RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bushgate

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:
I wonder what you were saying during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Because that wasn't technically illegal, it was just viewed as immoral

---

When did they legalize perjury? Because that is what Clinton was charged with and that is what he was ultimately disbarred for.

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't look good for Karl Rove
By John Dean
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com


Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 2:42 p.m. EDT (18:42 GMT)


(FindLaw) -- As the scandal over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity has continued to unfold, there is a renewed focus on Karl Rove -- the White House deputy chief of staff whom President Bush calls his political "architect."

Newsweek has reported that Matt Cooper, in an e-mail to his bureau chief at Time magazine, wrote that he had spoken "to Rove on double super-secret background for about two min[ute]s before he went on vacation ..." In that conversation, Rove gave Cooper "big warning" that Time should not "get too far out on Wilson."

Rove was referring, of course, to former Ambassador Joe Wilson's acknowledgment of his trip to Africa, where he discovered that Niger had not, in fact, provided uranium to Iraq that might be part of a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program.

Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was ... [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.)

Only the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, and his staff have all the facts on their investigation at this point, but there is increasing evidence that Rove (and others) may have violated one or more federal laws. At this time, it would be speculation to predict whether indictments will be forthcoming.

Identities Protection Act

As I pointed out when the Valerie Plame Wilson leak first surfaced, the Intelligence Identities And Protection Act is a complex law. For the law to apply to Rove, a number of requirements must be met.

Rove must have had "authorized access to classified information" under the statute. Plame was an NCO (non-covered officer). White House aides, and even the president, are seldom, if ever, given this information. So it is not likely Rove had "authorized access" to it.

In addition, Rove must have "intentionally" -- not "knowingly" as has been mentioned in the news coverage -- disclosed "any information identifying such a covert agent." Whether or not Rove actually referred to Mrs. Wilson as "Valerie Plame," then, the key would be whether he gave Matt Cooper (or others) information that Joe Wilson's wife was a covert agent.

Also, the statute requires that Rove had to know, as a fact, that the United States was taking, or had taken, "affirmative measures to conceal" Valerie Plame's covert status. Rove's lawyer says he had no such knowledge.

In fact, there is no public evidence that Valerie Wilson had the covert status required by the statute. A covert agent, as defined under this law, is "a present or retired officer or employee" of the CIA, whose identity as such "is classified information," and this person must be serving outside of the United States, or have done so in the last five years.

There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law designed to protect covert CIA agents. There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated. In particular, I have in mind the laws invoked by the Bush Justice Department in the relatively minor leak case that it vigorously prosecuted, though it involved information that was not nearly as sensitive as that which Rove provided Matt Cooper (and possibly others).

Leak prosecution precedent
I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a Ph.D. in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA.

Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)

Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, count one of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush administration would handle leakers.

Precedent bodes ill for Rove
Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super-secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Rove.

Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

"In my view," he explained, "it is a very serious offense because of the risk that comes with it, and part of that risk is because of the position" that Randel held in DEA. But the risk posed by the information Rove leaked is multiplied many times over; it occurred at a time when the nation was considering going to war over weapons of mass destruction. And Rove was risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Judge Story acknowledged that Randel's leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held."

Is not the same true of Rove? Rove had no idea what the specific consequences of giving a reporter the name of a CIA agent (about whom he says he knew nothing) would be--he only knew that he wanted to discredit her (incorrectly) for dispatching her husband to determine if the rumors about Niger uranium were true or false.

Given the nature of Valerie Plame Wilson's work, it is unlikely the public will ever know if Rove's leak caused damage, or even loss of life of one of her contracts abroad, because of Rove's actions. Dose anyone know the dangers and risks that she and her family may face because of this leak?

It was just such a risk that convinced Judge Story that "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that's what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense." Cannot the same be said about Rove's leak? It dealt with matters related to national security; if the risk Randel was taking was a "tremendous" risk, surely Rove's leak was monumental.

