No Karl Rove Bashing today..???
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Seem like me that someone is a spineless windbag that likes to post other people's positions without having to defend his own. :devil: :evil: 
duhhhh...the law said:Seem like me that someone is a spineless windbag that likes to post other people's positions without having to defend his own. :devil: :evil:
It's well known I am a pro-right-wing NewsBot...
I'm only good at cutting and pasting political crap and posting links to hot brazilian chicks....
As long as you can keep a good sense of humor about it, its all good with me.N8 said:
the howler of this is that CBS, CNN, Dallas Morning News, Harpers, Reuters, Tribune Co. (chi trib & la times), WhiteHouse correspondents, Newsweek, & WashPo signed onto it. (conspicuously absent were the Nation & al-jizzbag)N8 said:
two of the cases used for precedents were hustler mag v. falwell & US v NYT!!!
who know who's wisely unquotable on this topic? reporting from the tellingly named the hill:
funny how soon we've all forgotten the downing street memos, eh??
Can we get this guy's custom title changed to 'Mr. Relevant'?$tinkle said:oops, almost forgot this:ink:
No. Road cycling is boring.
So what excuse do you have for your beloved administration's utter hypocracy this time? They said anyone who was involved in the leak would be fired. Now Rove turns out to be the leaker, he is not fired and the white house clams up like a teenage rape victim. What gives?
"utter hypocracy" would mean bush's refusal to fire; the investigation (to quote scotty) is "ongoing". seems to me you want a fair trial right before the hanging.Changleen said:
here's a little update which may settle a couple matters.
of note: 'After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." '
so, this may be a matter of (as quoted in the NYT piece) splitting hairs. yeah, KR was rather close; maybe a bit too close.
friggin' evil genius, eh?
also of note, news-googling karl rove give me the spoof (bush: "karl rove was the leaker") & unconfirmed sources (bush names karl rove to vice-VP). These were #s 2 & 3.
not to try & breath air back into an otherwise properly thrashed googlenews thread, but WTF, over?
not to try & breath air back into an otherwise properly thrashed googlenews thread, but WTF, over?
ok, i think i can wrap this up with a neat little bow on top:
the "crime" is whether or not a covert agent's identity was leaked.
valerie plame returned from an overseas assignment to work at langley w/ her husband-to-be in 1997 (no longer a covert agent).
IIPA stipulates a five-year period for what we may call a "gag-order"
valerie plame's identity was confirmed to novak by rove in 2003. (get out the pink-bike calculator)
furthermore, the transcript from wolf blitzer today:
the "crime" is whether or not a covert agent's identity was leaked.
valerie plame returned from an overseas assignment to work at langley w/ her husband-to-be in 1997 (no longer a covert agent).
IIPA stipulates a five-year period for what we may call a "gag-order"
valerie plame's identity was confirmed to novak by rove in 2003. (get out the pink-bike calculator)
furthermore, the transcript from wolf blitzer today:
on that note, think i'll go shopping
Ahhh....
Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak
AP - Fri Jul 15, 8:09 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, 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 grand jury secrecy, 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.
Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak
AP - Fri Jul 15, 8:09 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, 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 grand jury secrecy, 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.
last time I checked that was how politics worked. Replace Burgers name with a repub name and some other scandal then swap out liberals for cons and the same will hold true. Maybe I am just too cynical and only half the polititians out there are lying backstabbing partisan assholes.$tinkle said:
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html
The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent
I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD 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, Court 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.
Plus, there could easily be conspiracy charges based on Rove's subsequent e-mails.
The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent
I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD 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, Court 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.
Plus, there could easily be conspiracy charges based on Rove's subsequent e-mails.
There really is no end to the lies, spin, hypocracy and double standards that come out of this White House. It's sickening. It's even sadder to see people defending it in the press. Bush himself has now changed his tack again from saying he would sack anyone involved (which turned out to be nearly everyone) to now saying he'll only sack anyone found guilty. Lame.
The backpedaling is quite pathetic....Changleen said:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/cia.leak/index.html
I'm guessing its going to chalked up to a "clarification."
Just read this
"Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said Bush's standard for firing Rove was not consistent with a 2-year-old executive order governing the protection of national secrets. Under the order, Bush is required to impose administrative sanctions such as dismissal if anyone acted negligently in confirming information about Plame's identity."
Interesting. Would love to read the executive order itself.
"Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., said Bush's standard for firing Rove was not consistent with a 2-year-old executive order governing the protection of national secrets. Under the order, Bush is required to impose administrative sanctions such as dismissal if anyone acted negligently in confirming information about Plame's identity."
Interesting. Would love to read the executive order itself.
You never got the GOP memo:ohio said:
It's personal responsibility for everyone else. See Noelle Bush's forged prescription problems...that's a family matter, right? Rush Limbaugh buying painkillers in Elvis-like quantities? Same deal.
But Joe Public smoking a joint? Federal prison for the bastard. That's the only way they'll learn.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9686217/
what was that N8 said got clinton in trouble...
And didn't Rove say that Novak told him and not this way.
And remember in the way back machine when the White House completely denied having any involvement at all?
In the end I'm guessing that Libby is going to end up falling on the sword.
Now the real reason Fitzpatrick wanted to talk to Judith Miller is coming out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aSuj1d8CcYAk&refer=top_world_news
And here is why its very likely that someone is getting charged with something.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aSuj1d8CcYAk&refer=top_world_news
Also the Miller testimony may have helped load up on obstruction of justice charges against Libby.
And here is why its very likely that someone is getting charged with something.
How if he even has a half decent case, can the AG not approve any indictments? Can you imagine how much worse of a firestorm that would create?
Changleen said:
I just can't imagine anything short resignation for all the earlier bluster in this matter.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/20/cia.leak.investigation.ap/index.html
What's sad is that because there isn't a sex component to this the majority of people just don't care.
That's could be called conspiracy. Fitzgerald also as indicated that he has no plans to release a report on his findings. This strongly indicates that indictments are almost a sure thing as it is unlikely that anyone would accept this being closed with virtually no official outputs.
What's sad is that because there isn't a sex component to this the majority of people just don't care.
You and the media are gonna be *so* disappointed when it's revealed that the Bush admin had nothing to do with this...
So you honestly believe that come next week this is simply going to end?N8 said:
DRB said:
I think its going to be a lot less that what the media is wanting it to be.