Karl Rove: Traitor?

Yeah, what a surprise that Novak would say exactly what he needed to say in order to cover his ass. I doubt his "confidential source" even exists.If Plame hadn't been a covert operative, the CIA wouldn't have sent the case over to the Justice Department in the first place. Why would they have reccomended a Justice Dept. investigation if they didn't think a crime had taken place?

So we aren't speaking the same language? The guy said everyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the investigation is a subject of the investigation.That means it does focus on him though not necessarily as the one they'll end up indicting (he could end up a witness instead), and not exclusively. Its hard to be the subject of an investigation and have no focus paid to onesself.By the way, I am not focused on Rove. I just got done saying you may have given a very real out for Rove. Indeed I didn't even really pay attention to him at all until this thread was started regarding potential evidence coming out.All I knew about him was that he was some fat dork hanging around Bush. The only people I knew about, or cared about were policymakers like Wolfowitz, Perle, Ashcroft, and one guy whose name slips my mind at the moment.If you see something come up about them, I might start drooling. This stuff on Rove just looks interesting, especially with its ironic hypocritical content.I should add there is still another administration official not named, which anyone who is interested must also be waiting to hear. So if Michael Moore was just doing a piece on Bush and Tenets legacy of errors at the CIA and in the process actually published the faces of covert operatives, though he was not told this by the CIA, only that he should not publish them at all, you'd be just peachy?When did Reps get wishy washy about taking care of our intel people? So a blowjob is worth costing the president his job, but smearing an heroic lifelong civil servant (because he said something against this administration) using lies to support the soon to be proven erroneous data of that administration is just fine with you?You said you were a Republican right? Hate politicians and sleazy tricks, and support our people in the military and intelligence arena? You mean a guy who might get in trouble says something that is yet unproven, contradicts his earlier statements, but might get him out of trouble?Hey, the CIA TOLD HIM NOT TO IDENTIFY HER. The identification could have harmed her, or it could have harmed the people she used to be in contact with, or it could kill future operations she was hoping to work on.His ORIGINAL line, which was that they just didn't tell him it would hurt anybody, doesn't really work against that. This NEW line is interesting. Why would they say all of that and then tell him not to identify her, which I assume he is still admitting?I suppose it could all be true, but then it is all very strange. We'll see. I have no idea which way it will go, but right now it is leaning slightly against Novak.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, it does sound fishy.Then again, that might be exactly when the prosecutor made the request, as a result of the increased media scrutiny. Why issue a gag order if there is no media attention? If Fitzgerald is honest and not responding to Administration influence, then a gag order is in place and should be complied with.If that is so, then cries of cover-up seem unfounded, no?Either way, poor Scotty is left twisting in the breeze on this one. That's one of he perils of that position. Hope he's getting paid well cause he's earning it.

All true. They thought a crime might have been committed that's why they sent it to DOJ. The questions that need to be answered are:Who first made her name public, and was she a covert CIA operative at the time.?The answers to these questions look increasingly like they have nothing to do with Rove.This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 07-15-2005 03:46 PM

Yeah, but that's the problem. There was no scrutiny until the day they began asking him, and then his nonanswers provoked more questions.It would be hard to argue that F knew there'd suddenly be scrutiny such that he'd pre-emptively gag them at that time.I might add that if that were true, the timing would of course not be part of the gag order. Indeed the gag order's placement in the timeline would only relieve pressure and drive questions down. Can you think of any reason for there to be a gag order on the general timing of another gag order? I think cover-up is unfounded anyway. It's just a clam-up, which they can do. Its certainly not illegal. It just makes them look dishonest and willing to cover for crooked friends.If that unusually timed gag order regarding the gag order was in place, then cries of a clam-up are unfounded.I'd then wonder what the hell F is doing to make life so hard for McC. Personally I hope they rip him off. I hate weasels like him which spin and deflect instead of actually facilitating the flow of information.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

C'mon, give the little guy a break. He's just doing his job. Although, I agree, he could be a little more informative without revealing anything specific about the investigation.BTW: I'm not ignoring your long list of questions. I'm just not in the mood for it right now. I'll get around to it a little later.

To me the speculations that are used to justifiy Rove are ridiculous at this point, more of interest is what will result from the investigations.Some more info ...It doesn't look good for Karl Rove (click)If Rove likes to play games with other peoples lives, then it is time for consequences.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Well yes and no. Your own citation I believe has revealed that Tal's point (and indeed sort of Monk's point) will stand and it us unlikely that Rove could be prosecuted under the IIPA.Thus debates of whethe Rove knew this or that fall by the wayside as she was apparently, if public knowledge is accurate on Plame, no longer technically a covert agent, even if she had just crossed that bar and was still hoping for more work in that capacity later.As you point out though, and as I suggested in an earlier post, there would have to be more laws relating to this than simply the IIPA. It really did not seem likely the CIA was going to warn Novak not to publish her identity, and also initiate a DOJ investigation on a leak, if there was not something serious in play.And of course I still scratch my head as Bush apologists turn yet again from their so called conservative positions, to writhe in the muck they derided Clinton over (in some cases rightly). This was clearly an abuse of power, and only for dirty partisan political trickery. If there was consistency, or shame, they'd be asking for his head regardless of criminal charges.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If you ask Rove, yeah, but who on Earth would pay attention to him at this point?

