View Poll Results: Which one is going to jail for Treason?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Karl Rove

    26 61.90%
  • "Scooter" Libby

    12 28.57%
  • John Bolton

    4 9.52%
Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 389101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 409
  1. #241  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This is a red herring! Let's address who leaked info about a covert agent.
    Then how come the article that BARYE posted Here On Post #59 squeak by without being a Red Herring when it addressed nearly all the same issues, but was against Bush?

    This article also deals with what has been posted on this thread and directly with the topic at hand by stating:

    But Mr. Wilson has been left on the defensive by the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, which found that, contrary to what he has said, his wife, Valerie Plame, appeared to have had a role in the decision to send him to Niger.

    In a letter this week to the chairman and the vice chairman of the intelligence committee, Mr. Wilson disputed the assertion that the plan to send him to Niger was suggested by his wife. Mr. Wilson said the comments she made about his background in a letter to her boss a week before he visited the C.I.A. to discuss the trip were intended to establish his bona fides and did not constitute a recommendation. Mr. Wilson also cited news accounts last year quoting unidentified intelligence officials as saying that Ms. Plame had not proposed Mr. Wilson for the trip. And he took exception to criticism by the committee's chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and other Republicans, who said he had gone on a media blitz to convince the world that Mr. Bush had lied.
    It may not be what you want to hear, but it is relevant to the overall picture of the whole situation.
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/15/2005 at 03:52 AM.
  2. #242  
    Source: Rove testifies reporter told him of CIA's identity

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...y_x.htm?csp=15

    Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

    The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

    ...................

    The person said Rove testified that Novak told him he had learned and planned to report in a weekend column that Wilson's wife, Plame, had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims of alleged nuclear material sales to Iraq.

    Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

    .................

    Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another reporter but had no recollection of which reporter had told him about it first, the source said.

    When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

    ...................

    But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

    Federal law prohobits goverment officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless outed his or her identity.

    ..............

    Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

    "If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
  3. #243  
    Since grand jury testimony is secret, and Rove would be the only one to release his statements, I dont know
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #244  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    Source: Rove testifies reporter told him of CIA's identity

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...y_x.htm?csp=15
    Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another reporter but had no recollection of which reporter had told him about it first, the source said.

    When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

    Rove told the grand jury that four days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and — in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations — told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name.

    An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.
    It looks like Rove revealed her covert status at least 3 different times.

    If Rove is going to claim that he didnt mean to do it, fine. But he cant really make a claim of ignorance because as someone with his security clearance, he should know that he shouldnt be discussing someones status without first verifying whether or not the information that Novak (or whomever) is requesting is actually out in the open. In other words, he either knew or should have known that he was doing something wrong.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  5. #245  
    T2, she wasn't "covert", and hadn't been since 1998.

    She was a WMD analyst. Judith Miller did a LOT of reporting on WMD. Who do you think leaked WMD info to Judity Miller?
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #246  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    T2, she wasn't "covert", and hadn't been since 1998.
    The CIA seems to think she was still covert. She may not have been active in the field but a lot og her contacts may have been. Also by releasing her identity, a CIA front company was burned in the process. This company dealt with the trafficing of WMD's, burning this front company has made America less safe.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    She was a WMD analyst. Judith Miller did a LOT of reporting on WMD. Who do you think leaked WMD info to Judity Miller?
    This is what makes it so curious, Valarie was involved with WMD and any claims that Cheney would make would have to be validated through her desk. Let's think for a minute. If Rove did indeed hear it Novak, and just confirmed it for Novak (still a crime) then where did he (Novak) hear it from? Judith Miller possibly? If someone had leaked the info to her then not given her clearance to talk about her source, the source could just deny it, therefore making Judith Miller the source. So the way she sees it she is taking the lesser of 2 evils by sitting in jail for obstruction of justice. The question now comes who is the other source? Could "Scooter" Lewis Libby be involved? If he is then this would bring it right back to Cheney's office (one of the leading misleaders of the Iraq war).

    Here is some stuff for you folks to chew on:

    Report Shows Karl Rove May Have Lied to Federal Agents, a Federal Crime, During Oct 2003 Testimony Into CIA Agent Leak
    By Jason Leopold

    Looks like Karl Rove did break the law, the same federal law that got Martha Stewart sentenced to six months in prison.