While there are other potential violations of the law that may be involved with the Valerie Plame Wilson case, it would be speculation to consider them. But Karl Rove's leak to Matt Cooper is now an established fact.

First, there is Matt Cooper's e-mail record. And Cooper has now confirmed that he has told the grand jury he spoke with Rove. If Rove's leak fails to fall under the statute that was used to prosecute Randel, I do not understand why.

There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to President Nixon.

---

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:
Here's another lawyers perspective. This one though has some experience in White House scandals..

Quote:

---

It doesn't look good for Karl Rove
By John Dean
FindLaw Communist
Special to CNN.com


Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 2:42 p.m. EDT (18:42 GMT)


(FindLaw) -- As the scandal over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity has continued to unfold, there is a renewed focus on Karl Rove -- the White House deputy chief of staff whom President Bush calls his political "architect."

Newsweek has reported that Matt Cooper, in an e-mail to his bureau --- He has to be guilty, because I want him to be. Please we haven't been doing very well at the polls we NEED this one, please just let us have this one. We'll put Howard Dean in front of the mic more if you just let us have this! --- nerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

John W. Dean, a FindLaw communist, is a former counsel to President Nixon.

---

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Speaking of straight talk:

At the beginning of this thread, certain posters were all proceeding from the assumption that Rove was guilty of some crimes, including, but not limited to, treason.

Three pages later, the debate seems to be shifting to an assumption that he is probably not guilty of any crime but that he should be fired anyway.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Your comparison is flawed.

Capone was an organized crime figure, who was charged with a relatively minor crime because they could not prosecute him on more violent ones.

Furthermore, no one is saying that Rove broke the law on multiple occasions. It's one specific incident that is under investigation. So your "finger in many pies" theory fails also.

---

How much more violent can you get than starting a war?

Quote:

---

magicjay said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Your comparison is flawed.

Capone was an organized crime figure, who was charged with a relatively minor crime because they could not prosecute him on more violent ones.

Furthermore, no one is saying that Rove broke the law on multiple occasions. It's one specific incident that is under investigation. So your "finger in many pies" theory fails also.

---

How much more violent can you get than starting a war?

---

Oh, the humanity!

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

unrestrained id said:
Here's another lawyers perspective. This one though has some experience in White House scandals..

Quote:

---

It doesn't look good for Karl Rove
By John Dean
FindLaw Communist
Special to CNN.com


Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 2:42 p.m. EDT (18:42 GMT)


(FindLaw) -- As the scandal over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity has continued to unfold, there is a renewed focus on Karl Rove -- the White House deputy chief of staff whom President Bush calls his political "architect."

Newsweek has reported that Matt Cooper, in an e-mail to his bureau --- He has to be guilty, because I want him to be. Please we haven't been doing very well at the polls we NEED this one, please just let us have this one. We'll put Howard Dean in front of the mic more if you just let us have this! --- nerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

John W. Dean, a FindLaw communist, is a former counsel to President Nixon.

---

---

---

I'm actually deeply interested as to WBM's rationale for calling John Dean a "communist"?

I'm all ears.

Incidentally, only 25% of American's believe Bush is telling the truth.

You didn't think your furious spin was going to work forever did you?

Quote:

---

Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans -- much higher, but still under half in the president's own party. And doubt about the administration's cooperation has grown as much among Republicans -- by 22 points since September 2003 -- as it has among others.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PollVault/story?id=949950

---

Quote:

---

Lou Dobbs Tonight, (7/15/05) as Lou was introducing a piece on the Rove story.

Lou says, "...Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor. Danna Bash reports." Immediately after that you can clearly hear a female voice on mic whispering "that's bullshit". Then Dana Bash continues with her report.

Video-WMP only (it's low quality)

---

Moving the goalposts. Bush really does this sort of thing all the time.

