Might Karl Rove go to jail?

Latest news is that "Scooter" Libby, a Cheney compadre who's already relatively notorious, also confirmed classified information to a reporter.

Looks like Rove will have a pal in the slammer.
 
Remember that former Clinton aide who was stuffing secret documents down his pants before the 9/11 Commission could get hold of them? Did he go to jail? If a Republican-controlled Congress couldn't get him in jail, I'm not sure how a minority of Democrats stand a chance against Karl Rove.

Remember all that shouting a while back about Tom DeLay? When was the last time you heard HIS name in the news now? All this nonsense about Karl Rove is just the latest Democrat/media frenzy - it'll blow over and be forgotten as soon as the next big story (Michael Jackson/Scott Peterson/Terry Schaivo/whoever) comes along because there really isn't anything to it. Remember when Kerry outted that guy in the Bolton hearings? Nobody cared about that, either, because it didn't matter. Neither will this. Mark my words - 6 months from now no-one is going to remember this and Karl Rove will still be exactly where he is now.
 
Pontiuth Pilate said:
Latest news is that "Scooter" Libby, a Cheney compadre who's already relatively notorious, also confirmed classified information to a reporter.

Looks like Rove will have a pal in the slammer.

The way you are phrasing it is misleading. Libby only said something to the effect of "I heard that too." He didn't reveal any classified information.
 
cierdan said:
The way you are phrasing it is misleading. Libby only said something to the effect of "I heard that too." He didn't reveal any classified information.

He confirmed classified information, which according to the IIPA law merits the same punishment as revealing it: a felony conviction and five years in prison.

If a Republican-controlled Congress couldn't get him in jail, I'm not sure how a minority of Democrats stand a chance against Karl Rove.

In this case, thank God, justice is not in the hands of politicians but a special prosecutor. His independence is the precise reason for the existence of his office.

You are correct that removing Rove from his position would probably require impeachment hearings but even the great Karl might have trouble serving as the Preznit's chief political axeman from a jail cell.

All this nonsense about Karl Rove is just the latest Democrat/media frenzy - it'll blow over and be forgotten as soon as the next big story (Michael Jackson/Scott Peterson/Terry Schaivo/whoever) comes along because there really isn't anything to it.

I agree that the media sadly tends to focus on sensational nonstories.

However Schiavo would never have been a story if Republicans had not called a midnight special session of Congress and then saturated the talk-show circuits with "culture of life" bullcrap for the following week.

Mark my words - 6 months from now no-one is going to remember this and Karl Rove will still be exactly where he is now.

Unless the prosecutor never issues indictments, that will never happen. And I doubt that his enthusiasm for prosecuting this case is waning, despite the probably daily phone calls he's getting from top White House officials ;)
 
So Rove might have lied about his involvement? Say it ain't so! :lol:

I guess it comes down to who the investigator believes. I'm sure Rove is the better liar, but everyone knows he is good at it, which may work against him.;)
 
gorn said:
Remember that former Clinton aide who was stuffing secret documents down his pants before the 9/11 Commission could get hold of them? Did he go to jail? If a Republican-controlled Congress couldn't get him in jail, I'm not sure how a minority of Democrats stand a chance against Karl Rove.
Sandy Berger was Clinton's National Security Advisor. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor, paid a fine and lost his security clearance for three years.

I'm not sure what Congress has to do with this or the Rove affair. They don't hold a trial, don't make arrests, and certainly won't be conducting their own investigation.
Remember all that shouting a while back about Tom DeLay? When was the last time you heard HIS name in the news now?
Just today, actually. The ethics committee is gearing up for their investigation of DeLay. Remember when Kerry outted that guy in the Bolton hearings? Nobody cared about that, either, because it didn't matter. Neither will this. Mark my words - 6 months from now no-one is going to remember this and Karl Rove will still be exactly where he is now.[/QUOTE]Kerry and Richard Lugar (R-Ind) both mentioned the guy's name on the same day.

I'm not sure 6 months will be the time to check our memory. Why not wait until, oh, the day indictments are issued? Or the day the special prosecutor's report comes out? Either of those might jog memories.
 
More evidence that the Bush government deliberately leaked a CIA agent's ability AND fixed intelligence in order to start a war]
WASHINGTON — Top aides to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were intensely focused on discrediting former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV in the days after he wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times suggesting the administration manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq, federal investigators have been told.

Prosecutors investigating whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Wilson's wife, a CIA officer who had worked undercover, have been told that Bush's top political strategist, Karl Rove, and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were especially intent on undercu

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." Rove then cited Wilson's campaign donations, which leaned toward Democrats, the person familiar with the case said.