    ....

    On July 6, 2003 Wilson was interviewed for a story that appeared in the Washington Post and accused the White House of "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war." That same day he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times which said that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

    The very next day, July 7, 2003, the White House admitted it had erred in including the references about uranium in Bush's State of the Union speech.

    Two days later, two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington journalists, an administration official told The Post in an article published Sept. 28, 2003.

    Those two officials were Karl Rove and Lewis Libby.

    “The source elaborated on the conversations last week, saying that officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson,” the Post reported in the Sept. 28, 2003 story.

    On July 12, 2003, two days before Novak wrote his column, a Washington Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.

    That source was Karl Rove and the unidentified reporter was Walter Pincus who covers the White House.


    "Moreover, evidence suggests that President Bush was aware as early as October 2003 that Rove and I. Lewis ?Scooter? Libby, Vice President **** Cheney?s chief of staff, were the sources who leaked Plame?s undercover CIA status to reporters. And after the president was briefed about the issue the president said publicly that the source of the leak will never be found.

    Furthermore, a few aides to Condoleeza Rice, then head of the National Security Council, may have played a role as well by being the first officials to learn about Plame?s role as a CIA operative and giving that information to Rove, Libby and other senior administration officials."

    During the same week that Rove spoke to Time's Matt Cooper about Wilson, so did Scooter Libby and Libby went on the record for Cooper's July 17, 2003 story.

    In an exclusive interview with Time, Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME:


    "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail. The agency pointed out that Iraq already had 500 tons of uranium, portions of which came from Niger, according to the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA). The Vice President was unaware of the trip by Ambassador Wilson and didn't know about it until this year when it became public in the last month or so. "

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00227.htm
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #247  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Since grand jury testimony is secret, and Rove would be the only one to release his statements, I dont know
    What about his Lawyer? ALERT!!
  8. #248  
    Seems there's a lot of "lawyers" in here, on both sides.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  9. #249  
    I agree, as with most things in Washington it will all probably come down to the technicalities of the law....no one on either side really happy about the whole situation.
  10. #250  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    T2, she wasn't "covert", and hadn't been since 1998.
    When you say covert, what do you mean by it? I ask so that I am not confusing it with something else.
    link
    Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since claimed that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative—the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime. Critics contend that after decades as a Washington reporter Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. Indeed, a search of the Nexis database for the terms 'CIA operative' and 'agency operative' shows Novak correctly used them to describe covert CIA employees every single time they appear in his articles. Including the Plame article.
    As far as whether she was under 'covert' status:
    There is a need to produce evidence that Valerie Plame qualifies as a "covert agent" per § 426. Wilson later told CNN that his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said. Source: MSNBC News Service 7/15/05. While there must be evidence that she served outside the US, a single official trip overseas might suffice. There are published reports that Plame served in London and Brussels in the early to mid-90s. However, this would not be sufficient to qualify Plame as a "covert agent" under the statutory definition as one "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." § 426(4)(a)(ii).

    However, in an October 1, 2003 Knight Ridder report entitled "Justice Launches Probe Into CIA Leak," an anonymous CIA official was quoted as saying, "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," referring to the referral by the CIA to the Justice Department that a crime may have been committed.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    She was a WMD analyst.
    She probably was, but if she was with the 'undercover' or 'covert' status, it doesnt matter does it?
    She has described herself as an energy analyst for the private company Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Judith Miller did a LOT of reporting on WMD. Who do you think leaked WMD info to Judity Miller?
    You don't really want to change the subject that fast do you ? I thought the issue in this thread was who leaked Valerie Plame's identity...not who leaked WMD info to Judith Miller. (Maybe you can start that thread )
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #251  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree, as with most things in Washington it will all probably come down to the technicalities of the law....no one on either side really happy about the whole situation.
    Hobbes? How could you doubt me? Of course I will be happy no matter what happens as long as we follow the rule of law If, under the law, Rove did nothing illegal, then Im ok with it. I just want it to be investigated. (And for 1911, if they do an investigation into who was leaking WMD info to Miller, Im ok with that too.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  12. #252  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I agree, as with most things in Washington it will all probably come down to the technicalities of the law....no one on either side really happy about the whole situation.
    I was referring to the lawyers in this thread. People on one side who seem to know that Rove is guilty and should be shot at sunrise. And the people who know he has done no wrong, and this is all a get even smear campaign.