September 29, 2003:

Quote:

---

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

---

Quote:

---

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

---

Quote:

---

Bush: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

---

Seriously, think about what he said today. It was absolutely meaningless, yet brilliant in its deceptiveness. If someone in my administration is sent to jail I won't keep them on the federal payroll. Well bully for you, big boy. I can see why they call you "commander in chief." No decision, however difficult, stumps you.

Tomorrow Bush might even tell us that if someone on his staff dies, they will no longer work in his administration.

Bush had it right back in 2003. But he's not a man of his word.

Quote:

---

I think the American people--I hope the American-I don't think, let me--I hope the American people trust me.-George W. Bush

---

Quote:

---

Sept. 29, 2003

Q: You said this morning, quote, "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved." How does he know that?

A: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. ... I've said that it's not true. ... And I have spoken with Karl Rove.

Q: It doesn't take much for the president to ask a senior official working for him, to just lay the question out for a few people and end this controversy today.

A: Do you have specific information to bring to our attention? ... Are we supposed to chase down every anonymous report in the newspaper? We'd spend all our time doing that."

Q: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, "Did you ever have this information?"

A: I've made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was.

---

Quote:

---

Oct. 7, 2003

Q: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff), Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams (National Security Council official) to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

A: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They are good individuals. They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

---

Quote:

---

Oct. 10, 2003

Q: Earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

Q: So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

A: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q: They were not involved in what?

A: The leaking of classified information.

---

Quote:

---

July 11, 2005:

Q: Do you want to retract your statement that Rove, Karl Rove, was not involved in the Valerie Plame expose?

A: I appreciate the question. This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.

Q: But Rove has apparently commented, through his lawyer, that he was definitely involved.

A: You're asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: I'm saying, why did you stand there and say he was not involved?

A: Again, while there is an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to be commenting on it nor is ... .

Q: Any remorse?

A: Nor is the White House, because the president wanted us to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what we're doing.

---

Quote:

---

Reporter ties Cheney aide to CIA story

Time identifies chief of staff as 2d source
By Diedtra Henderson, Globe Staff | July 18, 2005

WASHINGTON -- I. Lewis ''Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, was a second source for a Time magazine article that revealed the identity of a covert CIA agent, the magazine reported yesterday, undercutting repeated White House denials.

For two years, the Bush administration has said that neither top presidential adviser Karl Rove nor Libby was involved in identifying Valerie Plame, the covert CIA agent first named in a July 2003 article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak.

Last week, Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, was identified as a confidential source of Time reporter Matthew Cooper and that disclosure led to some Democrats calling for Rove's resignation while others pressed for the revocation of his security clearance. The disclosure also resulted in the White House no longer denying Rove's involvement and instead declining to comment because the matter is under investigation.

The partisan attacks are expected to continue this week with Libby -- a neoconservative and member of the team planning for the war -- being linked again to the story, and as Congress hears testimony backing a federal shield law to protect reporters from testifying about unnamed sources. It was reported last year that Libby waived a confidentiality agreement with Cooper, allowing him to give testimony, but the topic of their conversation was not known.

Republicans continued yesterday to defend Rove. Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, appearing on NBC's ''Meet the Press," argued that Rove learned of Plame's identity from journalists, and that Democrats are attacking Rove based on information that exonerates Rove. Mehlman said Democrats owe Rove an apology.

A lawyer familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony told the Associated Press yesterday that Rove learned about the CIA officer either from the media or from someone in government who said the information came from a journalist. The lawyer spoke on condition of anonymity because the federal investigation is continuing.

Also appearing on ''Meet the Press," John Podesta, chief of staff during the Clinton administration, said if Rove had ''an ounce of character," he would resign. ''Mr. Rove has created a tremendous credibility problem for this White House, for this president, for this country on a matter of utmost national security," he said. ''The one thing that is unassailable at the end of this week is that Mr. Rove did not tell the truth in 2003."

