Ken Starr's Whitewater investigation lasted 6 years, cost well over $40 million and resulted in 3 convictions, one of which was for failing to cooperate with the investigation. A couple of other convictions were overturned because Starr used evidence the defendants gave him under grant of immunity.
If that's what you mean by "witchhunt", the Plame investigation has a long way to go.
I'm not sure I agree with you, Will. Watergate lasted a long time as well, from 1972 to 1977, and ended up costing millions of dollars and involving hundreds of people implicated in various scandals, all connecting back to Nixon, from burglary to bribery.
My idea of a witch-hunt is that it's aimed at a person, not a crime. It's a witch-hunt when your investigator, not having been able to pin the suspect for one thing, keeps his office open and abuses his power to snoop around and try desperately to uncover other, unrelated crimes - the equivalent of an open-ended warrant (which is illegal for good reason!).
The Starr investigations fit that description perfectly. Starr's abuse of his office is the #1 reason why Clinton should not have been impeached, although he was almost certainly guilty of perjury. The Plame investigation on the other hand has been characterized by the narrowness and caution of its process; it's taken two years for a "senior administration official" to be brought into the spotlight, although it's been known since the beginning that one or more such officials are responsible.
Read the Associated Press story. It was Novak who told Rove about Plame, not the other way around. When Novak told Rove about Plame, Rove answered, "O, you know about that?" (because Rove had heard it previously from another reporter) and "I heard about it too" (... read the news articles for the exact wording). What was Rove SUPPOSED to say? Act dumb? Or LIE to Novak and tell him, "Wow, I never heard anything about that!" ... it's amazing how inconsistent your position is
It and similiar stories have been reported by the liberal Associated Press and the ultraliberal New York Times. Fox News also collected their reports as I am sure did other news organizations.
the fact that he heard about Plame from Reporter X (Judy Miller maybe?)
Maybe. But I don't think you realize that the prosecutors/investigators have approached more journalists than just Novak, Miller and Cooper. They've also approached host of Meet the Press ... his name is Tim Russert or something and also several other journalists. Russert and the others all cooperated -- I'm hoping they didn't betray any sources.
and did not immediately go to Tenet and tell him, "Hey, your agent's cover is nonexistent" is probably going to get him in trouble with the CIA folks.
Now you've dug a hole for yourself because Rove DID GO and tell the NUMBER TWO National Security official (the one who was number two at that time -- I think it's changed now). This has also been reported by the Associated Press and it has been verified because the email from Rove to the Deputy National Security Advisor was turned over to the prosecutors.
Rove E-Mailed Security Official About Talk By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
After mentioning a CIA operative to a reporter, Bush confidant Karl Rove alerted the president's No. 2 security adviser about the interview and said he tried to steer the journalist away from allegations the operative's husband was making about faulty Iraq intelligence.
The July 11, 2003, e-mail between Rove and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley is the first showing an intelligence official knew Rove had talked to Matthew Cooper just days before the Time magazine reporter wrote an article identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA officer.
"I didn't take the bait," Rove wrote in an e-mail obtained by The Associated Press, recounting how Cooper tried to question him about whether President Bush had been hurt by the new allegations.
The White House turned the e-mail over to prosecutors, and Rove testified to a grand jury about it last year.
Earlier in the week before the e-mail, Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had written a newspaper opinion piece accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence, including a "highly doubtful" report that Iraq bought nuclear materials from Niger.
"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail to Hadley.
"When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."
Frederick Jones, a spokesman for Hadley, now Bush's national security adviser, said he could not comment due to the continuing criminal investigation. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said his client answered all the questions prosecutors asked during three grand jury appearances, never invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or the president's executive privilege guaranteeing confidential advice from aides.
Rove, Bush's closest adviser, turned over the e-mail as soon as prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's covert work for the CIA.
He later told a grand jury the e-mail was consistent with his recollection that his intention in talking with Cooper that Friday in July 2003 wasn't to divulge Plame's identity but to caution Cooper against certain allegations Plame's husband was making, according to legal professionals familiar with Rove's testimony.
They spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the grand jury investigation.
Rove sent the e-mail shortly before leaving the White House early for a family vacation that weekend, already aware that another journalist he had talked with, syndicated columnist Robert Novak, was planning an article about Plame and Wilson.
Rove also knew that then-CIA Director George Tenet planned later that same day to issue a dramatic statement that took responsibility for some bad Iraq intelligence but that also called into question some of Wilson's assertions, the legal sources said.
The AP reported Thursday that Rove acknowledged to the grand jury that he talked about Plame with both Cooper and Novak before they published their stories but that he originally learned about the operative's identity from the news media, not government sources.
Republicans cheered the latest revelations Friday, saying they showed Rove wasn't trying to hurt Plame but instead was trying to informally warn reporters to be cautious about some of Wilson's claims.
"What it says is, Karl Rove wasn't the leaker, he was actually the recipient of the information not the provider," Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman said on Fox News. "So there are probably a lot of folks in Washington who have prejudged this, who have rushed to judgment who are trying to smear Karl Rove."
Democrats, however, said that even if Rove wasn't the leaker, someone still divulged Plame's identity and possibly violated the law.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other party leaders asked Speaker Dennis Hastert on Friday to let Congress hold hearings into the controversy regardless of the criminal probe now under way.
"In previous Republican Congresses the fact that a criminal investigation was under way did not prevent extensive hearings from being held on other, much less significant matters," Pelosi wrote.
Federal law prohibits government 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 knowingly outed his or her identity.
Rove's conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in his opinion piece in The New York Times that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was used to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
Summarizing a trip he made to Africa on behalf of the CIA, Wilson wrote that he'd concluded it was highly doubtful the nation of Niger had sold uranium yellowcake to Iraq. Tenet issued a lengthy statement five days later saying that he never should have allowed Bush to use the Niger information in his State of the Union address but that Wilson's report did not resolve whether Iraq was seeking uranium from abroad.
Oh, and, there's still the question of WHO exactly gave Reporter X classified info.
Wouldn't it be funny if the ultimate leaker ended up being Bill Clinton ... see now we know Rove is totally innocent, but not after Democrats made a big deal with it and now have egg on their faces. .... now guess what? Some Democrats are now going after the hypothetical person you allude to above! Some of them are now demanding that we get to the bottom of who it was who leaked it if Rove wasn't the one who did. The way this story is going, I wouldn't be shocked if it was Bill Clinton who maybe told Bush while they were having a private conversation during the transition how hot Plame was and how she was even more hot because she was CIA and Bush, not knowing that this was classified info, accidently mentioned it to Novak Maybe, instead of sending in the Grand Inquisitors we should just wait for the investigation to end and let the prosecutors and secret grand jury do their secret work
Uh huh, and maybe she was on Paris Hilton's speed-dial too? Who cares? Rove probably has dozens of people on his speed dial if not a hundreds! He may even one phone for one group of people and another phone for another group of people. You do now that she works for the ultraliberal New York Times, don't you? I think they have like ONE conservative journalist on their staff -- he writes a column for them. ALL of the other in-staff columns are written by liberals. (they may have a few conservative SYNDICATED columns however) ... in fact for one story that was on their website they accidently put up an incomplete story which was full of criticisms of some kind of conservative with a small blank section which had the note: "Need quote from supporter here" But at least they are doing the right thing here.
What it looks like to me (again, only IF the story is true) is someone in the Administration cooked up a plan to discredit Wilson (possibly without thinking about the criminal consequences), then rang up a few reporters (e.g. Cooper) and started spreading the story.
