Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...

Talk about going too far with something! If Rove leaked a covert operative's name to the press, that's very, very bad, and he should be punished. But this is too much:

Quote:

---

KARL ROVE: WORSE THAN OSAMA BIN LADEN

... As far as we know, no one on what passes for the "left" (which would be the center-right anywhere else) has betrayed the United States in the GWOT. No anti-Bush progressive has made common cause with Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or any other officially designated "terrorist" group. No American liberal has handed over classified information or worked to undermine the CIA.

But it now appears that Karl Rove, GOP golden boy, has done exactly that.

---

Perhaps there should be a corollary to the old Internet rule that any discussion in which anyone is compared to Hitler or the Nazis has reached the end of its useful life. Certainly, any essay in which someone who isn't a member of Al Qaeda is compared to OBL is on the fast track to being complete junk.

Quote:

---

Are you looking for an award for the most naive poster around?

Just assume it was not happening in the US, and there is no party line going over there, would you really have the same opinion?
Don't you feel intellectually dishonest? Just a bit?

---

Are you looking for one as the best spinner around. My position isnt that Rove didnt do anythiing wrong its that their not going to ne able to pin anything on him. If you think they will I suggest your the naive one. If you look you will see I agreed with Ichi on this point a number of times.

Quote:

---

Nope, he was only elected once. The first election was a sham.

---

Why because we went by the rules or because Gore acted like a cry baby when he lost.

Quote:

---

He lost the popular vote,

---

Yup though he may not have if the networks didnt anounce florida for Gore before the polls even closed there. Besides that thats not how we elect a president.

Quote:

---

and he lost Florida.

---

No he won Florida and won it in every recount by every news agency that dug into the matter. Im afraid your hatred of Bush is getting the better of you again here.

Quote:

---

I have not, nor will I ever consider his first administration as being legitimate.

---

Well the rest of us and the world will have to get by without your support for them then suppose.

Quote:

---

So was Nixon.

---

For the most part Nixon was a great president. In fact if not for watergate you would probably think he was one of the best republican presidents. He was very liberal in many ways.

Quote:

---

Definitely TRUE. He can't produce a single witness to prove he served his last two years or so,

---

Im afraid he did but once again your hatred has blinded you. Its all been covered here to death.

Quote:

---

I don't recall Clinton as a member of the armed services during war time doing drugs.

---

Of course not he planned to go to Canada if drated.

Quote:

---

Clinton was 10 times the President Dubya has been.

---

Clinton was one of the most dispicable persons ever to hold the office.

Quote:

---

Clinton's failings were of a personal nature

---

Yopu call sending missle technology to China a personal nature?

Quote:

---

I can't recall,

---

So your making more unfounded accusations. I can link you to Clintons accusation of rape with no problem however.

Quote:

---

It's more of a case of false advertising...passing oneself off as something you are not. Dubya is a fraud.

---

Most politicians are frauds as was Clinton. Why do you hold Bush to a higher standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Well Red, I'll give you credit. You and your wife definitely have the Howard Dean talking points down pat.

---

Funny, I've never paid much attention to Dean. I try to work things out more on my own, rather than unquestioningly swallowing partisan propaganda from either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Funny, I've never paid much attention to Dean. I try to work things out more on my own, rather than unquestioningly swallowing partisan propaganda from either side.

---

Really, then why do you still think Bush lost Florida when no examination of the ballots showed that? I'd like to know how you worked it out on your own when there's no evidence to support it. Several large media organizations looked into it and couldn't find a way to say the vote should have came out for Gore. If you know different, lets see links.... I'm so tired of that myth. Yes, he lost the popular vote, and he won the electoral vote- the one that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Most politicians are frauds as was Clinton. Why do you hold Bush to a higher standard?

---

Higher standard? How about holding him to ANY standard? I can't find any he measures up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Really, then why do you still think Bush lost Florida when no examination of the ballots showed that? I'd like to know how you worked it out on your own when there's no evidence to support it.

---

Truly, this canard was laid to rest sometime ago.