Bruce Stanford, a First Amendment Attourney was a guest on CNN July 14 2005. So Novak did call the CIA and they didn't tell him not to publish her name.And we have this: Another nail in the coffin. sourceSo who leaked her name? All roads point Joe Wilson and that poor lady that is rotting in jail for obstruction of justice.This message has been edited by Tal, 07-18-2005 09:20 AM

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

I just said you've already given the reason why Rove is likely not to be indicted on IIPA issues, so WTF are you doing continuing to argue about that subject?Is your new policy to not quit while you're finally ahead, until you're back to wrong again? Regardless of how an attorney wants to spin things at this point in time, Novak said they literally told him not to identify her. The idea that the CIA has to add bells and whistles if they really mean it is just nonsense.The lawyer didn't say they didn't tell him not to publish... he said they didn't actively try to stop him by going over his head, and thus we can conclude what they thought which is just that she won't get overseas jobs (which by the way could be a problem all in and of itself).That's like a crook saying that since a homeowner didn't shoot him, he must have given assent to steal everything. Because like in normal situations a homeowner will at least come out with a gun or bat or something, so he must have thought well I needed new furniture anyway.Just because a lawyer speculates on something, don't make it true. No we don't. That's called spin. When Novak calls an official and runs a story by him and then that official says "yeah I heard that too"... if in fact that is what happened... the official has corroborated a story and so given information.I mean how can anyone call Rove the recipient, if he said he had heard that too? Yeah I heard that too from you as you were saying it???? Does that even make sense?All it means is that Novak got it from yet another source first, which we already knew he had another source.And if you are not aware of the news yet, Cooper has now been talking and saying that Rove gave him the info as well as Cheney's guy "Libby" (which opens a whole new can of worms for you guys). Apparently Rove even said at the end of the phone call "I've already said too much".Thus that IS the final nail in the coffin. Rove was a source and did leak an identity of a CIA officer, and apparently even recognized he was crossing lines to do so. That is not to mention that he was inherently giving false info to discredit an administration critic.You may still be right that he does not fall under IIPA regulations. Why don't you quit while you are ahead? What????

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I can't believe you are sticking with this.Let's give it a bit and see how it plays out.

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

Sticking with what? You responded to my post stating that you had come up with the first valid argument that Rove could not be indicted, and that it looked like it would be true.You brought up a stale point which has already been rejected by one journalist himself, and then another which was rejected by the other journalist yesterday.All I did was point out how your post to me was errant. What was I supposed to not answer your reply or something?My question is why are you trying to continue arguing a case on the basis of patently false issues, when you have one good one?.. as far as legal culpability on IIPA goes. That's fine with me. But then don't post replies to my posts that weren't to you in the first place, until you want to discuss an issue.Actually things should be very amusing given that Cheney's guy has now been implicated as well. I can wait.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Source?Here's another rebutal to that from Joe Wilson HIMSELF. SourceOk, so there are reporters/sources giving different facts. Obviously some of them are lying. All we can do is wait and see how it plays out.This message has been edited by Tal, 07-18-2005 03:47 PM

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

So then you have no basis for your assertion that Rove should be gone. It’s not based on any wrong doing on his part in the current investigation. It is based on his past history. Well, if that’s the case, then maybe you should start a new thread and put forward your evidence in that thread. But in this thread, you have no basis. It hasn’t been proven that he leaked the name of an undercover agent, and it appears unlikely that it will ever be shown. He didn’t do it. I know you desperately want to believe otherwise, but it just ain’t so. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. It may help you feel better, but it won’t change the facts. I was showing the context in which the subject of Wilson’s wife was discussed in the conversation between Rove and Cooper. Cooper called Rove and the topic came up at the end of a long conversation about other things, that's when Cooper brought it up. Cooper brought up the topic of Wilson's trip. Cooper led Rove into that area. If Rove was actively trying to smear Wilson, wouldn't Rove be more proactive than to wait and hope that someone asked him about it?You may not like it, but again, facts are hard to deny for objective people. You, on the other hand, are obviously bitterly partisan and are loathe to think that Rove might escape the lynching being served up on the left.Notice how the media is now having to change it’s tune from calling for a conviction to just, well, Rove should go because, well, he’s a bad guy. Yea, he’s what’s wrong with everything in America. The truth is he is largely responsible for helping Bush win two elections to the dismay of Dems. They certainly hate him for that. Thankfully, we have a little thing called due process to prevent wild lynch mobs from excising hate filled vendettas. Why admit to wrong doing when none has been proven? Regarding Wilson, he IS a "big ole fat liar". The truth is what it is. Deny it at every turn if you like, choke on it if you must, but there it is nonetheless.Wilson, is the one making himself a target. Did you catch his prime time appearance last week with Democratic Senator Schuemer? Just wait, that’s only the beginning with Wilson.I’ll make a prediction. You’re going to see Wilson on TV talk shows, news interviews, and print media articles. You’ll see a lot of Plame also. They are going to be everywhere fanning the flames of the scandal because they will continue to get rich on the whole affair. Every appearance is another chance to bolster book sales.
But that’s not all.When Hollywood gets involved, they will really cash in. Hollywood will either put out a made for TV movie or maybe a full length flick like they did a few years ago about Reagan played by Brolin, remember that? Hollywood will jump at the chance to smear Bush. Look for it, it’s going to happen. Oh yes, we have only just begun to see the Wilson / Plame media campaign.