The disclosures about the officials' roles illustrate White House concern about Wilson's July 6, 2003, article, which challenged the administration's assertion that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear materials. Wilson's article appeared as Rove and other Bush aides were preparing the 2004 reelection campaign strategy, which was built largely around the president's response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

It is not surprising that White House officials would be upset by an attack like Wilson's or seek to respond aggressively. But special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is examining whether they or others crossed the legal line by improperly disclosing classified information, or whether they perjured themselves in testifying later about their actions. Both Rove and Libby have testified.

News of the high-level interest in discrediting Wilson comes as White House defenders, most notably officials at the Republican National Committee, argue that Rove has been vindicated of suspicion that he was a primary source of the leak. Knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative is a federal crime.

Regardless of Rove's legal liability, 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.

Wilson, a career Foreign Service officer who served in Iraq and several African nations, was sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had attempted to purchase nuclear materials from Niger. His New York Times article declaring that he had found no credible evidence of such an attempt despite the administration's continued claims that there had been one unleashed charges from White House officials that he was a partisan.

White House officials contended that he had wrongly indicated that he was sent on his mission by Cheney. In fact, Wilson had said in the article that the trip was inspired by questions raised by Cheney's office.

Eight days after Wilson's article was published, a syndicated column by Robert Novak questioned the credibility of Wilson's trip, suggesting that it had been arranged with the help of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, at the CIA.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has cited recent news reports that Rove heard about Wilson's wife from reporters and that he was not an original source. Those reports said that Rove in fact sought to dissuade Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper — one of the journalists with whom he discussed Wilson's wife — from writing a piece about Wilson's charge.

"Based on the information that has come out over the last several days, the one thing that's absolutely clear is that Karl was not the source for the leak and there's no basis for any additional speculation," Luskin said.

A White House spokesman, David Almacy, declined to comment Sunday. "This is an ongoing investigation, and we will be happy to talk about this once it is completed, but not until then," he said.

Prosecutors' intense questioning of witnesses about Rove and Libby casts doubt on assertions that the president's longtime political guru was not — at least at some point — in Fitzgerald's sights.

Fitzgerald is expected to conclude his investigation this year with a detailed report.

Bush said he would fire anyone responsible for any illegal leaks. Democrats have called on Bush to fire Rove, now a deputy White House chief of staff, or at least to revoke Rove's security clearance.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" that Rove and the White House deserved credit for cooperating with Fitzgerald. "Cooperate, cooperate, cooperate" was the policy, said Mehlman, who once was Rove's deputy at the White House.

Cooper, who testified last week before Fitzgerald's grand jury concerning his conversations with White House officials about Wilson, confirmed Sunday that prosecutors showed intense interest in the roles played by Rove and Libby in discussing Wilson's wife.

In an article in the latest issue of Time magazine titled "What I Told the Grand Jury," Cooper writes that the grand jurors investigated his interactions with Rove in "microscopic, excruciating detail."

(the story continues on pages 1 and 2)

So it's not just Rove. Leaking that woman's identity was only a means to the end of getting revenge on Joseph Wilson, which was a means to the end of discrediting his attempts to undercut the government's faulty (and made-up) case for going to war.
 
Phrase "culture of life" was not invented by Republicans. Apparently, it originated in Europe.

Bush has said that he wil fire anyone who has committed a crime.

All reasonable liberals (former Clinton press secretary McCurry, Kondraki sp?, all the Washington post reporters I've seen except for ultralliberal Carl Bernstein, etc.) are skeptical that Rove has committed a crime.
 
From the basis of the testimony of Cooper and Novak, it is undoubtable that Rove has committed AT LEAST the crime of revealing and confirming classified information.

Unless Cooper and Novak are lying, Rove is a criminal.
 
cierdan said:
Bush has said that he wil fire anyone who has committed a crime.
In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the suggestion that Rove was involved in the leak was "ridiculous."

Clearly he was "involved"

McClellan said in a Sept. 29, 2003, briefing: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Rove (and Libby) were clearly "involved."

Today, Bush moved the goalpost ("the highest standards of conduct") to say he would fire anyone who "committed a crime" in the case. Apparently "involved" now means indicted, tried, and convicted.
All reasonable liberals (former Clinton press secretary McCurry, Kondraki sp?, all the Washington post reporters I've seen except for ultralliberal Carl Bernstein, etc.) are skeptical that Rove has committed a crime.
The RNC apparently doesn't distinguish between your "reasonable liberals" and "Once again, Democrats are engaging in blatant political attacks" That's at the top of their "taling points" issued a few days ago.

BTW, here's what McCurry actually had to say about his "skepticism"...
But it does seem to me that there must be something more to this than the conversation reported between Matt Cooper of Time and Rove. Rove was making a late week heads up call to the White House news magazine reporter and, believe me, that is not the time or place to dish major strategy. A two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red. Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and he needed to be cautious.

