Rove outted Plame - grand treason

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's official, he's busted.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/03/news/notes.php

[Andrew]

Here's a guess:  the right-wing machine is gearing up to make sure that the focus stays on Time magazine, the nature of the emails themselves, how and why they were turned over, etc. 

Every effort will be made to keep any discussion of Rove himself and what he may or may have done on the back burner.

Any criticism of Rove will be dismissed as unpatriotic anti-Bush rhetoric.

[The Duke]

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  He may be guilty of some crime, but that crime is not treason.

So Rove (allegedly) outed a CIA agent who abused her position within the agency to send her husband (and cohort) on a diplomatic "mission" for which he was not qualified and during he which he did not perform his official duties so he couldn return to the US to attack America's foreign policy.

If anyone is guilty of treason, it is a CIA agent and her husband who tried to run their own little foreign policy.

[Smash255]

Treason is defined as giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  He may be guilty of some crime, but that crime is not treason.

So Rove (allegedly) outed a CIA agent who abused her position within the agency to send her husband (and cohort) on a diplomatic "mission" for which he was not qualified and during he which he did not perform his official duties so he couldn return to the US to attack America's foreign policy.

If anyone is guilty of treason, it is a CIA agent and her husband who tried to run their own little foreign policy.

Oh What Please  Come on thats a bunch of crap.  He was sent their to investigate the Uranium claim.  A claim proven to be untrue.  He isn't the one that should be attacked here.  Karl Rove (more than likely) outed an undercover CIA agent THATS A CRIME.  PERIOD. 

Saying a claim made by the administration isn't true when well it wasn't true isn't a crime

[MODU]

Just how many threads on this topic do we need?  Stick with the original one already on the forum.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Where is the original thread?

[MODU]

Where is the original thread?

"MSNBC Analyst Cooper documents point to Rove in CIA leak"

or

"Bad day for Bush"

[Richard]

It's official, he's busted.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/03/news/notes.php

Um, pardon me, but I always thought for it to be official a jury needs to convict him...

This is far from over.  In fact, Rove is a very smart cookie.  I'm wondering what he is seeing what the Democrats are not seeing.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All I have heard is that Rove talked with the reporter...I have yet to hear or see any evidence stating that Rove revealed her identity.

Have I missed some info?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All I have heard is that Rove talked with the reporter...I have yet to hear or see any evidence stating that Rove revealed her identity.

Have I missed some info?

Yeah, try reading the article.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All I have heard is that Rove talked with the reporter...I have yet to hear or see any evidence stating that Rove revealed her identity.

Have I missed some info?

Yeah, try reading the article.

I did read the article...why don't you try reading lessons.

Even David Corn, a noted Bush basher, agrees with me:

"O'Donnell's comment and Isikoff's report set off a wave of reaction. I received numerous emails proclaiming 'Rove is it, he's the [deleted] who revealed Plame's identity.' But a careful reading of the available facts leads to this unsatisfying conclusion: not so fast. "

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=4581

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

All I have heard is that Rove talked with the reporter...I have yet to hear or see any evidence stating that Rove revealed her identity.

Have I missed some info?

Yeah, try reading the article.

I did read the article...why don't you try reading lessons.

Even David Corn, a noted Bush basher, agrees with me:

"O'Donnell's comment and Isikoff's report set off a wave of reaction. I received numerous emails proclaiming 'Rove is it, he's the [deleted] who revealed Plame's identity.' But a careful reading of the available facts leads to this unsatisfying conclusion: not so fast. "

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=4581

1. That's not the article I linked to
2. That article is certainly not saying Rove is innocent

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

1. That's not the article I linked to
2. That article is certainly not saying Rove is innocent

1.  Never said it was the article you linked to.  I referred to the article in my link as proof that anyone, even a Bush basher, who takes time to read the evidence presented so far, can not clearly conclude that Rove is being accused as the one who revealed her name.
2.  Nor did I say that Rove is innocent.  I am simply saying that people are putting words into these reporters mouths that the evidence does not yet support.

(The article you linked to does not provide any evidence that Rove is the leaker.  It is simply speculation)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

1. That's not the article I linked to
2. That article is certainly not saying Rove is innocent

1.  Never said it was the article you linked to.  I referred to the article in my link as proof that anyone, even a Bush basher, who takes time to read the evidence presented so far, can not clearly conclude that Rove is being accused as the one who revealed her name.
2.  Nor did I say that Rove is innocent.  I am simply saying that people are putting words into these reporters mouths that the evidence does not yet support.

