Did Rove commit treason?

[TheAnvil 0]

I think not. You see, having a realistic view on things, I fully realize that such a statment by Rove as quoted is innocuous and not damning in nature.

Now, stuffing classified documents and removing them from the National Archives, in contrast, is quite damning in nature - wouldn't you agree?

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[AlexCrowley 0]

http://billmon.org/archives/001989.html

This guy has compiled a number of contradictions from White House briefings and official statements and interviews with the press since the time of the original leak. Each quote is referenced to the official gov. transcript or media piece it was taken from.

I find it somewhat confusing that many who feel that Rove requires defending should turn to a modified Chewbacca defense to do so.

I have no investment in either side of the argument, but thought this link would provide some insight and primary source material.



From the compilation, the last few entries, links to originals are in the original page linked to above:

" Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.

The American Prospect
Plugging Leaks
March 8, 2004

I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name.

Karl Rove
CNN Interview
August 31, 2004

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else . . . Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl." Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove attorney Robert Luskin
CNN Interview
July 4, 2005

Luskin confirmed that Rove and Cooper had spoken prior to the publication of the original Time article, but said that Rove “did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA” nor did he “knowingly disclose classified information.”

Newsweek
Turning Up the Heat
July 6, 2005

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division . . . Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published.

Newsweek
Matt Cooper's Source
July 10, 2005"

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[billvon 3,072]

And an interesting press conference today. Recently I said the White House Press Corps has no balls, and are treating the issue very carefully. Looks like I stand corrected:

----------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

QUESTION: Do you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

QUESTION: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk.

You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

QUESTION: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

QUESTION: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything.

You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

QUESTION: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott...

(LAUGHTER)

... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation.

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.

We know each other very well. And it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation.

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

QUESTION: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. QUESTION: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

QUESTION: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

QUESTION: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

QUESTION: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

QUESTION: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

QUESTION: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

QUESTION: Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action...

MCCLELLAN: (inaudible)

QUESTION: Can I finish, please?

MCCLELLAN: I'll come back to you in a minute.

. . . .

QUESTION: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

QUESTION: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

QUESTION: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.
----------------------

While McClellan does not quite have Ari Fleischer's ability to actually suck information out of a room, he is learning fast.

[EricTheRed 0]

Source Bill?

Who was asking the questions?

illegible usually

[AlexCrowley 0]

I thought it was somewhat interesting given their docility over the past 4 years.

I don't think they've discovered any journalistic ethics/drive or a new set of testicles. My cynical side (and I'm pretty much one dimensional) thinks that they look at the opinion polls and produce news to fit the demographics.

Outlandish?

Think about the pre-election coverage, it looked like Bush was going to lose for a little while there and the US press started reporting many stories which had made the european press many weeks before but were definitely not supportive of the administration.

Bush wins and we're back to gentle stories in the press.

Two weeks ago and the new figures come out that Bush is at his lowest popularity rating ever and we're seeing stories in the mainstream press critical of Rove and the administration again, and some of it even includes what used to be called 'investigative journalism' something that seemed to have died in the US.

Still outlandish? consider that recent studies have shown that a person is more likely to read news with which they feel a personal resonance. It's why those on the left can call for Roves head (ROVE WAS SECRET SOURCE!) while the right think it's much ado about nothing ("Rove sets record straight about email to Cooper"). Yeah, made up headlines, but spend a few minutes browsing the 100+ Rove inspired headlines on Google news and play 'guess the affiliation'.

I dont believe the press is liberal or overly right wing. They are only conservative in so far as they have sponsers and need viewer and readership numbers to make more money. Of course, you have to wonder where Fox sits on the bell curve, their viewing numbers have crashed over the last few months.

Remember, nobody likes 'cognitive dissonance' or buzzwords that whitewash over uncomfortable truths.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Source Bill?

Who was asking the questions?

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.wmv

This is what was televised. While the movie is hosted on a liberal website I will leave it to you, the viewer, to decide whether the footage is authentic.

As of today the whitehouse press briefings are only available until 8th July, so keep checking back there under 'press briefings' for official transcripts from the gov.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I'm the haters will not be satisfied unless Rove is foung guilty.