In a first-person article about his grand jury testimony in this week's issue of Time, Cooper said he called Rove about Joseph C. Wilson IV, author of a New York Times op-ed article on his mission to Niger in which he found no evidence that Saddam Hussein was trying to procure uranium to make nuclear weapons. The Bush administration justified going to war in Iraq as necessary to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and Wilson's article said it twisted intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Critics of the administration have charged that Plame's cover was deliberately leaked as retribution for Wilson's article. Knowingly revealing the identity of covert personnel is a felony.

During the conversation with Rove, Cooper learned that Wilson's wife -- whom Rove did not name -- worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction and that she -- not Cheney -- was responsible for sending Wilson to Africa. Rove ended the call by saying he had ''already said too much," though Cooper was not sure what he meant.

The next day, Cooper repeated details gleaned from Rove to Libby. According to Cooper's article in this week's Time, Libby, speaking on the record, denied Cheney had any role in or knowledge of Wilson's trip to Niger. At one point, when the conversation was on background, Cooper asked about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. ''Libby replied, 'Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect," according to the article. His article reveals the ''microscopic, excruciating detail" sought by the grand jury and special prosecutor in his 2 1/2 hours of testimony Wednesday and echoes comments he made yesterday on news shows.

Meanwhile, investigators, in an effort to determine the source of the leak, are focusing on a 2003 State Department memo that details why Wilson was chosen for the trip and what role Plame played in his selection, according to reports in The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak, has focused on a classified memo and meeting notes sent by State Department officials to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, the Los Angeles Times reported. The day after Wilson's op-ed article was published, Bush traveled to Africa on Air Force One. Powell, also on Air Force One, had a copy of the classified documents. The New York Times reported that Powell was walking around the aircraft with the memo in his hands. Cooper wrote that he first spoke to the special prosecutor in August 2004, giving ''limited testimony" in his attorney's office about his interview with Libby. ''Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters," Cooper wrote.

Cooper's account of his grand jury testimony, which he gave last week, said Fitzgerald's questions hinted at the investigation's direction. ''He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA," Cooper wrote. ''(He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her CIA ties through a person or through a document," Cooper wrote.

Cooper's notes and e-mail messages turned over to the special prosecutor by Time -- over the reporter's objections -- indicate that Rove told him ''material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." Speaking on ''Meet the Press," Cooper said there may have been government officials other than Rove and Libby who were sources for his article. Asked on CNN's ''Reliable Sources" about a third unnamed administration source, ''a policy person in Africa," Cooper declined comment.

Cooper wrote that sitting before the grand jury, which hears testimony in secret, he was struck by the mostly African-American, mostly female group and their inquisitiveness as they sat in black vinyl chairs and at desks ''as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college." Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller fought such testimony to the Supreme Court. They lost. Miller remains jailed in Alexandria, Va.

Cooper wrote that he was surprised to be questioned extensively about welfare reform, a reporting topic he shelved in favor of the Wilson story. ''To me, this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform," Cooper wrote.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, declined comment yesterday.

This week, Cooper will testify before Congress on behalf of a federal shield law that could have helped him avoid testifying before the grand jury.

For the most part, Republicans have stood firm behind the White House. Yesterday, however, Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the third-ranking House Republican, appeared on CBS's ''Face the Nation." Responding to a question about the administration's previous denials of Rove's involvement, Blunt said the administration needs ''to be very thoughtful about what they say and be sure that their credibility is sustained."

Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.Diedtra Henderson can be reached at [Email]dhenderson@globe.com.[/Email]

---

Quote:

---

Although lower-level White House staffers typically handle most contacts with the media, Rove and Libby began personally communicating with reporters about Wilson, prosecutors were told.

A source directly familiar with information provided to prosecutors said Rove's interest was so strong that it prompted questions in the White House. When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: "He's a Democrat."

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
At this point, the best you might be doing is building a case against Libby.

In the case of Rove, all you're doing it repeating the same, questionable, theory over and over, and peppering it with graphics that do little more than demonstrate that the media's relentless drumbeat of speculation and Bush bashing is working.