Red, have you ever even read Bush v Gore? Do you have the faintest idea of what was decided?

Bush v Gore was an Equal Rights case, nothing more. The Court did not select Bush as President, it merely held that if any of the votes were to be recounted, all of the votes had to be recounted. Once they made their ruling, Gore threw in the towel.

(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Truly, this canard was laid to rest sometime ago.

Red, have you ever even read Bush v Gore? Do you have the faintest idea of what was decided?

Bush v Gore was an Equal Rights case, nothing more. The Court did not select Bush as President, it merely held that if any of the votes were to be recounted, all of the votes had to be recounted. Once they made their ruling, Gore threw in the towel.

(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)

---

The Court voted 7-2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5-4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.

I never had a problem with the full recount--I always felt that was the appropriate thing to do. I dug through the actual vote counts and looked at things in detail. What I found is that the problem ballots in those key counties easily decided the election. The Buchanan numbers were an absolute clincher back when I looked at it. The difficulty was in establishing criteria for the recount. Clearly, had the ballot in certain areas not been so badly flawed, there would have been little controversy, and Dubya would be back in Crawford.

Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid. One can do legal wrangling to justify it, but it was wrong.

Quote:

---

I never had a problem with the full recount--I always felt that was the appropriate thing to do. I dug through the actual vote counts and looked at things in detail. What I found is that the problem ballots in those key counties easily decided the election. The Buchanan numbers were an absolute clincher back when I looked at it. The difficulty was in establishing criteria for the recount. Clearly, had the ballot in certain areas not been so badly flawed, there would have been little controversy, and Dubya would be back in Crawford.

---

Well then you must have access to things that all the proffesional reporters didnt then as none of them came to that conclusion. Again adress the fact that Florida was called for Gore an hour before the polls in the panhandle, a conservtive bastion there, had been closed and many conservatives didnt bother to vote thinking it was over.

Quote:

---

Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid

---

Maybe you could use a session with Saturnus ~D Theres nothing to back up your claims. Please provide some proof other than its what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Considering the will of people who voted in the election was not done in Florida, or in the nation as a whole, the election was invalid. One can do legal wrangling to justify it, but it was wrong.

---

At least if you were a Gore supporter. ~;)

Do you have any links to your "studies"? I'd like to review them. Standards on what is considered a valid ballot were established before the election. Just because your guy didn't win doesnt mean you can change the standards after the votes have been cast.

People pouring over pregnant and hanging chads trying to "interpret" voter intent or if they really meant to vote for Gore even if they marked Buchanan is absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

At least if you were a Gore supporter. ~;)

Do you have any links to your "studies"? I'd like to review them. Standards on what is considered a valid ballot were established before the election. Just because your guy didn't win doesnt mean you can change the standards after the votes have been cast.

People pouring over pregnant and hanging chads trying to "interpret" voter intent or if they really meant to vote for Gore even if they marked Buchanan is absurd.

---

And that is one of the things the court struck down in their decision - a poll counter can not determine intent of the voter - the ballot must speak for itself.

Another one of the issues the "Gore" crowd had with the court's decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Well then you must have access to things that all the proffesional reporters didnt then as none of them came to that conclusion. Again adress the fact that Florida was called for Gore an hour before the polls in the panhandle, a conservtive bastion there, had been closed and many conservatives didnt bother to vote thinking it was over.



Maybe you could use a session with Saturnus ~D Theres nothing to back up your claims. Please provide some proof other than its what you think.

---

Quite the opposite. I dug through the numbers county by county to reach a conclusion. There were quite a few vote counts done by reporters that gave different results with Gore winning. If you look at the spoiled ballot/double vote issue and demographics, Gore's lead was huge.

I don't have access to the numbers anymore--I can't find any of the old links open, but I do remember spending hours sifting through the numbers to test the various claims before reaching a conclusion. I haven't looked at this since shortly after the election.

I can't find the most recent poll on the issue, but I recall one from only a few months ago showing that something like 30+ percent of us still don't agree that the 2000 election was valid.

