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

Hey, Tico - help me out with understanding something here...
Just for my own clarification - You don't have any doubt that Rove had ill intent when he was talking to reporters about Plame, do you?

Uh, Tico?

georgeob1 wrote:

News reporters had earlier reported that VP Cheney had nominate Wilson for the Niger investigation. The evidence suggests that Rove was correcting that bit of misreporting and noting the fact that it was Wilson's wife. Plame, a CIA official, who has nominated him for the assignment. Clearly he was trying to do damage control prodthen decline is more or less axiom,aticuction orts regarding the yellowcake from Niger matter.

Perhaps in your view that constitutes "ill intent".

How would you characterize the intent of Mark Felt's series of leaks concerning Watergate? He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death and the appointment of an outsider (L. Patrick Grey) to that post.

Odd use of "evidence", george. What supports your thesis other than Mehlman's claim that this was Rove's intent? How valuable is that, "evidence"-wise? Zero.

Ticomaya wrote:

I'll bet there is a Senior Administration Official who thinks she is NOT a covert agent. ....

.....But again, we don't know who this "Senior Administration Official" is, or any of the context of how or when they reached their conclusion ... do we?.....

....unless you are attributing the beliefs of some unknown "Senior Administration Official," via osmosis or some other means, to Karl Rove.

The "some other means" I highlighted involves a social convention you might have heard of: meetings.

Tico, these people all tend to hang out together.

More to the point, I do believe that they have been instructed together in meetings of what or what not to do about classified information. Or if there are private instruction sessions, the same people would be doing the instruction. If all the senior officials are instructed by the same people on how to handle classified info, it would be virtually certain that they would all share the same ideas on the subject.

To repeat: If one senior official thinks that Plame was covered under the act, it makes it far, far more likely that the other senior officials feel the same way.

... Mark Felt... He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death ...

PS:

Tico, since you are the one who devoted large amounts of bandwidth to unsourced rants that confuse the Senate Intelligence Committee report with the dissenting addendum, (rejected by 15 out of 18 Senators on the Committee), you are hardly in a position to get persnickety about thoroughly conclusive proof being required before discussion can take place.

georgeob1 wrote:

... Mark Felt... He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death ...

that one is really getting stale, george..

"he didn't get the job he wanted, so it's all made up by a spoil sport".

so are you saying that watergate didn't happen ?

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

News reporters had earlier reported that VP Cheney had nominate Wilson for the Niger investigation. The evidence suggests that Rove was correcting that bit of misreporting and noting the fact that it was Wilson's wife. Plame, a CIA official, who has nominated him for the assignment. Clearly he was trying to do damage control prodthen decline is more or less axiom,aticuction orts regarding the yellowcake from Niger matter.

Perhaps in your view that constitutes "ill intent".

How would you characterize the intent of Mark Felt's series of leaks concerning Watergate? He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death and the appointment of an outsider (L. Patrick Grey) to that post.

Odd use of "evidence", george. What supports your thesis other than Mehlman's claim that this was Rove's intent? How valuable is that, "evidence"-wise? Zero.

Isn't that also what Rove's attorney has stated as well? It is thus attributable to Rove himself ... and as such, Rove's statement of his intent in this regard is certainly relevant evidence (you can give it what weight you feel it deserves) ... unlike the legal opinion of the unknown "Senior Administration Official"' who has opined that Plame is/was a "covert agent" under the IIPA.

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

News reporters had earlier reported that VP Cheney had nominate Wilson for the Niger investigation. The evidence suggests that Rove was correcting that bit of misreporting and noting the fact that it was Wilson's wife. Plame, a CIA official, who has nominated him for the assignment. Clearly he was trying to do damage control prodthen decline is more or less axiom,aticuction orts regarding the yellowcake from Niger matter.

Perhaps in your view that constitutes "ill intent".

How would you characterize the intent of Mark Felt's series of leaks concerning Watergate? He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death and the appointment of an outsider (L. Patrick Grey) to that post.

Odd use of "evidence", george. What supports your thesis other than Mehlman's claim that this was Rove's intent? How valuable is that, "evidence"-wise? Zero.

Isn't that also what Rove's attorney has stated as well? It is thus attributable to Rove himself ... and as such, Rove's statement of his intent in this regard is certainly relevant evidence (you can give it what weight you feel it deserves) ... unlike the legal opinion of the unknown "Senior Administration Official"' who has opined that Plame is/was a "covert agent" under the IIPA.

tico

Yes, Rove's lawyer/Rove as well. Thanks. As regards 'weight', you as a prosecutor likely have a good sense of the dependability regarding protestations of snow-white innocence.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

... Mark Felt... He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death ...

that one is really getting stale, george..

"he didn't get the job he wanted, so it's all made up by a spoil sport".

so are you saying that watergate didn't happen ?

I think the question georgeob is asking is: Did Felt have "ill intent"?

Does it matter?

Not today, it doesn't. Nice attempt at changing the subject, once again.