---

Regardless of Rove's legal liability (which is still undetirmined despite your assertions), the description of his role runs contrary to earlier White House statements that Rove and Libby were not involved in the unmasking of Wilson's wife, and it suggests they were part of a campaign to discredit Wilson.

In other words, the White House and Scott McLellan LIED.

Quote:

---

Regardless of Rove's legal liability (which is still undetirmined despite your assertions

---

Quote:

---

I'm actually deeply interested as to WBM's rationale for calling John Dean a "communist"?

I'm all ears.

---

Quote:

---

Incidentally, only 25% of American's believe Bush is telling the truth.

You didn't think your furious spin was going to work forever did you?

---

Quote:

---

Memo Underscored Issue of Shielding Plame's Identity

By ANNE MARIE SQUEO and JOHN D. MCKINNON Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL July 19, 2005; Page A3

A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.

...Investigators are trying to determine if the memo, dated June 10, 2003, was how White House officials learned that Valerie Wilson was an agent for the Central Intelligence Agency
...
The paragraph in the memo discussing Ms. Wilson's involvement in her husband's trip is marked at the beginning with a letter designation in brackets to indicate the information shouldn't be shared, according to the person familiar with the memo. Such a designation would indicate to a reader that the information was sensitive. The memo, though, doesn't specifically describe Ms. Wilson as an undercover agent, the person familiar with the memo said.

Generally, the federal government has three levels of classified information -- top secret, secret and confidential -- all indicating various levels of "damage" to national security if disclosed. There also is an unclassified designation -- indicating information that wouldn't harm national security if shared with the public -- but that wasn't the case for the material on the Wilsons prepared by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. It isn't known what level of classification was assigned to the information in the memo.

Who received the memo, which was prepared for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and how widely it was circulated are issues as Mr. Fitzgerald tries to pinpoint the origin of the leak of Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the person familiar with the document, it didn't include a distribution list. It isn't known if President Bush has seen the memo.

---

Quote:

---

On September 23 (2003), the Attorney General says he and CIA Director Tenet sent a memo to the FBI requesting an investigation.

On September 26, the Department of Justice officially launches its investigation.

Interestingly, it took 4 days after that "official" launch for the Justice Department to call White House Counsel Gonzales and notify him of the official investigation. Gonzalez then asked for an extra day before the Justice Department gave the White House the official notice, which means all documents and records must be preserved.

---

Quote:

---

Every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that the first step in such an investigation would be to ensure all potentially relevant evidence is preserved, yet the Justice Department waited four days before making a formal request for documents.

---

Quote:

---

When the Justice Department finally asked the White House to order employees to preserve documents, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales asked for permission to delay transmitting the order to preserve evidence until morning. The request for a delay was granted. Again, every former prosecutor with whom we have spoken has said that such a delay is a significant departure from standard practice.

---

Quote:

---

I am also troubled that the White House Counsel's Office is serving as "gatekeeper'" for all the documents the Justice Department has requested from the White House. Mr. Gonzales' office said he would not rule out seeking to withhold documents under a claim of executive privilege or national security

Mr. Gonzales says he can withhold these documents from this investigation on the basis of national security.

---

Wait a minute. It is our national security that has been breached by this leak. They then invoke protecting national security to protect who leaked it??!


This matter could have been resolved very quickly. President Bush could have called his senior staff members into the Oval Office way back in 2003 and asked them one by one if they were involved. He could have had them sign a document stating they were not involved in this leak. He could have had each of them sign a release to any reporter to release anything they have ever said to a reporter thereby exempting the reporters.

But now here we are 2 years later with a scandal.


Incidentally, who is Judith Miller protecting? Libby and Rove are not choices as they have released reporters from silence about sources. So, who is Miller protecting?

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
Wait a minute. It is our national security that has been breached by this leak. They then invoke protecting national security to protect who leaked it??!

