Might Karl Rove go to jail?

[eyrei]

No they both ended up cooperating. I saw it on TV. Trust me on this and if you don't just google it and you'll see.

At first both TIME and the reporter did not cooperate. Then after the SCOTUS refusal to hear the case and the prospect of hefty fines, TIME and the company that controls TIME chose to cooperate citing some "we are not above the law" crap. Also, the TIME reporter chose to cooperate on the very same day that the NYT reporter chose to go jail. The TIME reporter said that he was fully prepared to go to jail and had said goodbye to his young child but then he got an eleventh hour call from his source who verbally confirmed that he was waiving his right to confidentiality and assured the reporter that he was doing so voluntary (the source had already done this in writing but the TIME reporter felt that he was coerced into doing this by the government). The NYT reporter stuck to her guns and went to jail.

It seems that the TIME reporter fudged his ethics because of his family ... or it may be that the eleventh hour call really did reassure him. I don't see how the source could have made it clear it was voluntary though ... the source could have been coerced by the government to call the reporter just as the source was coerced to make a written waiver.



Then explain why the President had a laywer present for his interviews? Why would the President want to "invoke supsicion" by having a lawyer present for his interviews if "he did absolutely nothing wrong"? ... same deal with Amber Frey and other people like that.

So apparently we have three different sources who ratted out this CIA agent? Its possible, I suppose...

And of course the TIME reporter's source released him from the agreement...he was going to be given away anyway...

And the reason Bush would need a lawyer is he...um...doesn't think too fast? He would probably have ended up incriminating himself even though he had absolutely no knowledge of any of it. Karl Rove doesn't need a lawyer unless he thinks he might be in trouble. He is a mastermind of propoganda...

 

[Mark1031]

Very funny press conference on this here. Apparently the white house will not comment on an ongoing investigation . Is the press getting some backbone?

 

[Sims2789]

Good thing you can keep your cool when there's a viewpoint you disagree with.

You're attacking the person, not the issue. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with disagreeing viewpoints; it has to do with one viewpoint trying to outlaw the other.

 

[eyrei]

Apparently, Rove has admitted telling the TIME reporter (Matthew Cooper) that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Of course, he claims to have not given her name...of course, putting one and one together after that pretty much amounts to the same thing.

However, unless it can be shown that he intentionally and with full knowledge revealed the name of someone he knew to be a covert agent, there will be no criminal charges. Of course, the political fallout may be interesting...

Still, noone knows the details of Novak's involvement, though he says that one day he will tell...

 

[Mark1031]

However, unless it can be shown that he intentionally and with full knowledge revealed the name of someone he knew to be a covert agent, there will be no criminal charges.

Not if he lied under oath to the Grand Jury or even to investigators. That is where his real exposure lies. The other sounds much too hard to prove anyway. Also politically people aren't going to make these fine distinctions .

 

[wit>trope]

And the reason Bush would need a lawyer is he...um...doesn't think too fast? He would probably have ended up incriminating himself even though he had absolutely no knowledge of any of it

Very funny.

Apparently, Rove has admitted telling the TIME reporter (Matthew Cooper) that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Of course, he claims to have not given her name...of course, putting one and one together after that pretty much amounts to the same thing.

To add to what you wrote, apparently Rove mentioned in passing that the wife was a CIA agent without revealing her name, not to out her or anything like that, but to discourage Cooper from going in a certain direction with his story. Cooper was going in the direction of saying that Vice-President Cheney and whoever was responsible for appointing Wilson, and Rove, not wanting to make Cheney look bad, told Cooper that Cheney wasn't the one responsible for appointing Wilson and that it was really due to the influence of Wilson's wife due to her working for the CIA. So it was an innocent, harmless (at least intention-wise) thing he did. Apparently Cooper either already knew the wife's name or gained that information from another source.

Now one could be cynical and say that Rove deliberately tried to make it LOOK like that was what he was doing ... but that would take some super-Klingon cunning ... it seems that given the account of the Cooper-Rove conversation, that if Rove was one of Novak's sources, that the Novak-Rove conversation went along the same lines.

Still, noone knows the details of Novak's involvement, though he says that one day he will tell...

You know it occurred to me about Novak saying his lawyer told him not to make any further comments. That might just be because there's a Grand Jury investigation and some secrecy is required there. So it may be that Novak is required by law to maintain secrecy at least until the Grand Jury investigation is over ... not sure though. Maybe he'll write a book

 

[wit>trope]

You know what I find even more disturbing about TIME or their parent company's conduct is that now TIME has not only handed over, at the then objection of reporter Matt Cooper (who at this point hadn't received a trusted waiver), the documents that deal with confidential sources, but now has LEAKED THEM to Newsweek!? What court order are they going to cite for that gross violation of journalistic ethics?

 

[eyrei]

You know what I find even more disturbing about TIME or their parent company's conduct is that now TIME has not only handed over, at the then objection of reporter Matt Cooper (who at this point hadn't received a trusted waiver), the documents that deal with confidential sources, but now has LEAKED THEM to Newsweek!? What court order are they going to cite for that gross violation of journalistic ethics?

I'm not sure, but TIME and Newsweek may have the same parent company...