Let me tell you a true story. When CBS used forged documents to cast bad light on Bush's National Guard service at first Democrats were touting them. Then when it was proved beyond any doubt that they were forgeries, Democrats stopped touting .... and not only that but some Democrats ended up saying that this was part of the grand plan of Karl Rove!!! They said that Rove somehow was able to give CBS forged documents to make CBS look bad and prop up the President So with people like this, there's no way you can convince them. If some documents from CBS come up, they say they are legit. When they are proven to be forgeries, they say that was part of the whole master Rove plan! So their conspiracy theory is not "falsifiable"
Novak decided he was going to run with it, but called up the Administration beforehand to confirm, which Rove did.
Novak had previously been blazingly critical of the Administration for sending Wilson and so he wondered what was up and investigated. That was his motivation.
No matter what, the initial source of the leak has got to be somebody within the Administration high up enough to have the appropriate security clearance and a strategic grudge against Wilson. If not Rove (and it might not be, though unlikely) then who else is possible?
That's what I was trying to say. The Rove/Plame/Novak investigation, to all appearances, and if the leaks are to be believed, appears to be very well managed and sticking to the original purpose.
Actually, most of the Independent Counsel investigations over the years have been completed in a reasonable time, with results that were focused within the original range of investigation. The Starr investigation is the glaring bad example. There have been a few that perhaps didn't go far enough, and a couple that probably weren't needed in the first place, but generally these investigations have pretty well served their intended purpose.
Read the Associated Press story. It was Novak who told Rove about Plame, not the other way around. When Novak told Rove about Plame, Rove answered, "O, you know about that?" (because Rove had heard it previously from another reporter) and "I heard about it too" (... read the news articles for the exact wording). What was Rove SUPPOSED to say? Act dumb? Or LIE to Novak and tell him, "Wow, I never heard anything about that!" ... it's amazing how inconsistent your position is
Wrong, from what I've read so far those are two DIFFERENT accounts of how Rove replied to Novak. That could be significant, so don't confuse the readers
When questioned about classified information, the stereotypical response of every government agent is "That information is classified" or "No comment." That's what Rove should have said here... because confirming classified information has the same effect as leaking it, and is therefore felonious. If the account of their communication is accurate, Rove almost certainly committed a felony in his conversation with Novak, just as he did in his communication with Cooper.
It and similiar stories have been reported by the liberal Associated Press and the ultraliberal New York Times. Fox News also collected their reports as I am sure did other news organizations.
It is significant that near-identical versions of the story have appeared in all the major news sources; recall that the entire story is based on the information of one anonymous source.
This version of events was not discovered, it was shopped out, in whole cloth. Of course, you trust Rove's lawyer to tell the truth and think Fox News is "left-leaning" so until you sober up we're not likely to get you to realize anything
Now you've dug a hole for yourself because Rove DID GO and tell the NUMBER TWO National Security official (the one who was number two at that time -- I think it's changed now). This has also been reported by the Associated Press and it has been verified because the email from Rove to the Deputy National Security Advisor was turned over to the prosecutors.
Again, I admit mistakes when I make them! And this is one. I saw that article after posting my comments.
However, I do have two comments on the story. First, there's no evidence that Stephen Hadley took any action on Rove's remark; since to my knowledge Hadley has yet to give evidence, he hasn't talked to investigators about what happened.
Secondly, talking to a security official AFTER committing a felonious breach of national security is analogous to unzipping your pants after thoroughly wetting them.
Um, no. To date, the information we have shows he is likely to be convicted of leaking classified information, and possibly perjury as well. Unless the prosecution totally botches the case or radical new evidence comes to light, I think that's the probable final outcome.
Wrong, from what I've read so far those are two DIFFERENT accounts of how Rove replied to Novak. That could be significant, so don't confuse the readers
No there aren't two different accounts. There were those two quotes. One quote (see article for exact words): "O, you know about that?" was given by Novak himself. He didn't quote any other exact words. The other quote reported by the Associated Press was in Rove's testimony: "I heard about that too" (see article for exact words). So these aren't two different accounts. Just two different sentences. Obviously Rove must have said both sentences. Maybe something like, "O you know about that? I heard about it also." So there's no contradiction or anything.