---

Our national security?

As in: Us and you?

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
Regardless of Rove's legal liability (which is still undetirmined despite your assertions), the description of his role runs contrary to earlier White House statements that Rove and Libby were not involved in the unmasking of Wilson's wife, and it suggests they were part of a campaign to discredit Wilson.

In other words, the White House and Scott McLellan LIED.

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Incidentally, only 25% of American's believe Bush is telling the truth.

You didn't think your furious spin was going to work forever did you?

---

So now the court of public opinion is as valid in convicting someone of a crime as the judiciary?

All that means is that your sides tactic of repeating something over and over again makes it true works in the short term. At least you've come clean and addmitted that his acctuall guilt is secondary to public opinion.

---

so when people support Bush then they're just ignoring the liberal media, when they think he's lying the liberal media is tricking them?

Is that so?

Quote:

---

PaulWellr said:
...
Incidentally, who is Judith Miller protecting? Libby and Rove are not choices as they have released reporters from silence about sources. So, who is Miller protecting?

---

Quote:

---

r3x29yz4a said:

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:

Quote:

---

Incidentally, only 25% of American's believe Bush is telling the truth.

You didn't think your furious spin was going to work forever did you?

---

So now the court of public opinion is as valid in convicting someone of a crime as the judiciary?

All that means is that your sides tactic of repeating something over and over again makes it true works in the short term. At least you've come clean and addmitted that his acctuall guilt is secondary to public opinion.

---

so when people support Bush then they're just ignoring the liberal media, when they think he's lying the liberal media is tricking them?

Is that so?

---

Quote:

---

wannabuyamonkey said:
I have enough trouble understanding what you're saying w/out a thousand smileys. I find it amazing how seldom you acctually make a point, but rather say some flip comment meant to be funny or clever

---

Quote:

---

(I'll admit you occasionally succeed.)

---

Quote:

---

Frankly I know nothing about the poll. I'm only half following this story, but so far it seems like much ado about nothing (unless of coures you presupose that Conservitives are out to get you)

---

Quote:

---

Fox News however, is conservative. There's enough proof out there (just check fair.org) to show that.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Fox News however, is conservative. There's enough proof out there (just check fair.org) to show that.

---

fair.org is a liberal advocacy group. You're citing one biased group to support allegations that another group is biased.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
In any event, there is a thread about whether or not the press is liberal here. Most of what we're discussing about the press is a rehast from there.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Any thoughts on the Rove/Plame topic?

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Any thoughts on the Rove/Plame topic?

---

Everytime I see the guy, I can't help but imagine him in diapers, wearing a baby hat and saying, 'daddy, I made poopy in my pants!'

Quote:

---

Ex-officers: CIA leak may have harmed U.S.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Eleven former intelligence officers say the leak of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity may have damaged national security and the government's ability to gather intelligence.

The former officers made their views known in a three-page statement to congressional leaders.

They said the Republican National Committee has circulated suggestions for officials to deal with the Plame case by focusing on the idea that Plame was not working undercover and legally merited no protection.

Thousands of U.S. intelligence officers work at desks in the Washington area every day whose identities are shielded, as Plame's was when her identity was leaked by Bush administration officials, the 11 former officers said.

The former officers' statement comes amid revelations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was involved in leaking Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, also was a source for Cooper on the Plame story.

The Plame leaks followed public criticism of President Bush's White House by Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson.

Wilson, a former ambassador and career diplomat, suggested administration officials had manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq.

A criminal investigation into the leaks is under way.

"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the 11 said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

---

Quote:

---

They use real quotes to back up their point. Are they liberal? Maybe. But they back up their points.

---

Maybe?

Oh, and Fox News uses real quotes too.

Quote:

---

magicjay said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Any thoughts on the Rove/Plame topic?

---

Everytime I see the guy, I can't help but imagine him in diapers, wearing a baby hat and saying, 'daddy, I made poopy in my pants!'

---