Might Karl Rove go to jail?

[wilbill]

He didn't say anything of the sort. He was asked a QUESTION by liberal Fox News host Shepard Smith about STOCK MARKETS. And Brit said that his first thought in REGARD TO STOCK MARKETS was that it was time to buy. He didn't say it was his first thought in general but his first thought ABOUT THE MARKETS -- that was what liberal Shepard Smith ASKED HIM ABOUT.

From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 1 and 2 p.m. ET:
(Smith is asking Hume about the lack of negative reaction to the London bombings by the US stock markets.)

SMITH: Some of the things you might expect to happen, for instance, a drop in the stock market and some degree of uncertainty across this country -- none of that really seen today, and I wonder if the timing of it -- that it happened in the middle of the night and we were able to get a sense of the grander scheme of things -- wasn't helpful in all this.

HUME: Well, maybe. The other thing is, of course, people have -- you know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy. Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets.

After telling us his first thought was to buy in the wake of the bombings, Hume went on to answer the Liberal ( ) Smith's question...

But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.

Smith didn't ask him about his personal stock tips, he asked about the stock market's reaction to the bombing.

 

[wilbill]

Um no, I'm taking comments from the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR at face value. The SPECIAL PROSECUTOR says that Rove is not a target and that he thinks Rove is being candid and honest.

If you have a reference to the Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, saying that Rove is not a target, please post it. Otherwise you really should correct your version of this statement. Rove's lawyer said it, not the SP.

Anybody who's ever watched a few minutes of Court TV knows that lawyers go in front of the media and make unfounded claims all the time. This may or may not be the case here, but until the SP says it in public, only Rove's lawyer has said it.

"Rove has cooperated completely with the special prosecutor, and he has been repeatedly assured he is not a target of the investigation. Rove has done nothing wrong. We're confident that he will not become a target after the special prosecutor has reviewed all evidence," Luskin's statement said." That's Rove's lawyer talking. It's not the Special Prosecutor talking.

 

[wit>trope]

Actually you're incorrect yourself.

Um no I'm not. I'll quote from the law itself VERBATIM:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

So if the United States was not "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States" or if it was not known that that was what the US was doing, THEN IT IS NOT A CRIME under this law EVEN IF the agent is technically "covert."

The CIA had Plame classed as "nonofficial cover," which at the very LEAST means that Rove WAS deliberately and knowingly leaking classified information - itself a very serious crime and - guess what? - ALSO a felony, I believe.

Um, no. I quoted verbatim from the law and it SPECIFICALLY says that the agent must not only be covert (which is debatable in itself) but that ALSO, the US must be taking "affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

That's why she had a fake personal history, including employment at a fake CIA front company.

Um if you went to the address of the company, the property was completely EMPTY. No one there! Not even a secretary or any kind of office. The "company" existed only on paper. The only thing it had that was "real" was a PO Box. Those who are under "deep cover" don't get a cover like that -- it'd be INCREDIBLY STUPID for the CIA to try to conceal someone on "deep cover" with a company that existed only on paper and that ANYONE who investigated for a few hours by like going to the address would realize that something was up. Those who are under "deep cover" are placed in real companies, companies that actually have offices and things like that.

Wrong again. Even Rove's lawyer, Luskin, has admitted the opposite in a WaPo interview:

Um, no. In that interview he REITERATES that the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR says that Rove is NOT a target of the investigation. Being a "subject" and being a "target" are two different things. When you investigate a crime, the victim is also a "subject" of the investigation but the victim is surely not a "target" of the investigation. And besides that, we still have the statement from the special prosector that he believes Rove is being forthright and honest.

That's correct, he should be in jail.

You think Novak should be in jail!

There is no federal shield law for reporters. The confidentiality of anonymous sources is not protected under a federal criminal investigation. Therefore, anyone who shows contempt of court by refusing to reveal the source of the leak SHOULD be in jail.

Um, and you know that Novak did this, how?

Those who do the right thing by honoring professional secrecy shouldn't go to jail regardless of what some law says anyway. Courts can abuse their power and govt's can pass abusive laws just as kings can.

Judith Miller is apparently in the slammer for this reason. Cooper isn't because his company, TIME, decided to cooperate. Unless Novak talks, he should be behind bars too.

Um, what makes you think Novak hasn't talked?

Personally I think there SHOULD be source protection on the federal level, but it's not a law - yet.

Um, so on the one hand you think they shouldn't go to jail but on the other hand you think they should ... sounds contradictory to me. It sounds like if you were living in China and there was a law saying that certain people have to be sterilized (as there is), you would say, "They SHOULD be sterilized because that is the LAW. But the law SHOULD NOT be that way" -- self contradictory!

Wrong (yet again - is anyone keeping score?), you have absolutely no idea how she functioned in past ops.

Um yes I do. One of Novak's unofficial CIA sources said that she was an "analyst" and not a covert spy. Check back in the thread were I quote it.

Also, once again (this doesn't seem to be getting through to you does it?) blowing HER cover means implicating everyone she's ever contacted or worked with, many people, some of whom just MIGHT be those "real" James Bonds, some of whom just might be working in important ops undercover RIGHT NOW.

Um if all this is true, then why didn't the CIA MENTION THIS TO NOVAK! Novak says that while the CIA asked him not to reveal her name that the CIA did NOT say that revealing her name would put her or anyone else in danger. CIA only said it might cause her personal "difficulties" if she chose to go on some personal travel abroad.

