0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 07:47 pm
Welcome pngirouard to a2k!


<news from Yahoo page - bout an hour ago>
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House broke its silence and said on Tuesday that President Bush continued to have confidence in his top political adviser, Karl Rove, despite his involvement in a scandal over the leak of the identity of a CIA agent"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3&u=/nm/20050712/pl_nm/bush_leak_dc
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 07:50 pm
pngirouard wrote:
Hello DontTreadOnMe

Being a former Abuzzer, this thread although lively is civil.


i keep reading about Abuzz on this board. seems like most of the people here were members. from what i gather, it sounds like it was similar to one that i posted on for a while called ThenLeave.com. nasty business, i tell ya.

just about everybody on a2k is pretty cool from my experiences. i try not to let politics get in the way of a friendly exchange here and there. but then, of my two closest buddies, one is a full on bush supporter and the other is so liberal i can't stand it sometimes. but we sure have a great time drinkin' beer and actin' stupid, so what the heck.

that's what makes america great, right ?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:04 pm
That's right, DTOM!

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/icon_beer.gif
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:16 pm
Hmmm. Now wondering who png might have been in our other life....


So, I've missed a couple of weeks of news due to Bear being ill. I guess it's settled now that Rove leaked the info and he's headin' for jail without his $200?



(ducks and runs)
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:18 pm
squinney wrote:
Hmmm. Now wondering who png might have been in our other life....


So, I've missed a couple of weeks of news due to Bear being ill. I guess it's settled now that Rove leaked the info and he's headin' for jail without his $200?



(ducks and runs)


Sure ... he and Delay are going to share a cell.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 08:20 pm
Then, by all means, let me buy this round!

Cheers! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 09:32 pm
Tico...
Plame was a covert agent because the CIA said she was when the requested that Justice investigate the leak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true

This is all in the public domain Tico.. pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help your case.

The Senate talks about Plame being CIA in the Senate report on Iraq and has been quoted on here already. The FEC lists the CIA front company as Plame's employer when she donated to Gore. You don't work at a 'front company' with no real place of business if you are working as a civilian. They have no need for civilians there unlike the military which has civilian contractors.

Letter to Conyers from CIA detailing their investigation and contact with DoJ on the fact that a covert agent was revealed.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf

Is it your contention Tico that the CIA did an investigation and the counterintelligence division requested a DoJ investigation as required by Federal law when there was no way that Plame was undercover?
No, Tico.. you are only pissing in the wind here. Too much evidence out there to show that she was.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 10:23 pm
parados wrote:
Tico...
Plame was a covert agent because the CIA said she was when the requested that Justice investigate the leak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true


Oh, liberals believe the CIA all of a sudden? Very Happy

btw, your link didn't work when I tried it.

Quote:
This is all in the public domain Tico.. pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help your case.


Who's pretending it doesn't exist? I merely asked for some flesh to be put on the bones.

And what case of mine is that? I don't have a dog in this hunt.


Quote:
Is it your contention Tico that the CIA did an investigation and the counterintelligence division requested a DoJ investigation as required by Federal law when there was no way that Plame was undercover?
No, Tico.. you are only pissing in the wind here. Too much evidence out there to show that she was.


Many of the histrionics in this thread from those who appear to be breathlessly desperate for Karl Rove to be fired then incarcerated, stem from my simple request that someone explain the basis for determining that Valerie Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in the USC. I don't have a contention ... I don't believe I've stated I think she is or isn't a "covert agent." I merely asked a question, and thought it was possible there was a simple answer, or a simple explanation for the basis for the belief that she meets the definition of a "covert agent." I've not received a good answer yet. But again, that's the reason for a grand jury, and if applicable, a criminal trial.

You know, of course, that establishing that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" is only the first step. It must also be shown that Rove knew that, and that he intended to "out" her.

But it appears that some in this thread, in stark contrast to their position with regard to the terrorists held in Gitmo, would prefer that Mr. Rove be considered guilty until proven innocent, and apparently see no need for a trial to establish any of the claims against him. Apparently, we are to listen to the CIA on this issue, but not any other?

And then there's this ....

Quote:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:31 p.m. EDT

Robert Novak: Plame Source 'No Partisan Gunslinger'

The Washington press corps and their Democratic friends have been too busy this week chasing down Karl Rove to notice that columnist Robert Novak has offered a tantalizing clue about the identity of just who it was who leaked Valerie Plame's name to him back in July 2003.

And judging from Novak's revelation - it wasn't Karl Rove.

Apparently it's been a while since any of the big media's newshounds bothered to read Novak's follow-up column on the Plame case on Oct. 1, 2003, where he talked about the man (woman?) who spilled Plame's name and thereby, according to Dems, committed the crime of the century.

"During a long conversation with a senior administration official," he wrote, "I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger."

No partisan gunslinger?

Even fans of Mr. Rove would be hard-presseed to deny he's a "partisan gunslinger" - just the kind of person Novak says his leaker wasn't.