Unless conversations go well beyond what has been reported, there has to be some other explanation for the zeal with which this investigation is being pursued. Something consequential must have happened because of this leak that we have not yet read about. That's about all I can imagine, because otherwise the whole thing -- leak, story, investigation -- seems a little disproportionate. Maybe a major intelligence operation got botched. Or someone took a real hit somewhere in the world as a result.
Not quite the glowing endorsement of Rove's innocence you painted. In fact he suggests possibilities other than "outing" an agent that could indicate criminal conduct.
 
wilbill said:
In 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the suggestion that Rove was involved in the leak was "ridiculous."

Clearly he was "involved"

He was not involved in any criminal activity and that's what McClellan meant.

Rove (and Libby) were clearly "involved."

Were they involved in leaking things? Sure. Most EVERY GOVERNMENT official is involved in leaking things. In fact JUST TODAY, a Democrat complained that they weren't leaing ENOUGH? Were they involved in criminal activity? No.

Today, Bush moved the goalpost ("the highest standards of conduct") to say he would fire anyone who "committed a crime" in the case.

No, he didn't move the goal post at all. Go back and actually read all of what he said in context and all and not rely on what one reporter has called the "selective editing" that has happened.

Bush in the past SPECIFICALLY said he would fire anyone who "VIOLATED THE LAW" -- now he's using the word "CRIME." Hello? "violated the law" and "crime" MEAN THE EXACT SAME THING!

BTW, here's what McCurry

McCurry says that based on what we know now from the media of what Rove has done and not done that he is probably innocent. You can spin what he said however you wish, but it doesn't change the facts. He also said that the current White House press secretary did exactly the right thing by not commenting.

Not quite the glowing endorsement of Rove's innocence you painted. In fact he suggests possibilities other than "outing" an agent that could indicate criminal conduct.

You are reading it with an Rove-hate lense that makes you see things that aren't there. He no where suggests that Rove engaged in criminal conduct. His speculation that perhaps there may be some other reason to explain the zealousness of the prosecutor -- a speculation I had ALREADY mentioned btw -- was NOT in reference to Rove -- "other" reason means a reason OTHER THAN ROVE!!!!

Anyway, EVERYONE knows that Democrats are upset at Rove and hate him (one person in this thread has admitted that he hates him) because they feel he is responsible for the recent long string of Democrat electoral losses. This is what this is about.
 
To be fair, the statement that anyone who was "involved" (not convicted) would be fired came from McClellan, who has always been a terrible Press Secretary and may have been talking on his own initiative. The statement that anyone was convicted of a crime would be fired (which came from Bush himself) is adequate enough.

Of course, it's perfectly obvious that Rove committed a crime. He revealed information which was BEYOND DOUBT classified, to a reporter (Cooper). Later, when asked by another reporter (Novak) he confirmed information that was classified, which is also a breach of SF312 (the law against revealing such info) and the IIPA (the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative).

Both of these offences are felonies.

For Cierdan to claim that Rove was "not involved" in criminal activity is quite simply a blatant, ridiculously obvious lie.

To address some more of your sophisms:

Were they involved in leaking things? Sure. Most EVERY GOVERNMENT official is involved in leaking things.

Let me make this clear: the last person to reveal the identity of a CIA agent was sentenced to 660 years in jail for espionage and assorted crimes.

It is not an offense that should be taken lightly.

When you talk about "leaks" from the government, that information is not usually classified nor does it endanger the national security of the U.S.A. For example, when an anonymous source in the gov't leaked that the White House had bullied experts into giving lowball estimates to Congress of the new Medicare bill's costs, that had NOTHING to do with SF312 or IIPA.

The ability of anonymous government officials to speak off the record helps keep the Administration accountable in the press and public opinion. But that umbrella of freedom of information does not extend to committing felonies and endangering U.S. intelligence operations.

Your willful obtuseness throughout this debate, refusing to recognize the seriousness of outing a covert CIA agent, simply shows that you place partisanship above patriotism and common sense.

His speculation that perhaps there may be some other reason to explain the zealousness of the prosecutor -- a speculation I had ALREADY mentioned btw -- was NOT in reference to Rove -- "other" reason means a reason OTHER THAN ROVE!!!!

For those of you puzzled about the prosecutor's zeal, the answer is simple. It's been two years since Plame was outed. In the intervening time the CIA has undoubtedly put together a damage assessment - what assets were compromised, what intelligence revealed, what agents possibly outed by association or linking, and what impact on our diplomacy and foreign policy, by the exposure of Plame. As I've repeated again and again, the "ripple" or "domino effect" means that the exposure of even a single CIA agent is very worrying.