    It's probably some of both.

    The point I was making is, if Rove did something wrong, he would've been charged. If not, he would've been exonerated. Nothing is known one way or the other so far, but to listen to people carry on, you couldn't tell.
    MaxiMunK.com The Forum That Asks, "Are You Not Entertained?"

    Remember: "Anyone that thinks the Treo should just work right out of the box, shouldn't own a Treo..."
  13. #253  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Hobbes? How could you doubt me? Of course I will be happy no matter what happens as long as we follow the rule of law If, under the law, Rove did nothing illegal, then Im ok with it. I just want it to be investigated. (And for 1911, if they do an investigation into who was leaking WMD info to Miller, Im ok with that too.)
    I wasn't doubting you...I was just making an observation of the underline workings of daily life with Politicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by Insertion
    I was referring to the lawyers in this thread. People on one side who seem to know that Rove is guilty and should be shot at sunrise. And the people who know he has done no wrong, and this is all a get even smear campaign.

    It's probably some of both.

    The point I was making is, if Rove did something wrong, he would've been charged. If not, he would've been exonerated. Nothing is known one way or the other so far, but to listen to people carry on, you couldn't tell.
    But in the real world.... ...the media are the Lawyers presenting the fair and unbalanced evidence and the readers (and editors) are the judge and jury.....and I think that for many the verdict has already been made.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #254  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You know when his wife had an unfortunate miscarraige the freak brought the 20 week developed fetal tissue home so the siblings could say goodbye to their "brother". Ewwwww.
    That is just sooooo wrong on so many levels!!
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #255  
    Just some info that I haven't seen posted on this thread. Wasn't Karl Rove fired in '92 from the elder Bush's campaign for leaking info to .......................... none other than one Robert Novak?
  16. #256  
    Ya...I read about that the other day in a newspaper at the Doctor's office. I actually read through several local and national papers, and can't recall which one actually had the article.

    From what I recall....There was a leak about an opponent of the Bush-Quayle campaign. The bottom line was that there were several people who had the information with opportunities to leak it, but Rove received a lot of accusations because he obviously had the most motivation. No one knows who did it and no confirmed evidence was shown that Rove did it.....which is probably why most news reports are not including it, except maybe in passing. Due to all the bad press in a struggle campaign, Rove was let go.

    There is a lot of reports of this on sites like BustRoveNow, DownWithBush type sites....but they seem to only give half of the info I read about.
  17. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #257  
    Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in CIA Story

    WASHINGTON - Vice President **** Cheney's top aide was among the sources for a Time magazine reporter's story about the identity of a CIA officer, the reporter said Sunday.

    Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

    The White House refused last week to repeat those assertions when it was revealed that Rove had told Time reporter Matt Cooper that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson apparently works at the CIA and that she had authorized his trip to Africa. The CIA dispatched Wilson to check out a report that the government of Niger had sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq for nuclear weapons.

    Cooper said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he spoke to Libby after first learning about Wilson's wife from Rove.

    According to Cooper, Libby and Rove were among the government officials referred to in Cooper's subsequent Time story that said Wilson's wife was a CIA official and that she was involved in sending her husband on a trip to Africa.

    -snip-

    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...nvestigation_1
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #258  
    So the question begs to be asked, when will the (R)s start to try and smear the prosecuter in the CIA leak case? Ken Mehlman dodges the question if he will respect Fitzgeralds decision if he indicts Karl Rove.

    __________________________________________________________________
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/17.html#a3990


    Ken Mehlman: Would not Pledge not to attack Fitzgerald if he indicts any White House official

    Mehlman appeared on MTP today and started off using the "chewbacca defense": ...on the basis of information which actually vindicates and exonerates him, not implicates him." Then Mehlman said this:

    Video -WMP

    Video-QT

    Russert: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.

    Mehlman: I do.

    Russert: If in fact he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?

    Mehlman: Uh, first of all, I'm the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I'm not an attorney for anybody. Uh, the fact is, uh, I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this. I can't speak for.

    Russert: But, but if he indicts White House officials, will you pledge today because you have tremendous confidence in him that you will not criticize his decision?