---

And if that photo contained exculpatory information, the haters would claim it's Photo-shopped.

I'm sure you're right. Both sides -- ALL of you -- are completely nuts.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm the haters will not be satisfied unless Rove is foung guilty.

---

And if that photo contained exculpatory information, the haters would claim it's Photo-shopped.

I'm sure you're right. Both sides -- ALL of you -- are completely nuts.

On this point, we agree.

[Mockingbird 0]

Quote

What say you?

I answered "No."

Rove did nothing illegal. He didn't "out" Plame. For one thing, she was "outted" in the early 90s by Aldridge Ames (sp.?) and removed from the field. She was no longer a "covert operative." She's had an unclassified desk job for over 10 years.

I think it's just another attempt to make the Bush administration look bad worse.

JMO.

[AlexCrowley 0]

I hit reply on the last post, this is in no way a rebuttal to Mockingbirds post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A24144-2003Sep30¬Found=true

Both these pieces were written in 2003, 6 months after the scandal originally broke. Without access to premium sections of most of the dailies or access to lexis nexis this was probably the best source I could find, most of the 2003 stuff can be found on heavily left leaning blog style sites.

I would be very interested to read articles from that time period from conservative leaning papers, simply to see if it jibes with the facts as they're being discussed now.

With regards to the often quoted 'Wilson was lying' and 'Nukes *were* discussed!' threads I've seen around, it's my understanding, from reading some italian and british papers over the last couple of years, that Italian intelligence was heavily implicated in the production of the original forged documents - which was publicized widely by the journalist who was the original target of the 'leak', and that the intelligence pointing to previous talks was manufactured after the fact by these same individuals to cover up the forgeries released a couple of years later.

This might be something someone would want to follow up on. I recall reading the article online from the original source. If anyone can find information confirming or refuting it please let me know, as I dont have time to trawl thru google right now.

With regards to sourcing, I do not consider links to political blogs or discussion forums reliable primary sources. As far as media outlets with obvious political biases (of either stripe) carry far less weight with me vs major media outlets - who, over the balance of things, provide as centrist a viewpoint as possible (with some exceptions). Multiple sources are prefered, preferably from both a domestic and international source.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[wmw999 2,541]

Quote

Multiple sources are prefered, preferably from both a domestic and international source.

Kind of like investing in the stock market

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I sent out letters today to my representatives to push this issue into the light and make sure proper action is taken.

Even if Rove is going to claim ignorance of the law (how scary is that, the top advisor the the President can/will claim that??!!)....we should not have a man who will put the life of another American at stake just for political gain at such a top spot in our government. There is no excuse for this action other than personal financial and political gain.

Dump the bastard, now. Then put him on trial.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Interesting perspective in the WSJ today.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Nice spin! There is one thing as a reporter reporting the political moves in the beltway....which still seems suspect to this day (The assingment to Africa, etc). However, this does not mean that Rove is cleared for his actions.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Nice spin! There is one thing as a reporter reporting the political moves in the beltway....which still seems suspect to this day (The assingment to Africa, etc). However, this does not mean that Rove is cleared for his actions.

No spin. Just knowing you are the open-minded kind of guy I know you are, I thought you would appreciate another perspective. What parts of the article did you find to be untrue?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I didn't say anything was untrue. This whole thing is just a prime example on why politics in our country is in the gutter.

But, to nearly applaude Rove as a truth giver? eh. Now that is spin.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[billvon 3,072]

>Leftists spinning and making fools of themselves - nothing more.

Looks like Bush is spinning and making a fool of himself:

---------------------
Bush: Aides Who 'Committed a Crime' Will Be Fired
By James Gerstenzang, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, whose White House is facing increasing pressure in the investigation of the public identification of a covert CIA operative, said today that he would fire anyone found to have committed a crime.

Last year, he had said he would fire anyone who had leaked such information. Thus, his remarks today appeared to shift his standard, allowing continued service in his administration until the commission of a crime had been established, rather than simply the determination that classified information had been leaked.
---------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-071805leak_lat,0,2743579.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The classic setup. In a few weeks he will be explaining how he really didn't say "I'll fire anyone who leaked information", that that was interpreted wrong by the press. Sure, Rove may have leaked info, but that was after a reporter told him, and he never actually mentioned her first name, and how was he supposed to know that the identity of a CIA agent working on a WMD containment program was sensitive?