When Aldrich Ames, the USSR spy, was revealed, the serious damage he dealt to US intel was examined by the CIA, which produced a hundreds-of-pages-long report on Ames's treason. It is very likely that a similar report on Plame has been put together since two years ago.

The independent prosecutor has probably read this report. And the likelihood is that the leaker has caused deep and lasting harm to our intelligence operations by outing Plame. Hence the prosecutor's enthusiasm for finding out who's responsible.

Republicans keep treating this like a cute little nonscandal, but it is very, very serious.
 
Democrats are upset at Rove and hate him (one person in this thread has admitted that he hates him) because they feel he is responsible for the recent long string of Democrat electoral losses. This is what this is about.

Of all your pitiful little excuses, this one is the most disgusting.

Your accusations of partisanship are projected. It is you, throughout this debate, who have been all too willing to excuse Rove, Libby and others from the most serious of crimes simply because they are Republicans.
 
"the most serious of crimes" ... ?
This story is going to blow over because the only people keeping it alive are of this extreme mindset. Karl Rove may very well be the devil incarnate, but this is little more than a wild goose chase. Even senators like Harry Reid are backing off because they know it's a dead-end.

Seriously, the closest Karl Rove is going to get to prison is in the imaginations of rabid Democrats and a press not currently distracted by anything else. Just wait until Bush nominates a new Justice, and watch this story sink way out of sight. (Off-topic but for fun, also watch how fast that famous Nuclear-Option/Filibuster Compromise sinks as soon as there's a nomination).
 
cierdan said:
You are reading it with an Rove-hate lense that makes you see things that aren't there. He no where suggests that Rove engaged in criminal conduct. His speculation that perhaps there may be some other reason to explain the zealousness of the prosecutor -- a speculation I had ALREADY mentioned btw -- was NOT in reference to Rove -- "other" reason means a reason OTHER THAN ROVE!!!!
Are Rove-hate lenses orange? Must be since I keep seeing him in an orange jumpsuit. ;)

There are two names mentioned in McCurry's statement - Rove and Mat Cooper. Unless you think Mat Cooper is involved in deeper criminal conduct, you're using your own lenses to assume he's clearing Rove. He may mean people in addition to Rove are guilty of something. He may mean someone other than Rove. But your assumption that that's exactly what he means is simply not supported in McCurry's statement.

It seems to be important to you to find "liberal" supporters for Mr. Rove. Save your effort and use the Republican "spin machine" sources. You won't have to resort to so many logical gymnastics since they're actually saying what you want them to say.
 
Seriously, the closest Karl Rove is going to get to prison is in the imaginations of rabid Democrats and a press not currently distracted by anything else. Just wait until Bush nominates a new Justice, and watch this story sink way out of sight. (Off-topic but for fun, also watch how fast that famous Nuclear-Option/Filibuster Compromise sinks as soon as there's a nomination).

Thank god the press isn't running the trial, then ;) I'm sure there'll be a bit more attention when Karl gets sentenced.
 
Tell you what, when the special prosecutor charges Karl Rove with something, I'll come back and admit I was wrong. I just don't see it happening. I think it's a non-issue. I honestly believe this is nothing more than another witch-hunt in a long line of failed attempts (Rumsfeld, Chaney, DeLay, Rove). They had their shot at Bush but he won the election, so they go after everyone else. Not entirely blaming the Democrats, though, because the Republicans did the same thing to Clinton.

If the prosecutor has the goods on Karl Rove, then let the chips fall where they may. Until then, though, I've seen too many of these nonsense partisan wranglings to put much faith in it.
 
It's not partisan at all, or rather this issue SHOULD be a nonpartisan one, but Mehlman & Co. don't agree. Their partisan smears show they place party above country.

Again, it's not a non-issue, it's a question of multiple felonies, political assassination, and serious harm to the security of our intel ops.
 
Oh, I think there's plenty of partisanship to go around on both sides. Are you trying to say NOTHING about this Karl Rove business is partisan-fueled? You're welcome and entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'm not buying it. I don't see it the way you do. And I'm willing to leave it as a sort of Gentleman's Bet, if you will -- if Karl Rove gets charged, I'll admit I was wrong. If nothing ever comes of this, or if he gets cleared, can you do the same? Or have you already tried and convicted him based on what you've read in the papers or seen on the news? I say again, let the chips fall where they may ... just don't hold your breath for something dramatic.

I would be willing to accept Karl Rove resigning as a defeat. Don't think that's going to happen, either, but I'll own up to it if I'm wrong. Unless there's some other bigger scandal on the horizon, I predict Karl Rove is going to be around until Bush's term ends.
 
Back
Top Bottom