0
   

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

 
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 09:53 pm
JustWonders,
Who is Plume? <my typos legendary> LOL

Timber, the WH spinmasters <of the highest caliber, btw> will counter the charges saying Rove was vitimized by "bad intelligence", or some such other excuse for placing the ball in someone elses court.

Perhaps as you say, nothing will come of the charges. Perhaps.
I believe that Rove should be handed an orange jumpsuit, Gideon, and sent to Pelican Bay.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:18 pm
Don't get your hopes up. And I wouldn't venture to say "nothing will come of this", my conjecture is that what will come of this will provide The Opposition with considerable dismay.

And I believe that Reid, Durbin, Pelosi, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, et al, each ought to be provided a bottle of fine brandy, a bible, a loaded pistol, and some privacy. Then again, in such circumstance, I suppose only the brandy would see any use.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:26 pm
Stradee wrote:
JustWonders,
Who is Plume? <my typos legendary> LOL

Timber, the WH spinmasters <of the highest caliber, btw> will counter the charges saying Rove was vitimized by "bad intelligence", or some such other excuse for placing the ball in someone elses court.

Perhaps as you say, nothing will come of the charges. Perhaps.
I believe that Rove should be handed an orange jumpsuit, Gideon, and sent to Pelican Bay.


Just hauled off to Pelican Bay, huh? So much for tolerance and the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing LOL!

In Isikoff's Newsweek article he says that...

Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.

Does that sound like someone with something to hide?
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:28 pm
Of course not. He's as clean as a pig snout in a bucket of ****.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:30 pm
That prejudice. Doesn't even care if he's innocent.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 10:43 pm
Ah, then you concede your list of noted Democrats' sins arn't deserving of incarceration then? You've restored my faith, Timber!

Not likely they'd be partying at a Holiday Inn with booze and ammo though. To much like what the administration does each day at the WH.

Something will come of the Pume case, and very well should.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:03 pm
"Just hauled off to Pelican Bay, huh? So much for tolerance and the 'innocent until proven guilty' thing LOL!"

In Isikoff's Newsweek article he says that...

Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.

Does that sound like someone with something to hide"


Yep - so why didn't he just say that before the grand jury indictments?


<definitely an orange jumpsuit kinda guy...> Very Happy
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 11:45 pm
Stradee wrote:
Ah, then you concede your list of noted Democrats' sins arn't deserving of incarceration then? You've restored my faith, Timber!

Not likely they'd be partying at a Holiday Inn with booze and ammo though.


<chuckle>

As for "Don't get it", I rest my case.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 07:19 am
Lash wrote:
Just as I thought.

Timber's article:

Lawyer Tells 'Wash Post' Rove Did Nothing Wrong
By E&P Staff
Published: July 02, 2005 10:00 PM ET

<snip>
----
I hope they sue O'Donnell.

Ehm .. am I missing something here?

All this article contains is quotes of Rove's attorney saying he's innocent.

Uhm, yeah. And?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 07:30 am
Stradee wrote:
Yep - so why didn't he just say that before the grand jury indictments?


Say what, dear?

And...what indictments?

Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 07:42 am
assuming that GJI's come down, they will have to add "lying to a constituted judicial body" .

Dys, the list of incredulity gets longer and longer. Sorta 1984 "plus twenty"
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:08 am
Heh.

What do you expect Rove's lawyers to do, come out and say that he's guilty?

Why does he even have a lawyer who is consulting him on this matter in the first place?

What makes you think that Fitzgerald would TELL Rove that he was the focus of the investigation (especially if Perjury had become the real charge?)

What do you think Rove told Fitzgerald those three times they met?

Who do you think will take the fall for all of this?

These, and other questions, will be answered!

And this mostly confirms my opinion:

Quote:
Don't get your hopes up. And I wouldn't venture to say "nothing will come of this", my conjecture is that what will come of this will provide The Opposition with considerable dismay.


You know things are going right when Timber starts predicting Doom for Dems. The only time I saw him do the opposite, Bush won the election; since then things have not exactly been going the way he states they will...

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

(this will be interesting, for sure)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:12 am
nimh wrote:

Ehm .. am I missing something here?

All this article contains is quotes of Rove's attorney saying he's innocent.

Uhm, yeah. And?


That's what I thought, too. IF he is in fact guilty, what would the spin be? What this suggests to me is that there are records showing that Rove spoke to the reporter. It doesn't say much about WHAT he said to the reporter. (IF he is guilty, and IF there are records showing he had contact, "Yes he talked to the guy but he didn't break any laws" is what his lawyer would say. And?)

Nothing much new today in the news, same stuff as yesterday plus around of "well his lawyer says..." stuff. Definitely interested in seeing how it develops.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:48 am
BBB
I suggest everyone keep their eyes on the real ball. The ball in the air is not necessarily the crime, it is the coverup and obstruction of justice. History shows it's the coverup that usually brings the culprits down.

During a press conference, Scott McClellan said that if anyone at the White House leaked Plame's identity, he should be fired, and pursued to the "fullest extent."

"No one was authorized to do this. That is simply not the way this White House operates and if someone leaked classified information it is a very serious matter," he said.