(The article you linked to does not provide any evidence that Rove is the leaker.  It is simply speculation)

It's not speculation, did you read it? It talks about emails.

[ATFFL]

It's not speculation, did you read it? It talks about emails.

Yes, it is speculation, but that is hard to tell from the way IHT worded the story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It says that Newsweek says the e-mails say that Karl Rove was the source.  Lets look at another source, one much closer to the original story: Newsweek themselves (via MSNBC).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Rove Factor?

Now you can decide to believe the Internaitona Herald Tribune's story on the newsweek story.  Or you can decide to pay attention to what Newseek, the source of the IHT story, says in the story itself.

[Defarge]

Hold your horses gentlemen, this smacks of the Rather memos.  Let's wait a couple of days for more solid information.

[Blue Rectangle]

Hold your horses gentlemen, this smacks of the Rather memos.  Let's wait a couple of days for more solid information.

Finally, a voice of reason.  Can we all admit that the whole story is not yet known?  Given the way grand juries work, it may be awhile before we know the facts.

[J. J.]

This is basically a rehashing of the Newsweek story even down to the same quote.

It is far from unusual for a governmental official to talk to the Press; they do give interviews and do brief.  It really depends what Rove said.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If you want to read more information, rather than focusing on the part of the story that seems the most favorable to Rove, then you might be interested in reading some of this.

Memo:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.law.memo.pdf

Reponse to Rove's lawyer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/three-questions-for-karl-_3683.html


To those saying we should wait for all the facts, I really hope you didn't support the Iraq war.

[J. J.]

If you want to read more information, rather than focusing on the part of the story that seems the most favorable to Rove, then you might be interested in reading some of this.

Memo:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.law.memo.pdf

Reponse to Rove's lawyer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/three-questions-for-karl-_3683.html


To those saying we should wait for all the facts, I really hope you didn't support the Iraq war.

The point is, here, we can get the facts.  The war was the only way to get them.  Now if Rove barricades himself in his office... .

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The point is, here, we can get the facts.  The war was the only way to get them.  Now if Rove barricades himself in his office... .

The war was the only way to get the facts? What about the weapons inspectors? Saddam was going to allow thousands of US soldiers to inspect too, because he had nothing to hide. You have some serious double standards.

[J. J.]

The point is, here, we can get the facts.  The war was the only way to get them.  Now if Rove barricades himself in his office... .

The war was the only way to get the facts? What about the weapons inspectors? Saddam was going to allow thousands of US soldiers to inspect too, because he had nothing to hide. You have some serious double standards.

The point is didn't, for years.

Now Rove, it has been revealed, actually waived any privilege.  That kinda makes me suspect that he has nothing to hide (but it don't mean that the grand jury shouldn't look).

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Rove didn't waive any privilege.  There is no legal privilege between an journalist and their source.  That's why reporters can go to jail for not revealing their sources.

As for the story, we can't draw any conclusions at this point.   Hopefully the truth will come out soon and whoever is responsible will be appropriately prosecuted.  If it is Karl Rove, this will be a scandal of Watergate-proportions, but I'm skeptical that is it.

[J. J.]

Rove didn't waive any privilege.  There is no legal privilege between an journalist and their source.  That's why reporters can go to jail for not revealing their sources.

As for the story, we can't draw any conclusions at this point.   Hopefully the truth will come out soon and whoever is responsible will be appropriately prosecuted.  If it is Karl Rove, this will be a scandal of Watergate-proportions, but I'm skeptical that is it.

He basically, according to I believe the newsweek story, waived any right to confidentiality and released the journalists from their pledges.  It's similar to what Mark Felt did.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The point is, here, we can get the facts.  The war was the only way to get them.  Now if Rove barricades himself in his office... .

The war was the only way to get the facts? What about the weapons inspectors? Saddam was going to allow thousands of US soldiers to inspect too, because he had nothing to hide. You have some serious double standards.

The point is didn't, for years.

Now Rove, it has been revealed, actually waived any privilege.  That kinda makes me suspect that he has nothing to hide (but it don't mean that the grand jury shouldn't look).

Double standard