrong. I think the three of us, shakran, roachboy, and myself are aware of ways to tell about someone without specifically identifying that someone. I think the protection of innocent people (or subjects, participants, sources, whathaveyou) should be of primary importance to journalists and social researchers alike...

There was a breach of ethics, but not by those two reporters. It was actually conservative columnist Robert Novak who first wrote about this story. Once the other reporters hopped on board, the story was already out.

In other words, it wouldn't be unethical of me today to say that Plame is a CIA spook because it's already common knowledge. I can't hurt her by saying that anymore. When the two reporters in question wrote their story, the secret had already been told by Novak.

shakran, I agree with your statements.
It's been a while since I followed the story in all its detail, I'm actually not sure what role the reporters had in this incident anymore. Rather than flub names and etc., I didn't draw a distinction between the columnist and the reporters in my mind or post...my bad on not being specific.

I was using this specific example to move to a broader case--that the free press is certainly allowed to report anything it wants in my opinion, but it isn't always prudent do so in the ways in which it chooses (I'm trying to carefully word this because to just say that it isn't always prudent to do so would leave the door open to self-censorship).

I'm comfortable with Time's position in that once the Supreme Court ruled that the notes must be turned over, there could be no further appeal. To not do so would be difficult to support because the source arguably committed a crime.

This article adds some light on why Cooper and Miller may have been drawn in on this:

What Karl Rove Told Matt Cooper
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

18 July issue

July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.

For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove did - and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify.

The controversy arose when Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying that he had been sent by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate charges that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. Wilson said he had found no evidence to support the claim. Wilson's column was an early attack on the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify going to war in Iraq. The White House wished to discredit Wilson and his attacks. The question for the prosecutor is whether someone in the administration, in an effort to undermine Wilson's credibility, intentionally revealed the covert identity of his wife.

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA" - CIA Director George Tenet - or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed and suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium from Niger... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.

Fitzgerald is known as a tenacious, thorough prosecutor. He refused to comment, and it is not clear whether he is pursuing evidence that will result in indictments, or just tying up loose ends in a messy case. But the Cooper e-mail offers one new clue to the mystery of what Fitzgerald is probing - and provides a glimpse of what was unfolding at the highest levels as the administration defended a part of its case for going to war in Iraq.

I guess that there is no harm in posting this article twice on the same page. I just started a new thread on the subject of the total news "blackout" on coverage of Bush's meeting last year with prosecutor Fitzgerald on this same matter and on Bush's retention of private criminal defense attorney Jim Sharp to represent him related to the interview of Bush in this matter.

Sheesh, how many times now have I done that Host? Missing something from another topic is one thing, but repeating the same article within one topic? Arrg. :rolleyes:

Host has raised the issue of where is the "liberal" press. This article speaks to that.

Fearing Legal Battle, Ohio Newspaper Holds Stories
The Associated Press

Saturday 09 July 2005

Cleveland - The Plain Dealer, Ohio's largest newspaper, is holding two investigative stories based on leaked documents because they could result in the type of court showdown that led to a New York Times reporter being jailed, the paper's editor said Friday.

The Plain Dealer is trying to find a way to publish the stories without relying on the documents, editor Doug Clifton said.

"It was documentation that would have been illegal to share, so there wasn't any ambiguity about what we had," Clifton said.

On Wednesday, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for contempt of court after refusing to testify about a confidential source.

A prosecutor wants information from Miller as part of an investigation of how the name of an undercover CIA officer was leaked to a columnist.

Clifton said the Plain Dealer had decided several weeks ago - before Miller was imprisoned - to withhold the stories because the leaked documents could result in subpoenas and court sanctions, including jail. The stories deal with local and state government.

Clifton wrote a column June 30 explaining to readers the importance of protecting sources, and how the public would suffer if reporters' ability to gather news is compromised. He mentioned the potential consequences if the newspaper published the two investigative stories.

"I wanted the public to understand that this isn't an abstraction, that this is a real issue," he said Friday. "Things that are important for the public stand in jeopardy of not getting reported because of the state of the law."

He said he has never withheld a story because of such concerns.

"The climate has always been different," Clifton said. "Let's face it: During the Watergate years with 'Deep Throat,' it was never even thought of. It wasn't even a remote possibility that someone was going to get subpoenaed because of Deep Throat squealing. That has changed so dramatically in the last few years."

I'll be the last person to argue that no mistakes have been made by journalists. But then you can say that about any profession. Pilots have shown up to fly their planes drunk, but we don't villify all pilots because of the mistakes of the few.