Could Novak have been lying to protect Mr. Rove? Perhaps. But by the time he wrote the above words, the Plame leak was already under investigation by the Justice Department, a develpoment that would have guaranteed that he'd have to repeat that falsehood under oath.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2005 10:25 pm
Brilliant find, Tico. I'd forgotten that headline, too.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 04:10 am
Lash wrote:
How do I send it to you?

Anything but Democrats. I'd have soon sent it to the Communist party during the Cold War.


You won't be sending it to me until I win. (Or you may be sending it to timber.) Who or what ultimately gets it at this point is really not your concern. For example, if you had already sent it to me, I would've donated it to the DNC in your name. It's my money, remember? Cool

And I'm not interested in elongating negotiations over who ultimately gets the money; nimh's suggestion is fine with me.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 04:19 am
Quote:
"During a long conversation with a senior administration official," he wrote, "I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger."


Hmmm. So the first guy/gal he talked to said 'one of it's employees', that could mean receptionist, file clerk or some other menial job, and this first contact was no gunslinger.

... "Hello, Karl, hey, just a question. I hear that Wilson's wife is with the CIA, does she have enough push to get him on that trip to Niger?"

...

"She is?"
...

"Well, thanks."
...

"No, of course not. Very well concealed. Love yah."
....

"Yeah. Ha ha."

<Goes to his desk and writes 'operative'>

Joe(This message brought to you by Secret Deodorant, not Secret DeCoderant)Nation
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 04:24 am
Some say Rove is already planning his post-White House career:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/DickSteele/RoveElvis.jpg

See, I'm thinking that has to be Photoshopped.

No way Turd Blossom's balls are half that big.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 04:50 am
There's a special costume accessory that you can rent with the outfit, you place the ....

wait, a minute....

How do I know this?

<Nevermind>

Joe
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 05:01 am
Tim Russert - of NBC Meet the Press

"One Republican said to me last night. If this was a Democratic White House, we'd have Congressional hearings in a second."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 05:25 am
Well, the Mehlman/RNC talking points are now out and in distribution...

1) this is just a partisan smear
2) Karl was simply correcting factual errors in Wilson's op ed so that the public would be better informed of the truth of things

Coming soon...when Karl was talking with Chris Matthews, Chris simply misheard what Karl said. Karl was just commenting in a friendly guy to guy way about how pretty Valerie was. He actually said, "She's fair, Plame."
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 05:27 am
Quote:


Now that it's clear that Karl Rove's defense amounts to some sort of cover-blowing 'I didn't inhale' defense, I thought I'd check in a bit on what his lawyer's deal is ...

Reason being, as near as I can tell, Rove attorney Robert D. Luskin has made a series of, shall we say, contradictory statements over the last week or so, each necessitated by further revelations about his client's conduct.

So I was curious: Is Robert D. Luskin the sort of lawyer who never gets caught in a fib or a misstatement on his client's behalf? Or is he a bit more fast and loose?

Saccoccia was convicted in 1993. And Luskin took up his case on appeal.

Eventually the Feds got the idea that the money Saccoccia had paid Luskin and his other attorneys for their services was itself part of the $137 million in drug money he was ordered to forfeit. Now, on the face of it this seems a bit unfair since under our system everyone is entitled to good representation and how was Luskin to know it was tainted money.

Well, the prosecutors thought he should have gotten some inkling when Saccoccia started paying Luskin's attorney's fees in gold bars.

CONTINUED AT,

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006045
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:04 am
All of you,in your rush to hang Rove,seem to be overlooking something.

Why is a NY Times reporter sitting in jail for refusing to name her source on this story?
According t all reports I heard,she was given permission from her source to reveal who her source was,yet she refuses to do so.

Is it possible that her source is either someone inside the CIA,or someone else that would embarrass the dems if it was revealed?

And why wont the NY Times let her reveal her source?
The Times has always said the courts are the final authority,yet the Times let a reporter go to jail rather then obey a court order. Why is that?

What does this reporter know that the Times wants to remain hidden?
I would think that someone would find that curious.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:16 am
The NY Times reporter was the one who wrote all those stories about the WMD in Iraq and other stories that are not exactly anti-war, so I don't think your theory of her being worried about making the "dems" look bad holds out.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:28 am
MM: That is the real story here. Who is Miller protecting? Rove gave permission a long time ago for any reporter he talked to about Plame to speak. It's well known that Rove individually gave Cooper permission to speak. Add to that, according to Rove's lawyer, Fitzgerald does not consider Rove a target of the GJ investigation. It's extremely unlikely she's protecting Rove.

So, who is the NY Times trying to protect?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Jul, 2005 06:29 am
Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
Tico...
Plame was a covert agent because the CIA said she was when the requested that Justice investigate the leak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true


Oh, liberals believe the CIA all of a sudden? Very Happy

I believe in Law enforcement officials doing their job. I have always believed that. It is when politics takes over that I have a problem.

Suddenly Conservatives don't believe what the CIA and FBI say? Very Happy

Oh wait. that's right. They didn't believe the CIA well enough to go with the all information the CIA gave them about Iraq. They had to set up a special branch to skew the information.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 04:36:42