Any vote that came back for a Republican, even if it had a wide margin, was going to be argued by 30+ percent of the population. You guys did it again in Ohio in 2004. The concept of graceful loser is unknown on your side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

Quite the opposite. I dug through the numbers county by county to reach a conclusion. There were quite a few vote counts done by reporters that gave different results with Gore winning. If you look at the spoiled ballot/double vote issue and demographics, Gore's lead was huge.

---

And that is what the supreme court ruled on in discounting the vote - the poll counter can not determine voter intent - regardless of how many times it is brought up. The voter invalidated his/her vote when they punched two names.

Quote:

---

I don't have access to the numbers anymore--I can't find any of the old links open, but I do remember spending hours sifting through the numbers to test the various claims before reaching a conclusion. I haven't looked at this since shortly after the election.

---

Again if all you looked at eas spoiled or double voted ballots - the issue again is mote - since the voter spoiled their vote - not anyone or anything else.

Quote:

---

I can't find the most recent poll on the issue, but I recall one from only a few months ago showing that something like 30+ percent of us still don't agree that the 2000 election was valid.

---

There were some that felt the 1992 election when Clinton was elected was not valid - and it didn't make them right either now did it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The concept of graceful loser is unknown on your side.

---

And as we all know, Republicans never sue over contested elections.

What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?

---

Virtually nothing. Just alot of us are sick of still hearing the unelected presidency myth bandied about after 5 years. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

(Bush v Gore is the perfect example of strict Constitutionalism.)

---

Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.

Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.

~;)

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

And as we all know, Republicans never sue over contested elections.

What does any of this have to do with Karl Rove?

---

Touche' :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.

Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.

~;)

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

---

No apology necessary. I'm not a Republican, nor an offended one.

Saying the '00 election was the result of some sort of crime is like when people say the war in Iraq is illegal. It's baseless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Saying the '00 election was the result of some sort of crime

---

I'm not saying it was a crime. But Dubya didn't win the vote. He did win the court cases (by a single vote, meaning 1 person in effect decided the election.) You can try and dress it up all you want, but it was and is an outrage. Personally, I think the whole Florida electoral vote should have either been rejected or split. However, I don't know of a legal solution that would have allowed it. The all or nothing approach made no sense with such a badly flawed ballot.

However, I still look at the 2000 election as perfect illustration of the methods not mattering to GOP, as long as the result suits them. I remember some talk of Florida rigging the electors if the court ruling and recount went against them. Yah, democracy, they've heard of it.

Quote:

---

Strict Constitutionalism: Any example of a court decision that pleases Republicans.

Judicial Activism: Any example of a court decision that angers Republicans.

---

Talk about rehtoric. Of course this is all made up in your head. I defy you to give an example of conservative judicial activism by SCOTUS recently.

Quote:

---

But Dubya didn't win the vote.

---

Yes he did. He won the electoral vote and thats the one that counts. I could more easily claim that Nixon won the 1960 election.

Quote:

---

. He did win the court cases (by a single vote, meaning 1 person in effect decided the election.)

---

Considering the recent rulings of this court and their make up its a wonder any voted in Bushs favor. If we had real judges it would have been 9 - 0 no recount.

Quote:

---

However, I still look at the 2000 election as perfect illustration of the methods not mattering to GOP, as long as the result suits them

---

I believe it was Gore who initiated the court battle.

I havent been looking at this thread because I figured it would all be idle speculation as its way to early to say anything about Rove.. but now weve got people contesting the florida election, still!? ~:confused:

Give it a freaking rest. The country affirmed their support of Bush's leadership last election.. if he really was a fraudulent president, that was the time for the american people to show it - and they gave him support in huge numbers. Yah, democracy, they've heard of it. ~;)

Now lets get back on topic as if its really worth our time ~D It seems this whole thing like I imagined is nonsense.

Quote:

---

Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005 12:06 a.m. EST

Ex-Prosecutor: Plame Leak Not Illegal

The former prosecutor who helped draft the law that Democrats say was violated when someone in the Bush administration leaked a CIA worker's name to columnist Robert Novak now says that no laws were broken in the case.

