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 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021
Results 401 to 409 of 409
  1. #401  
    All I hear are crickets, chirping in the background. Merry Fitzmas, and to all a good night!

    Bush should pardon Libby.
  2. #402  
    Let's have a special prosecutor assigned to chase Mr. Fitzpatrick for a couple of years.
  3. #403  
    My, the silence is telling.
  4. #404  
    So who is going to jail for treason?
  5. #405  
    Looks like no one. Another media enabled, Dem smear campaign that failed.
  6. #406  
    So who is going to jail for treason?
    It indeeds looks like no one will be going to jail on account of treason, even though it's difficult to classify outing a CIA agent as anything else.

    I can paraphrase, but media matters covers this a whole lot better than I could.

    The silence not only here but on left wing blogs and the like is strange considering the rest of the media has treated this event as if the white house is somehow 'cleared' because of some 'gossip'.

    From the linked article, it remains that:
    1. Time Magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper testified _*_Before the Grand Jury_*_ that Karl Rove was his primary source & Scooter Libby as a Confirming source.
    2. Judith Miller of the New York Times identified Scooter Libby as her primary source.
    3. Now we know Armitage was Novak's Primary source.


    Based on the above, it is plain that there was concerted effort on the part of the white house to disseminate this information, and for whatever reason, treason is no longer a jailworthy offense. Lying to a grand jury is, and that's the reason Libby's on his way to the crowbar hotel, and the reason Rove was in hiding and gained 20 pounds before he was finally told he wouldn't face charges (perjury is difficult to prove, what Rove did was said he 'forgot' details, and realizing that might get him jailed, came back before the grand jury 'remembering' new details. I think he went back something like 5 times)

    Anyway, it seems this show may indeed be over, Libby's trial in 2007 will perhaps lead to more information if Bush doesn't pardon him first. And there's still Plame's lawsuit against Libby, Rove and Cheney, but that seeks damages not jailtime.
  7. #407  
    Quote Originally Posted by g-funkster View Post
    Based on the above, it is plain that there was concerted effort on the part of the white house to disseminate this information...
    Yeah, we know that. They said they were trying to discredit the source.

    But the accusations made against them were: 1) They broke the law and should go to jail, and 2) Outing Plame was a deliberate act of retaliation against Wilson for challenging the Administration.

    1) After a 2 1/2 year investigation, all we have is a perjury charge against Libby; so it's apparent that there was no underlying crime committed.

    2) The Armitage revelation shows that the retaliation accusation has no credibility.


    Btw, thanks for the link. Media Matters did a surprisingly good job of aggregating main-stream media positions explaining why the Plame affair is over. I'm looking forward to Plame's civil trial, if it isn't withdrawn first.
  8. #408  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Yeah, we know that. They said they were trying to discredit the source....

    2) The Armitage revelation shows that the retaliation accusation has no credibility
    How could there be possibly no credibility when you said yourself they were 'trying to discredit the source'? How about some? The civil suit is indeed very interesting because most normal people can follow the logic that one could possibly lead to the other.

    The armitage revelation changes nothing, check the timeline of events below:
    1. June, 2003: Armitage tells Woodward about Plame; Woodward sits on the information.
    2. June 23, 2003: Libby tells Judy Miller Wilson's wife might work for the CIA.
    3. July 8, 2003: Libby gives Miller more details about Plame's position. Armitage meets with Novak and tells him.
    4. July 11, 2003: Rove tells Marc Cooper.
    5. July 14, 2003: Novak column about Valerie Plame.
    If you were to delete the part on July 8th where "Armitage meets with Novak and tells him", it would not change the fact that Novak published on the 14th.
  9. #409  
    How could there be possibly no credibility when you said yourself they were 'trying to discredit the source'?
    Joe Wilson lost most of his credibility a while ago when he proved to be a serial liar. But his accusation against Rove and Co. remained.

    The premise behind the accusation was that it was so unbelievable that outing Plame could have been inadvertent. Well, apparently it could.


    The civil suit is indeed very interesting because most normal people can follow the logic that one could possibly lead to the other.
    The big problem with Plame's civil suit is that Miller never published, and Cooper only confirmed after Novak had already published. From what's known so far, it appears that Libby did no direct harm, and Rove's role was to receive a call from Novak and confirm what Armitage already told Novak.

    Apparently most of the mainstream media don't follow your logic and think the matter is over. (See your Media Matters link. Also see the Washington Post, especially the last paragraph.)


    If you were to delete the part on July 8th where "Armitage meets with Novak and tells him", it would not change the fact that Novak published on the 14th.
    Did you really mean to say this? What would Novak have published if he hadn't learned about Wilson's wife from Armitage?
Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11161718192021

Posting Permissions