    Mehlman: Uh, again, I'm not going to speculate. I have tremendous confidence in him. I look to him to get to the bottom of this. Whatever he does, I can assure you people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by, but --

    Podesta: Say yes

    Mehlman: I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.

    Russert: But if you have tremendous confidence in him, then you will accept and respect his decision?

    Mehlman: I look forward to hearing what he has to say and I intend to respect what he has to say, but again I'm not going to speculate on what he might do.
    Last edited by NRG; 07/17/2005 at 04:51 PM. Reason: Add a link
  19. #259  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So the question begs to be asked, when will the (R)s start to try and smear the prosecuter in the CIA leak case? Ken Mehlman dodges the question if he will respect Fitzgeralds decision if he indicts Karl Rove.

    __________________________________________________________________
    http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/17.html#a3990


    Ken Mehlman: Would not Pledge not to attack Fitzgerald if he indicts any White House official

    Mehlman appeared on MTP today and started off using the "chewbacca defense": ...on the basis of information which actually vindicates and exonerates him, not implicates him." Then Mehlman said this:

    Video -WMP

    Video-QT

    Russert: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.

    Mehlman: I do.

    Russert: If in fact he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?

    Mehlman: Uh, first of all, I'm the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I'm not an attorney for anybody. Uh, the fact is, uh, I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this. I can't speak for.

    Russert: But, but if he indicts White House officials, will you pledge today because you have tremendous confidence in him that you will not criticize his decision?

    Mehlman: Uh, again, I'm not going to speculate. I have tremendous confidence in him. I look to him to get to the bottom of this. Whatever he does, I can assure you people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by, but --

    Podesta: Say yes

    Mehlman: I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.

    Russert: But if you have tremendous confidence in him, then you will accept and respect his decision?

    Mehlman: I look forward to hearing what he has to say and I intend to respect what he has to say, but again I'm not going to speculate on what he might do.

    after watching much of the sunday talking head shows, and reading a bunch of articles, I've come to believe that Fitzgerald is seriously examining this national security atrocity.

    I sense that he will seek an indictment of high level people including rove -- but to do so he feels as though he needs more sources to confirm criminal behavior than just Cooper and that ****** novak.

    In that context his demanding Judith Miller to testify makes more sense. (Obviously I hope he would not have imprisoned a reporter unless it was as significant as this.)

    I'm no fan of hers -- she was a cheerleader for the phoney WMD search, writing numerous false articles where she claimed to have inside knowledge of Iraqi WMD etc.

    Nonetheless I respect her willingness on principle to go to jail. I wish I could more completely agree with her position though.

    Rove was not a whistleblower trying to keep his job while secretly informing the world. He is a senior govt. offical -- one who knowingly violated the law in order to slander asomeone who was a whistleblower.

    As such -- and given that Rove released reporters from their confidentiality pledge, I want Judith Miller to testify.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #260  
    Waxman's letter to Bush

    Waxman: New Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order

    Author: Rep. Henry A. Waxman

    Published on July 18, 2005, 12:22

    Dear Mr. President:

    In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent.1 Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."2

    Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."3 Under the executive order, the available sanctions include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."4

    Under the executive order, you may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, you have an affirmative obligation to take "appropriate and prompt corrective action."5 And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove "intentionally disclose" the identity of a covert agent.6 In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the express terms of the executive order, you are required to impose administrative sanctions – such as removal of office or termination of security clearance – if Mr. Rove or other officials acted "negligently" in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson's identity.7

    I have enclosed a fact sheet on Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement and its legal implications, which provides additional detail about the President's national security obligations. I urge you to act in compliance with Executive Order 12958 and your responsibility to safeguard national security secrets.

    Sincerely,

    Henry A. Waxman
    Ranking Minority Member


    1 Press Conference: President Discusses Job Creation With Business Leaders (Sept. 30, 2003).
    2 Bush: CIA Leaker Would Be Fired if Crime Committed, Reuters (July 18, 2005); Bush: Any Criminals in Leak to Be Fired, Associated Press (July 18, 2005).
    3 Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b).
    4 Id. at sec. 5.5(c).
    5 Id. at sec. 5.5(e).
    6 50 U.S.C. sec. 421(a).
    7 Executive Order 12958, sec. 5.5(b).

Posting Permissions