Writing with First Amendment lawyer Bruce Sanford in the Washington Post recently, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the law in question, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Story Continues Below


Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Noted the Timesman: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

So why – with a special prosecutor now threatening to toss Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller in jail if they don't give up their sources in the Plame case – aren't their lawyers invoking the "no laws were broken" defense?

Explains the National Review's Rich Lowry: The Miller-Cooper defense hasn't made this argument because it would be too embarrassing to admit that the Bush administration's "crime of the century" wasn't really a crime at all, especially after a year and a half of media chest-beating to the contrary.

"It was just a Washington flap played for all it was worth by the same news organizations now about to watch their employees go to prison over it," says Lowry.

"That's the truth that the media will go to any length to avoid."

---

Theres the truth I hope you can handle it. ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Theres the truth I hope you can handle it. ~:handball:

---

Interesting ... an article with no byline, from a web site promoting hard-right books ... can't find any other articles to back it up ...

Huh. What's even stranger is that part of the argument in the NewsMax article is that Plame wasn't on any covert mission within the last five years ... so what was she doing on that trip looking for yellowcake? Was she doing that without directions from the CIA? And if so, why did she ask the CIA to send her under cover of her hubby? Strange strange strange.

Here's a slightly more balanced take:

Quote:

---

Did Rove break the law? Experts far from certain
Whether Bush's aide knew about operative's covert status is key

By SHANNON MCCAFFREY
Knight Ridder Tribune News

WASHINGTON - Karl Rove talked. But did President Bush's deputy chief of staff break the law when he told a reporter that an administration critic's wife worked for the CIA?

Legal experts said the answer to that question is far from clear. It appears to hinge on whether Rove knew that Valerie Plame was a covert officer and blew her cover anyway.

It's a tough legal hurdle for Patrick Fitzgerald, the special federal prosecutor who has been investigating the Plame case for more than 18 months.

"He has to find somebody who would say Rove knew that she was covert, that he knew that the government was making an effort to hide her identity," said Philip Heymann, former deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration. "It would appear he is working very, very hard to prove that because without it, you don't have a crime."

Enacted in 1982 to protect undercover CIA officials, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to intentionally identify a covert agent.

Former federal prosecutor Lawrence Barcella said one large problem for Fitzgerald was that the statute making it a crime to identify a covert operative was virtually untested.

"This (the leak case) is exceedingly complex and all new," Barcella said. "Understandable care is being taken to make sure you're not stretching the statute beyond what was intended."

The odyssey of the Plame case began with a trip to Africa in 2002 by her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium for nuclear weapons. Wilson discounted the claim in an article published on The New York Times op-ed page on July 6, 2003.

A few days later, columnist Robert Novak outed Plame as an undercover operative, saying she had suggested Wilson make the trip to Africa.

The revelations about Rove came about after Time magazine turned over notes and e-mails from reporter Matthew Cooper when Fitzgerald threatened to jail the journalist for not disclosing names of the people he had talked with about Plame.

Cooper told his boss he had a telephone conversation with Rove five days after Wilson's article appeared. According to Cooper's e-mails, obtained by Newsweek, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife, whom he didn't name, "apparently works" for the CIA.

Even though Rove apparently didn't use Plame's name in talking to Cooper, legal experts said the criminal case against him wouldn't be hindered because he used enough information about her to make it clear whom he was talking about.

Former prosecutors speculate Fitzgerald could be putting together a conspiracy case.

More than a year ago, President Bush pledged to fire the person who leaked Plame's identity. On Tuesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Rove continues to have Bush's confidence. But several prominent Democrats have suggested that Rove, the architect of Bush's 2004 re-election campaign, be fired.

Houston Chronicle news services contributed to this report.

---

Quote:

---

Here's a slightly more balanced take:

---

How is that more balanced? As always lawyers disagree. I think the one that wrote the law knows better.