The far bigger problem with journalism today is twofold:

1) massive corporations owning media outlets. Let's say my station is owned by GE (and some are). And now a certain model of GE washing machines has a design flaw that causes it to go into its spin cycle when the lid's up. Several people have already been injured by the washing machines, and GE's trying to cover it up. Right there you have a major conflict of interest. A station general manager who breaks that story is NOT going to be looked upon kindly by the GE corporate brass. That doesn't even get into the fact that megacorporations are generally slanting toward the republican side of the political spectrum because republicans advocate policies which will help them make more money. That means a conflict of interest in any story that involves politics.

2) The public is so busy accusing journalists of bias that the journalists are bending over backward to try and prove that they're not. This means the journalists are no longer reporting facts, they're reporting soundbytes. If bush comes out and says "the sky is purple" you'll see that on the evening news. But you will NOT see a reporter saying "He said the sky is purple, but he's lost it because the sky is blue, here I'll prove it to you." Now in that case the journalist would NOT be displaying a bias. He'd be informing the public that Bush is not telling them the truth.
But if we tried that with a real world scenario - say, a journalist coming out after Colin Powell made his WMD speech to the UN and saying that his evidence didn't add up (which it did not), that journalist would be accused of bias, even though he'd only be reporting the truth.

The mission of journalism is to protect the innocent and hold the powerful accountable for their actions. Speaking personally, I really don't care which party is in power. If they screw up, it's my job to tell that story, and I will do that. But the public has to realize that sometimes that means I will say things which, while true, are things they don't like hearing. The proper reaction to that is to go after the person that did wrong. Shooting the messenger only makes the problem worse.

Can you try and not engage in bush bashing for just one thread! ;) J/K

lol, anyway, I'm divided on whether journalists should do this. I used to get upset when they didn't report that a contradiction between the claim and the reality existed, but then I came to realize that perhaps it's the reader's responsibility to come to a conclusion--even if it's wrong.

And I coupled that thought with the notion that objective truth (and reporting--see my sig) isn't what we'd like it to be; that is, rather than disputing whether it exists, I am at least comfortable acknowledging that one isn't likely to be accurately relaying objective Truth due to language, perspective, inclination, & etc.

So where does that leave me: I had to try and reconcile these thoughts with, and I share your view on this I think, what I considered to be irresponsible journalism. That they actually have an obligation to relay the facts as we know them. At least, they should remind the audience that such facts contradict such and such or whether there's a lack of evidence for the assertion. By relaying an inaccurate assertion as if it were truthful and accurate, the journalist gives credence to the statement and, in my mind, such complacency means they then share responsibility...

...so the example I came to think would work within these contraints would be, bush says the sky is purple. However, evidence points to the fact that it is actually blue, we've always held this to be the case, and we invite you to go look for yourself...[maybe even throw in a hearty "it's this reporters professional opinion that bush is lying" (or mistaken, as the case may be)].

OK, change it to Carter. I don't care ;)



It's the reader's responsibility to draw conclusions yes, but he can't do that unless he's given accurate information. If the only source of information for someone is your newspaper, and your newspaper only reports "Bush says Iraq has WMD's" then it's not possible for the reader to draw a correct conclusion.

It's the press's responsibility to give the accurate facts to the reader.

It's the reader's responsibility to decide what to do about it.

When Bush was pushing the WMD issue, it was the press's responsibility to call bullshit on it. We didn't, and that was a grave error, because if we had, perhaps the people would have made a different decision, knowing the real facts.

Had the press said "wait a sec- he's saying there's WMD's but there's not a shred of evidence to support it and in fact if you look at the evidence he's showing you can see it's crap" they'd have been doing their job. Had the press then gone on to say "and we should vote the sonofabitch out of office for it!" then we'd have been displaying a bias.



Bingo!



That's exactly what the press should be doing, and it's exactly what they're not doing.

Turns out it was Rove after all.

Surprise surprise

The question now is, does anyone really care?

Personally I think this will blow over. I have a strong dislike for Rove, from my limited knowledge of his spin and political fixing, but I don't necessarily see this as negatively affecting his position within the curren administration.

Roll on the reactionary calls for his trial on "treason".

When will calmer minds prevail?