What is it with Republicans and comparing two bad behaviours in order to justify the lesser one?

Cycloptichorn

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

News reporters had earlier reported that VP Cheney had nominate Wilson for the Niger investigation. The evidence suggests that Rove was correcting that bit of misreporting and noting the fact that it was Wilson's wife. Plame, a CIA official, who has nominated him for the assignment. Clearly he was trying to do damage control prodthen decline is more or less axiom,aticuction orts regarding the yellowcake from Niger matter.

Perhaps in your view that constitutes "ill intent".

How would you characterize the intent of Mark Felt's series of leaks concerning Watergate? He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death and the appointment of an outsider (L. Patrick Grey) to that post.

Odd use of "evidence", george. What supports your thesis other than Mehlman's claim that this was Rove's intent? How valuable is that, "evidence"-wise? Zero.

Isn't that also what Rove's attorney has stated as well? It is thus attributable to Rove himself ... and as such, Rove's statement of his intent in this regard is certainly relevant evidence (you can give it what weight you feel it deserves) ... unlike the legal opinion of the unknown "Senior Administration Official"' who has opined that Plame is/was a "covert agent" under the IIPA.

tico

Yes, Rove's lawyer/Rove as well. Thanks. As regards 'weight', you as a prosecutor likely have a good sense of the dependability regarding protestations of snow-white innocence.

... but evidence nonetheless, you would agree?

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

News reporters had earlier reported that VP Cheney had nominate Wilson for the Niger investigation. The evidence suggests that Rove was correcting that bit of misreporting and noting the fact that it was Wilson's wife. Plame, a CIA official, who has nominated him for the assignment. Clearly he was trying to do damage control prodthen decline is more or less axiom,aticuction orts regarding the yellowcake from Niger matter.

Perhaps in your view that constitutes "ill intent".

How would you characterize the intent of Mark Felt's series of leaks concerning Watergate? He had just been passed over for promotion to FBI Director, following Hoover's death and the appointment of an outsider (L. Patrick Grey) to that post.

Odd use of "evidence", george. What supports your thesis other than Mehlman's claim that this was Rove's intent? How valuable is that, "evidence"-wise? Zero.

Isn't that also what Rove's attorney has stated as well? It is thus attributable to Rove himself ... and as such, Rove's statement of his intent in this regard is certainly relevant evidence (you can give it what weight you feel it deserves) ... unlike the legal opinion of the unknown "Senior Administration Official"' who has opined that Plame is/was a "covert agent" under the IIPA.

tico

Yes, Rove's lawyer/Rove as well. Thanks. As regards 'weight', you as a prosecutor likely have a good sense of the dependability regarding protestations of snow-white innocence.

... but evidence nonetheless, you would agree?

Absolutely, in the normal sense in which our legal systems allows or counts (properly) as 'evidence' the testimony of an accused/indicted individual.

Of course, it would be playing fast and loose with the truth for george or you to suggest this might be the only evidence in play on the question. Or that it might be the most credible evidence. Karl has a track record of dirty tricks and of a strategy of vengeance towards opponents that makes the claim "He did it altruistically and to help a reporter out with facts" not one a bookie would back.

Of course there is other evidence of intent. And without question there would have to be a whole lot more evidence of his intent than his past "track record of dirty tricks" you've identified, before Fitzgerald brought charges against Rove. Remember it's a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and the burden would be on Fitzgerald to prove.

But remember the issue (the mini issue, if you will) we're addressing is not the ultimate question of criminal guilt, but rather that provocative question from Snood: Whether Rove acted with "ill intent."

I certainly do see Tico's point re: attributing motivation based on the assumption of a priori knowledge or understanding about Plame. We can assume meeting or some other venue, or seeing the State Department memo, or even an aside from Cheney to go hurt Wilson via Plame. But an assumption is still just that.

But I think your assertion that determination must derive only from conviction in a court of law is too extreme a position.

We can do some of the same cognitive work. Looking at empirical evidence, using principles of logic such as inference and deduction, etc.

Let's not give lawyers all of the power. We can be Sherlock Holmes at times. Power of the people.

tico said:

Quote:

Of course there is other evidence of intent. And without question there would have to be a whole lot more evidence of his intent than his past "track record of dirty tricks" you've identified, before Fitzgerald brought charges against Rove. Remember it's a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and the burden would be on Fitzgerald to prove.

But remember the issue (the mini issue, if you will) we're addressing is not the ultimate question of criminal guilt, but rather that provocative question from Snood: Whether Rove acted with "ill intent."

We'll leave Fitzgerald's task to Fitzgerald. I've looked into his heart - it's a good heart.

Was Rove seeking to discredit Wilson, and through that ad hominem, to discredit Wilson's claim re yellowcake (and the greater claim sitting in the wings...deceit on the real dangers of Iraq)...who doubts it, really? Is that 'ill intent'? Of course, in any coherent sense of the term.