Quote:

---

Interesting ... an article with no byline, from a web site promoting hard-right books ... can't find any other articles to back it up ...

---

Try typing in the title and google it remember?

At any rate how are you going to get passed all this

Quote:

---

Says Toensing, "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG says, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame qualify, Toensing says: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S., a prospect Toensing says is unlikely.

Other signs that no laws were broken include the fact that after Plame was outted, the CIA's general counsel took no steps to prosecute Novak, as has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances.

Neither did then-CIA Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as is also routinely done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication.

In fact, the myth that laws were violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, in a column by New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof, who explained that Valerie Plame had abandoned her covert role a full nine years before.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

Kristof also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

---

Basicly your article says the samething. They aint gonna tree this Bear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Try typing in the title and google it remember?

---

G, on the web site where the article was featured there is no byline, no attribution, nada. I was referring to that.

Further, I fail to see how NewsMax justifies the claim that Plame was neither a covert operative nor active in the last five years. I seem to recall a certain trip outside the country looking for yellowcake in 2002. For which she required cover. Sounds covert to this lemur. And it was less than five years ago. (Or is the Gregorian calendar another piece of MSM liberal spin?)

Oh, wait, I see, they have their attribution in blue at the top. The multiple ads for muscle-building techniques blinded me.

Anyway, G, NewsMax looks like a stright-up partisan web site; believers preaching to believers. Sort of the blog equivalent of Rush. If you can locate any backup to non-operative, non-covert, didn't-do-any-covert-work-for-five-years theory, and if you can find it from a non-militia-sponsored web site, please post it.

Why would this case have been allowed to get to the Special Prosecutor if there was no law broken? Answer me that one, 'cause it's got me scratching my head.

[edit]

For those who may be curious about who owns NewsMax ...

Quote:

---

G, on the web site where the article was featured there is no byline, no attribution, nada. I was referring to that.

---

Oh really? dont you know who this guy is Carl Limbacher?

Quote:

---

Further, I fail to see how NewsMax justifies the claim that Plame was neither a covert operative nor active in the last five years.

---

Its all there in black and white.

Quote:

---

Why would this case have been allowed to get to the Special Prosecutor if there was no law broken? Answer me that one, 'cause it's got me scratching my head.

---

It wasnt directed ever at Rove. Explain that one to me? Maybe its the seriousness of the charge. How many times have we heard that one? The press once more thought they could get either Bush or Novak but instead one of their own went to jail. They were trying to report a false srory claiming that Cheney sent Wilson on that mission.In fact Rove is the wistle blower here. He had noo knowledge that she was an agent he only had heard rumors from reporters by the way that she got him the job. Thats all he said. The press has become another oposition party and is no longer interested in anything but their own power which is rapidly slipping. How is the times and post presented briefs in defence of their own reporters that no crime was committed here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

Why would this case have been allowed to get to the Special Prosecutor if there was no law broken? Answer me that one, 'cause it's got me scratching my head.

---

According to Rove's lawyer the special prosecutor has assured him that Rove is not and has not been the target of the investigation.

Quote:

---

Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

---

From the Washington Post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

According to Rove's lawyer the special prosecutor has assured him that Rove is not and has not been the target of the investigation.
From the Washington Post

---

Well, if the defense attorney says his client is innocent, then he must be, right?

As to the claim that Rove never 'identified' Plame, both Rove and his lawyer are parsing here. All Rove said was that he did not know her name and thus never used her name. But to say someone was 'Wilson's wife' is definitely identifying her. Maybe not in Bushspeak, but certainly in reality.

When Novak contacted the CIA and asked about Plame, he was told that she did work for the Agency, and that the CIA "asked him not to use her name.

The fact that Novak contacted the CIA at all means he knew that his article would most likely be damaging to her career or embarassing to Plame and Wilson. It makes no logical sense for him to be cautious, unless he knew beforehand that Plames name was a sensitive issue. Whoever gave the information to Novak, knew full well that Plame was CIA, and that her name and employ were sensitive.

Yes, and we still don't know who gave Novak her name.