Mr Mephisto

the right apparently thinks that if rove presents his case as directed at a legal process up front that it can skirt the political damage this case can and should do to it.

as an individual endowed with the same legal rights as anyone (albeit skewed in that all american way by power and money--so in fact someone like karl rove has more legal rights than someone like me or you, mr mephisto), rove should be tried and the trial would determine whether he is or is not guilty of a crime.

the political question is seperate. rove should resign. there should be political pressure brought to bear that would force him to resign. this matter can and to my mind should serve as a lightning rod, a space across which the bush administration is held to account for the politics of impunity that it has practiced since 9/12/2001.

Relax, Mr. Mephisto. It really would help if you familiarized yourself with this case. There is a legal question here that remains unchanged:

Rove never revealed Plame by name in his correspondence with Cooper. Therefore, it still hasn't been proven that Rove committed a crime.

The article you quoted is nonsense. It sources this familiar Newsweek article to simply rehash that Cooper and Rove did in fact correspond. Old news. It then goes on to make the completely unsubstaniated leap that Rove outed Plame by revealing her name. Robert Novak was the one who did that, not Rove.

From the exact same Newsweek article (but curiously omitted from your version):

Erm... powerclown.

If you care to reread my post, you will see that my position is not that different to yours. I think the calls for Rove's skin are just sour grapes.

Let jurisprudence take its course.

I could just as easily ask you to relax. :)


Mr Mephisto

That's what is so amusing....the Democrats, in their foaming-at-the-mouth-get-Rove-at-any-cost movement, are the ones damaging the institution that they have relied on over and over again to muckrake for them.

They are publicly and spectacularly shooting themselves in the groin again, and are going to bellow like branded cattle when the chickens come home to roost. Remember how we ended up with "First Amendment Zones"??? Thanks, Planned Parenthood...

Is there a legal distinction between referring to her by name vs. referring to her as Wilson's wife at the CIA?

Legally, it's the difference between Guilt or Innocence. He never mentioned her by name - and that's what this is all about: revealing the name of a covert CIA agent.


A curious fact recently surfaced:

Weak-kneed journalist Matt Cooper's wife is a well-known Democratic "political consultant".
Her father used to be the Managing Editor for......Time Magazine (Cooper's employer).

Anyone else hear Rove whistling to himself in the background? :p

The trite response to a lot of the legitimate concerns brought up by this case is interesting.

As I've said, I think the more rabid calls for Rove's trial are a bit "out there", but something is troubling me about your position powerclown.

You seem to gleefully continue to mention how Rove is legally innocent. That he is protected by law. That he has no case to answer etc etc.

Let me ask you somethings in plain English.

Do you think he's morally guilty?
Do you believe that he did something wrong?
Or do you believe that "outting" (by name or by implication) a covert CIA operative, for political points only, is fair game?


Why does this question never enter in to it?



Mr Mephisto

1. I don't see why this is STILL going on after 2 years of investigations. I really don't. Especially after the 2004 presidential elections.
2. Not sure what you mean by "wrong". This is politics in Washington DC. Probably no different from politics anywhere else in the world.
3. See #1.

I will add that it takes 2 to Tango, and I believe that Joe Wilson for example, comes across as having a tremendous chip on his shoulder.

it seems at this point disengenous to conflate the legal and political processes. right now the white house is finding itself hoisted by its own petard on this, is trying to stonewall the situation as it is blowing up in their face. this will not last, i dont think--sooner or later, the attempts at evasion will themselves become part of the scandal.

i think things will arrive at a point where rove will have to resign.
but that is a political question, not a legal one.
they are not the same.

he is obviously and publicly preparing his legal defense, and so the question of criminal guilt will be sorted there, either before a grand jury or in a subsequent trial.
the political consequences would play out seperately. this does not seem to me to be rocket science. this is not the first time in history that a political scandal has accompanied potentially criminal actions.


the right at the bottomfeeding level is obviously worried. you have the attack machine already working--arguments wholly ridiculous: like that is has taken quite a long time for this to blow up renders the whole question irrelevant. well the right was not concerned about either this or any other question of ethics and propriety when they were in opposition--remember limbaugh et al trying and convicting clinton over and over for their fantasy murder of vince foster? i didnt hear a whole lot of conservatives balking at that, nothing from the right about due process--they made up a crime and proceeded to convict clinton in their press without the slightest evidence. now of course, the shoe is on the other foot, as propriety is the order of the day. hypocrites.


addendum (post hoc edit):

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/po...sGpLkbVh57Y4IA

Nicely dodged.

You should work in Washington yourself, as you are perfectly happy to throw mud but slippery as an eel when asked a simple, direct question.