All of the reporters state they received calls from more than one source. So part of the coverup may be to protect suits further up the power ladder. Rove is very near the top of the ladder so there is not much wiggle room. Rove may, indeed, be the fall guy. After all, Bush doesn't need him for a third term, so he is expendable. Does anyone have a sword for him to fall on?

However, the Vice President's office may be getting nervous that their coverup is starting to fall to pieces. Cheney surely protected himself with plausible deniability, but his senior staff is not similarly protected. And Cheney et al has security clearance sufficient to have checked out the CIA operative. If they were smart, they would have. But maybe they just had a stupid day.

I would like to see Robert the Novak get what he deserves for his part in violation of a federal law. That slime ball doesn't deserve to get off the hook.

BBB

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rove3jul03,1,2388418.story

THE NATION
Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, His Attorney Says
The Bush advisor spoke with a Time reporter days before a CIA operative was outed.
By Richard B. Schmitt
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

July 3, 2005

WASHINGTON ?- Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the press, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, before a syndicated column revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cooper is one of two reporters who has been held in contempt of court for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected that Rove had played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, emphasized that the presidential advisor did not reveal any secrets. But the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, faced imminent jail terms.

Time Inc., under pressure from a federal judge and over Cooper's objections, turned over e-mail records and other internal documents to a special prosecutor Friday, identifying sources that Cooper used to report and write on the politically charged case. A Time spokeswoman declined to say Saturday whether Rove was among sources mentioned in the documents.

Cooper and Miller could be jailed as soon as Wednesday for refusing to cooperate in the investigation. Time, which was separately held in contempt in the case, said that it hoped its cooperation meant that Cooper would not be incarcerated.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist, testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, about the same time the prosecutor investigating the case said his probe was complete with the exception of testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged outing of Plame by Robert Novak, a columnist and CNN pundit, on July 14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in retaliation for a July 6, 2003, op-ed piece in the New York Times written by Wilson, her husband. He accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Fitzgerald interviewed many other White House officials and journalists, including Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Although Novak was the first to publish Plame's name, Fitzgerald has indicated that whoever leaked the information to Novak also might have revealed her identity to other journalists. That could constitute separate violations of a federal law that protects the identity of undercover CIA personnel.

Prosecutions are rare, however, because they require showing that the leak was intentionally disclosed and that the person leaking the information knew the government was trying to conceal it.

Fitzgerald asked Cooper and Time for documents and testimony relating to conversations Cooper had with official sources about Wilson, Plame or her ties to the CIA in the period before the publication of Novak's column. Cooper wrote about the case on Time's website after the Novak column appeared.

Luskin, Rove's attorney, acknowledged in an interview Saturday that Cooper and Rove had spoken days before Novak's column, in a conversation that was initiated by Cooper.

"What I can tell you is that Cooper called Rove during that week between the Wilson article and the Novak article, but that Karl absolutely did not identify Valerie Plame," Luskin said. "He did not disclose any confidential information about anybody to Cooper or to anybody else."

Luskin said he would not "characterize the substance of the conversation," which was covered in the testimony Rove provided to the grand jury investigating the leak. "The folks in Fitzgerald's office have asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say," Luskin said.

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] say."

In court papers filed Friday arguing against his possible confinement, Cooper's lawyers said if he were to break promises of confidentiality, "his ability to continue as an effective reporter would be seriously jeopardized."

In letters to the court accompanying his plea, fellow journalists discussed this principle.

"Journalists must honor their promises which protect the bad along with the good," said Margaret Carlson, a Time columnist and colleague of Cooper. "We can't separate them like the darks and the whites in the laundry."
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:56 am
nimh wrote:
Lash wrote:
Just as I thought.

Timber's article:

Lawyer Tells 'Wash Post' Rove Did Nothing Wrong
By E&P Staff
Published: July 02, 2005 10:00 PM ET

<snip>
----
I hope they sue O'Donnell.

Ehm .. am I missing something here?

All this article contains is quotes of Rove's attorney saying he's innocent.

Uhm, yeah. And?

And I hope they sue O'Donnell. He smeared Rove without any proof. The Newsweek article was supposed to come out with the "Rove did it" piece, but if you'll notice, most of the stories are "O'Donnell said Rove did it."

I think O'Donnell has stepped in it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 08:58 am
This:

The attorney, Robert Luskin said that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame case, assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

...didn't mean anything to you?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:03 am
I tend not to attach any all too crucial credibility to what the attorney of a suspected person says people really said or really happened.

I wouldnt quickly quote that attorney's version of events and conclude, see? nothing happened.

Definitely not forgotten by next Wednesday, I dont think.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:05 am
I'm not concluding. I'm providing a balance for those who ARE concluding.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:09 am
JustWonders wrote:
Stradee wrote:
Yep - so why didn't he just say that before the grand jury indictments?


Say what, dear?

And...what indictments?

Whatcha talkin' 'bout?


oops, thatabe a 'summons' to testify at a grand jury hearing.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jul, 2005 09:21 am
Following and enjoying the puppet master has been revealed as the latest deep throat.
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 © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/17/2026 at 09:53:19