When questioned about classified information, the stereotypical response of every government agent is "That information is classified" or "No comment." That's what Rove should have said here... because confirming classified information has the same effect as leaking it, and is therefore felonious.
But saying "That information is classified" effectively confirms it in Novak's mind anyway ... if Wilson's wife weren't CIA, then the information wouldn't be classified. Saying "No comment" wouldn't help things much either. "O you know about that?" or "I heard about that too" is the best response.
It is significant that near-identical versions of the story have appeared in all the major news sources; recall that the entire story is based on the information of one anonymous source.
The Associated Press article said it was someone who was in the legal profession. So it sounds like a reliabe source. Lawyers know that if they lie about things like that, they'll get in trouble, especially now with all the persecution of reporters to get them to betray their sources.
However, I do have two comments on the story. First, there's no evidence that Stephen Hadley took any action on Rove's remark
There's no evidence that he didn't. You seem to take the exact opposite approach to "presumed innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to Republicans.
Secondly, talking to a security official AFTER committing a felonious breach of national security is analogous to unzipping your pants after thoroughly wetting them.
If he thought he did something criminal why would he tell the #2 national security official about it?
Um, no. To date, the information we have shows he is likely to be convicted of leaking classified information, and possibly perjury as well. Unless the prosecution totally botches the case or radical new evidence comes to light, I think that's the probable final outcome.
Prosecutor has already said that Rove is not a target. We know this from Rove's lawyer. Prosecutor wouldn't stand by while Rove's lawyer spreads lies about what he said. Think about it
She had been working at a desk job at Langley, apparently for the past 6 years. Ultraliberal NYT says:
"She had a desk job in Langley," said Ms. Toensing, who also signed the supporting brief in the appeals court, referring to the C.I.A.'s headquarters. "When you want someone in deep cover, they don't go back and forth to Langley."
I don't have a source for the 6 year figure, but I heard it from Gibson ... and an anti-Rove poster has said in this thread that it was more than five years.
If Wilson and Plame are so afraid for Plame's life, one wonders why they chose to pose for this July 2005 Vanity Fair issue:
Former Bill Clinton press secretary McCurry says that Rove seems to have done nothing wrong and that there must be some other explanation for the prosecutor's apparent zeal. McCurry also says that the Bush press secretary is doing exactly the right thing by not commenting. Since McCurry worked for Clinton, I'm guessing he's a Democrat liberal. He's another in a long list of liberals who say that Rove appears to have done nothing wrong.
Cierdan, nope sorry After spending 58 pages saying critics of Rove cant be believed because theyre liberals (according to you), you cant turn around now and say we should believe liberals when they appear to back him up
Cierdan, I thought as a christian you were against evil. Karl Rove is political evil personified: the end justifies the means, spare no expense to destroy whatever is in your way, corrupt any system to win. The devil owns him.
Cierdan: I grow tired of your fact-devoid epithets. I'm almost to the point of thinking you would become a Satanist if the Devil told you Jesus was an "ultraliberal news source"... Then again, the Devil himself would hesitate to hang out with some of the current "ultraconservative" icons and idols. Not for their crimes, oh no, but for their lack of style
But saying "That information is classified" effectively confirms it in Novak's mind anyway ... if Wilson's wife weren't CIA, then the information wouldn't be classified. Saying "No comment" wouldn't help things much either. "O you know about that?" or "I heard about that too" is the best response.
I find it hilarious that the official "no comment answer" according to you "confirms (his suspicions) in Novak's mind anyway" but Scotty McClellan's ridiculous dodges at the press conference are not suggestive (to you) of tacitly implied guilt. Yet another instance of self-delusion and double-standards, maybe? Gasp?
The Associated Press article said it was someone who was in the legal profession. So it sounds like a reliabe (sic) source.
I don't even need to provide a punch-line for THIS comment.
Lawyers know that if they lie about things like that, they'll get in trouble, especially now with all the persecution of reporters to get them to betray their sources.
Persecution or prosecution? For the second time I am reminding you that there is no reporter shield law on the federal level.