Bravo!


Mr Mephisto

Why argue semantics, Mr. Mephisto?

This is nothing more than a clumsy, botched, bald-faced political vendetta.

It's abundantly clear by now they've got nothing on the guy, but this nonsense continues. Why? How many more people are they going to senselessly throw in jail to get to Rove?

The way I see it, this is all Rove's doing to begin with anyway.

:)

Powerclown,

If someone told a reporter that the wife of Wilson was a covert CIA operative (thereby skirting the legal law of "naming", did that person do something morally wrong?

Notice that is an "if" question. I believe the only non-dodging way to answer that is with a "yes", or a "no".

Care to try? If not, why not?

I tried and he dodged. :)


Mr Mephisto

Both sides, questionable ethics? YES.

You need to ask yourself why Plame, a spy directly involved with assessing WMD risks in Iraq, had her husband (An outspoken Anti-War Politician, best-selling book against the war, tight with John Kerry) sent to Africa to say the administration had nothing on WMD there. Is that really an Honest and Ethical arrangement? NO. He lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee by saying he wasn't trying to disprove the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa (after saying over and over in his book that Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa). Ethical? NO. Is it ethical that he is trying to push forth his own (and possibly others...TIME?) agenda, and lying about it in the process? NO.

In the trying to "get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs", as he puts it, has Wilson acted Morally and Ethically? NO.

Can anybody answer me this: Why was Judy Miller locked up, and not Matt Cooper? Cooper's father-in-law's publication - TIME Magazine - fed him to the prosecution...why?

powerclown, I'm convinced that, especially in light of the info in this article, you, or ustwo, or certainly moosenose, (after he failed to reply to my questions to him in this <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1829552&postcount=19">post</a>, and disappeared from TFP since July 3, only to re-emerge today) , would have long ago villified Rove as, at the very least, a suspected traitor, if not for your high opinion of him and his ideology. Rove appears to be legally culpable, and it is highly likely that Bush himself will be "lawering up" again, with his and "Kenny Boy" Lay's Washington criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp - http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=91795

Have you not considered the argument that prosecutor Fitzgerald can make in court, that, by telling a MSM news reporter that "Wilson's wife is a CIA employee", that, because of Rove's official and unofficial "standing" in the administration, his utterances to reporter Cooper automatically legitimize any prior rumors about Plame's professional capacity, and the expense and effort that Cooper and his editor can then justify to further pursue Plame's acutal role at the CIA, potentially "snowballing" the damage potential to CIA assets and thus, to national security? I submit that in view of Rove's perceived role in early July, 2003, it is irrelevant that he did not speak Plame's name. Rove can be "painted" by a talented prosecutor as someone who had the motive, foreknowledge, and the opportunity to bring this damage to the CIA about.

Rove is "done", IMO. Forgive me for posting this long, WH press briefing excerpt. The press challenge of the bogus WMD claims near the bottom, is an added "bonus"..............

continued from immediately preceding post......

The question wasn't that complicated. You sound a little like you think it depends on the what the definition of "is", is.

I just don't see this as complicated. If someone, anyone, left OR right, gives up a covert operative, then that's shitty. Wrong. Corrupt. Stupid. Choose your own description, as long as it's related to traitorous.

I have heard many people argueing about taking responsibility for his/her actions. It doesn't MATTER what other people did that was shitty. If the yes/no question is YES, then that's shitty. Maybe there is other crap to spread around. Fine. Let's deal with that too.

But it doesn't take away from someone giving up a covert operative. I say we figure that out, and run em on a rail.

If that's Rove, screw him. If it's my best friend, screw him. I need to find better friends. Why do you find that hard to say?

Wanna try again?

Now....we have every excerpt from (July 11, 2005) monday's McClellan press "briefing" related tp the "Rove matter". Now that "damage control" has backfired.....we have a retreat, IMO, by a BS press secretary for a BS presidential administration. Excuses, contrived distortions.......so much for the press as a surrogate for the people, exercising their "right" to know!

That's some power posting right there host!

:)

Mr Mephisto

Then why hasn't it happened YET? This case is over 2 years old! More importantly in my view, why wasn't this released during the 04 presidential elections?
I don't make up the rules in Washington DC. This guy Wilson tried to dishonor and discredit his government (lying about it in the process), and his government pushed back. Are you interested in examining Wilson's/Plame's/TIME's agenda as much as you are Rove's?

Judith Miller: reasons, connection, motive, jail, guilty, Cooper walks...anyone?