And thus the latest right wing standard emerges. Lie about getting a blowjob = impeachable offense. Shoot an enemy in Vietnam = war crime. Blow a US agent's cover for political gain = why are the lefts spinning and making fools of themselves over nothing at all?

[Alias 0]

I thought in order to be a "covert CIA operative" and receive such status, you must be operating on behalf of the CIA outside of the US or have been in the past 5 years.

Not sure if Africa in 97 would secure her that status. Which could mean all this is BS and another political tug of war

Carpe Diem

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

I thought in order to be a "covert CIA operative" and receive such status, you must be operating on behalf of the CIA outside of the US or have been in the past 5 years.

Not sure if Africa in 97 would secure her that status. Which could mean all this is BS and another political tug of war

Yea,

trying to ruin someone's life (regardless of their status) just because their husband tried to tell the truth about an issue like nuclear weapons is a totally acceptable way to run a government

/sarcasm off/

I don't care if she was covert, or if Rove named her. What I do mind is there is no longer any sense of fair play or MORALITY in the White House.

IMO it's immoral to try to get revenge on someone because they 'snitched' on you.

At least as immoral as getting a BJ.

One is a betrayal of trust between man and wife.
The other is a betrayal of the national interest.

illegible usually

[Gravitymaster 0]

Depends on what the definition of "Leak" is.

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

What I do mind is there is no longer any sense of fair play or MORALITY in the White House.

Not trying to be too sarcastic... when was there a sense of fair play or MORALITY in any part of government?

I think all this ugliness is just how all politicians are. They may go into initially with lofty goals but they soon become what surrounds them and fall into the same dung heap as those that have been there before.

If my son ever becomes a politician, I'll change my name. I'd be ashamed.

"What's the definition of a cry shame - a bus load of politicians going over a cliff with an empty seat"

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[TheAnvil 0]

We shall see...as for now, I am still chuckling at the leftists and their darling leftmedia over this. Especially our good Senator Schumer.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

He'll never be convicted for it. He never fully named her.

I think his intentions were/are pretty clear though.

[Alias 0]

Agreed. She does not qualify for the status that would provide the law to be broken by Rove.

Ugly politics, yes. Treason no.

Carpe Diem

[TheAnvil 0]

From BOORTZ's news this morning:

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS REMAIN

As week two of the scandal that wasn't continues to unfold, two unanswered questions remain. And except for a few scant reporters, the mainstream media is making absolutely no attempt to answer them. The reason? The answer to those questions would undermine the left's big lie about Karl Rove being the focus of the investigation. The questions are:

1.) Was Valerie Plame a covert agent? The 1982 statute under which anyone who divulged her name would be prosecuted clearly states she must have been in the field in the last 5 years. So far, all the evidence says no. Her husband, Joe Wilson, was confronted with this very question Sunday. He refused to answer. If she was not in the field as an agent in the last 5 years, all of this is a grand waste of time.

2.) Why is Judith Miller sitting in jail? Who is she protecting, and why is the New York Times refusing to give her up? She gathered information for a story she never wrote, and now she's sitting in jail to protect that source. The New York Times is no friend of the Bush administration, so if it was Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, they'd sell them out in a minute. No...Judith Miller is protecting someone else. And nobody knows who it is.

Until we have the answers to those two questions, there's absolutely nothing new about Valerie Plamegate.

TWISTING BUSH'S WORDS

Yesterday, President Bush spoke to the media, and he was asked if he stood by his pledge to fire anyone in his administration who leaked Valerie Plame's name. Here's what he said:

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here. And it's being played out in the press. And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Ah ha! The media immediately ran right out and wrote a bunch of stories accusing Bush of changing his position. To them, it sounded like he wasn't going to fire anyone unless they committed a crime." Ted Kennedy put his pants on long enough to run right out and issue a press release condemning Bush for moving the goal posts. The only problem?

Bush's position hasn't move one bit. On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, here is what he said: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Essentially the same thing.

The mainstream media these days really is slowly graduating from liberal bias to outright political propaganda.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!