There's no evidence that he didn't. You seem to take the exact opposite approach to "presumed innocent until proven guilty" when it comes to Republicans.
Asking to prove a negative is the oldest trick in the book :lol
If your sole defence of Hadley is "You can't prove that he didn't do the right thing" then your standards for Republicans are more worthy of criticism than mine
If he thought he did something criminal why would he tell the #2 national security official about it?
The prosecutor did nothing while McClellan and Rove were on national TV lying about Rove's role in the case. The prosecutor is also reportedly very interested in gathering evidence for perjury charges.
But hey, if you want your hero to perjure himself FURTHER, why don't you write that pinko commie Bill O'Reilly and ask him to invite Rove on his show so he can finally clear up all these Librul Media lies?
Cierdan, nope sorry After spending 58 pages saying critics of Rove cant be believed because theyre liberals (according to you), you cant turn around now and say we should believe liberals when they appear to back him up
Well it's not just because they are liberals but my point is that the ilberals who back up Rove if they had any bias would be biased AGAINST Rove, so if even THEY say that Rove appears to not have done anything wrong, then we can know that Rove didn't do anything wrong. Just like how if even many KKK members say that Hitler did bad things, then we can know that Hitler did do bad things since if these KKK members had any bias, it'd be a bias FOR Hitler.
I find it hilarious that the official "no comment answer" according to you "confirms (his suspicions) in Novak's mind anyway" but Scotty McClellan's ridiculous dodges at the press conference are not suggestive (to you) of tacitly implied guilt. Yet another instance of self-delusion and double-standards, maybe? Gasp?
McClellan hasn't just said no comment. He did finally say that the President has confidence in all his advisors or staff. Besides it's apples and oranges since the ONLY conceivable reason why Rove would say no comment would be if Novak was right whereas there are plenty of other conceivable reasons why McClellan would say no comment -- like the reason that the prosecutors asked them to not comment or the reason that they don't want a big circus and distraction and saying no comment might effectively kill the story ... if they keep on saying no comment it might bury the story ... also saying no comment might make them look more like they are taking the high road, doing the right thing while Democrats engage in partisan squabbling.
Persecution or prosecution? For the second time I am reminding you that there is no reporter shield law on the federal level.
There wasn't any shield law protecting Christians in the Roman Empire either. So I guess according to you Christians weren't persecuted there. You focus too much on laws IMO
There wasn't any shield law protecting Christians in the Roman Empire either. So I guess according to you Christians weren't persecuted there. You focus too much on laws IMO
You're getting a little ahead of even the conservative rhetoric here. Oh poor widdle pewsecuted Wepubwican, has to stand trial for committing a felony and suddenly he's a brave "whistleblower" who was martyred by the forces of "ultraliberalism"?
You're getting a little ahead of even the conservative rhetoric here. Oh poor widdle pewsecuted Wepubwican, has to stand trial for committing a felony and suddenly he's a brave "whistleblower" who was martyred by the forces of "ultraliberalism"?
Err, I was talking about the persecution of reporters like Miller, not Rove, in that statement. Read back through the thread. Rove isn't standing trial for anything anyway.
Err, I was talking about the persecution of reporters like Miller, not Rove, in that statement. Read back through the thread. Rove isn't standing trial for anything anyway.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
... see now we know Rove is totally innocent, but not after Democrats made a big deal with it and now have egg on their faces. .... now guess what? Some Democrats are now going after the hypothetical person you allude to above! 
Some of them are now demanding that we get to the bottom of who it was who leaked it if Rove wasn't the one who did. The way this story is going, I wouldn't be shocked if it was Bill Clinton who maybe told Bush while they were having a private conversation during the transition how hot Plame was and how she was even more hot because she was CIA and Bush, not knowing that this was classified info, accidently mentioned it to Novak 
After spending 58 pages saying critics of Rove cant be believed because theyre liberals (according to you), you cant turn around now and say we should believe liberals when they appear to back him up