Regardless, turning over this information when the reporter was willing to go to jail for a few months to protect it is despicable, and just another reason that it is a bad thing that large corporations own most of our media outlets.

 

[eyrei]

I'm beginning to think that this will end up much like the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, where the Bush administration will spend much of its time for the next year or so, defending itself rather than initiating policy. Pay-back is hell...

 

[IglooDame]

I'm beginning to think that this will end up much like the Clinton/Lewinski scandal, where the Bush administration will spend much of its time for the next year or so, defending itself rather than initiating policy. Pay-back is hell...

Indeed. And it couldn't happen to nicer guys, eh?


"No, it wasn't Rove, and the President will fire whoever it was" has become...

"No comment, and the President isn't firing anyone."

 

[FriendlyFire]

You know what I find even more disturbing about TIME or their parent company's conduct is that now TIME has not only handed over, at the then objection of reporter Matt Cooper (who at this point hadn't received a trusted waiver), the documents that deal with confidential sources, but now has LEAKED THEM to Newsweek!? What court order are they going to cite for that gross violation of journalistic ethics?

karl rove leaking name to press as payback and endangering us lives and security == no problem with that

Time magzine revealing who was the sourse of the leak = Gross violation

 

[.Shane.]

Time magzine revealing who was the sourse of the leak = Gross violation

Not necessarily. If the protected source gives permission, then they can reveal such information. I'm not sure that's the case here, but I think it might be.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I was mearly pointing out cierdan hypocrasy

 

[wilbill]

You know it occurred to me about Novak saying his lawyer told him not to make any further comments. That might just be because there's a Grand Jury investigation and some secrecy is required there. So it may be that Novak is required by law to maintain secrecy at least until the Grand Jury investigation is over ... not sure though.

I think you're right that he's not talking because of the Grand Jury investigation. I think the specific reason, though, is because he testified and gave up his source(s) without even flinching. It wouldn't be the first time Novak's voluntarily identified his sources. In 2001, Novak revealed Robert Hanssen to have been his source for a 1997 article accusing Janet Reno of covering up campaign finance scandals. Novak said he was justified because Hanssen had been found guilty of (among other things) revealing the names of uncercover CIA operatives. There's irony for you.

 

[amadeus]

Rove has yet to do anything illegal and you're all calling for what, his resignation, or execution?

To be charged with revealing a covert operator's name, there has to be evidence that the CIA tried to suppress (for lack of a better word) Mrs. Plame's identity. There is no such evidence. Karl 1, foaming-at-the-mouth lefties - 0.

Mr. Wilson had his photograph and his wife's identity availible from his web site. If Mrs. Plame was a covert operator, which there is not evidence to support, Joe Wilson should be the one under investigation, not Karl Rove, because once this identification has been leaked, repeating it in a public or private forum is not a crime. Karl 2, Michael Moore and his gasbag Hollywood friends - 0.

Also for this to be a crime Rove had to in addition to the above had to intentionally leak this name to undermine U.S. national security policy. Like the other two, there's no evidence to support this. Karl 3, Chappaquiddick Ted - 0.

The newspapers and other fading media will huff and puff and try to blow the White House down. They should spare their breath - they're going to fail, and they're going to look even worse in the public eye. All we need now is a fake memorandum from a dead superior officer in the Texas Air National Guard and we'll be back to where we were a year ago.

 

[VoodooAce]

Karl 3, Chappaquiddick Ted - 0

If it was TK that was being accused, with the same evidence against him, you'd be all over him, RM. I think you know it, and I know everyone in this forum knows it.

And it would be story One on Faux News.

 

[amadeus]

Kennedy wouldn't do it though, since Plame lobbied for her anti-war, anti-Bush husband to investigate the Niger yellowcake claims. Besides, the "same evidence," how about getting some evidence?

 

[GenMarshall]

Perhaps in the Bush Administration Karl Rove (hears wolves howling after saying his name) would just get a slap on the wrist.

 

[cgannon64]

A third reporter, Robert Novak, who actually first published an article with this information, seems to be sitting pretty.

The actual circumstances that make releasing an agent's name a crime are awfully specific, and I don't think Novak falls into the category.

Miller, though, should obviously be in jail. My question is, why is she being hailed as a hero? It's not as if she's protecting some Felt-like maverick who's bringing down a corrupt administration. She's protecting a mean-spirited partisan, very possibly Karl Rove. I don't understand how people can simultaneously attack Karl Rove for releasing the agent's name and praise Plume for defending such a stupid and low action.

The New York Times, of course, is eating up the letters its getting for protecting such a freedom-loving patriot. The Letters section of the Op-Ed has been devoted to it.

 

[VoodooAce]

Kennedy wouldn't do it though, since Plame lobbied for her anti-war, anti-Bush husband to investigate the Niger yellowcake claims. Besides, the "same evidence," how about getting some evidence?

The very fact of the matter is that Plame was, at the time, under 'covert status'.

It is, quite simply, against federal law to reveal the identity of a covert operative.

Not sure what all the debate is about.

At the very least, Bush should fire him (he said in 2003 that he fire the leak).

Also, McClellan should resign as he assured us, quite confidently, that the leak definitely was NOT Rove.