Of course Luskin is lying in his client's defence. That's the only way he'll ever get off. Rove has already given statements (like "I didn't know her name, I didn't leak her name") that have been revealed as lies.

Um, no they weren't revealed as lies at all. His statements were all absolutely 100% true. He DIDN'T know her name and since he didn't KNOW her name, obviously he couldn't TELL anyone her name. The meaning of his statements is very clear. If some stupid reporter gets fooled and doesn't ask a followup: "But did you ever talk about her to a reporter without mentioning her by name?" then that's that stupid reporter's fault.

Same with Scott McClellan, the Press Secretary for the White House. Lies lies lies.

Um, what lies has HE told? In your other post you said that maybe he HADN'T told any lies (you said that he and others may have been the innocent victim of Rove's lies), but now you are saying that he DID! Another self-contradiction!

Why do you think they're stonewalling?

Um, they aren't stonewalling. They are cooperating completely with the investigation. The prosecutors asked them not to make any further public comments. And again the special prosecutor has said that he believes Rove is being CANDID and HONEST.

There's very little room for ANYONE who isn't a complete partisan to doubt that Rove is guilty of the felony of leaking classified info, and probably the second felony of leaking an agent's name.

Let me ask you a question and answer honestly. When you wrote the above had you even read the full text of the law? I highly doubt it So you are shouting that NOONE reasonable could doubt that Rove is guilty when:

1. You hadn't even read the law!

2. Many LIBERAL journalists and commentators acknowledge that it is doubtful whether Rove is guilty I already mentioned a woman who works for the Washington Post. She's not alone. There are many others.

No, he did so once (that you've shown).

Um, are you even familiar with Novak's columns? Go try find a site that has an archive of his columns and try reading a random selection of say 20 of them. He criticizes Republicans or Republican governments ALL THE TIME! Even your ally Will Bill has acknowledged that he is only a "sometime apologist" for the Bush administration -- I think if Will Bill were more familiar with Novak's columns (not his Crossfire work since CNN's Crossfire is now basically an entertainement/comedy show sad to say), he'd even change that to "frequent critic."

"Independent thought", Novak? Give me a friggin break, Cierdan.

Um you just basically said with your argument here that conservatives can't engage in "independent thought." ... as if engaging in independent thought means you have to be liberal or moderate ... that's not what "indepedent thought" means, dude! Independent thought means thinking for yourself -- whether you end up reaching a conclusion classified as "conservative" "liberal" or "moderate" is irrelevant. In fact, making yourself any one of those three things purposefully would be the exact OPPOSITE of indepedent thought.

Third, you've yet to cite any of the "hundreds" of people who knew about Plame. What evidence do we have that Plame was known as an agent, except Rove's and Novak's own statements?

Um, if you read the thread you'll see that I DID cite other people who knew she worked for CIA. Fred Barnes says he had heard the same rumor. Clifford May also says that he had heard the same rumor from a non-govt source. I'm sure other people have come forward also. And I said "dozens and dozens" and "possibly hundreds"

He used "apparently" to mean "the chief partisan in the Bush White House just told me this on secret background about a politically partisan issue and I had DARN WELL BETTER get some other, er, IMPARTIAL source to verify this before I use it or I'll have libel cases up to the eyebrows." "Apparently" as in "why the heck should I trust Rove when he has a VESTED INTEREST" in this issue? This is EXACTLY why some people who got the leak decided NOT to write about it.

Um you're doing loads and loads of extrapolation there.

And you are not realizing that if Rove wanted to embarass Wilson that he wouldn't have told Cooper this on "double super secret background."

Do you know what "background" means in journalistic lingo? It doesn't look like you do.

"Off the record" means that the reporter can use the information but can't attribute it to the source. "Background" means that the reporter can't even use the information -- so the reporter can't mention it at all. Do you see now how your theory is a house of cards? Rove told Cooper to not use the information AT ALL (remember this is according to Cooper's own email) -- why would he do that, if he wanted Cooper to publically embarass Wilson?

Finally, even if everything you said is true (but it's not), it doesn't stop the Plame leak from being a felony.

I've proven you totally wrong by quoting the law verbatim and explaining it up above.

 

[VoodooAce]

Um she wasn't covert at all (at the time her "outing" happened) SHE COMMUTED TO AND FROM LANGLEY! Maybe she was "covert" on some paper in some filing cabinet somewhere on the 5th floor of Langley in the most obscure, nit-picking, technical sense, but for all intents and purposes she was not covert. Do you know what "Langley" is? That's the CIA headquarters! Everyone knows where it is and what's there. If she were really covert in the sense of taking effort to hide her working for the CIA, I don't think she'd be commuting to and from Langley.

This ALONE, proves that she wasn't covert in any conventional sense of the word.

Yes, cierdan, I know what Langley is.

But you're wrong.....just plain wrong. She was ON COVERT STATUS at the time.

Do you understand what OFFICIALLY ON COVERT STATUS is?

I don't care if she was pan handling on the freeway off ramp with a sign that said "CIA agent will spy for food" on it.

She was OFFICIALLY ON COVERT STATUS. And Rover leaked her identity. Doesn't matter how badly you wish it wasn't so, it was.

 

[wit>trope]

After telling us his first thought was to buy in the wake of the bombings, Hume went on to answer the Liberal ( ) Smith's question...

Um, he IS liberal. During the Shiavo crisis, he kept on saying that Terri was in PVS (Persistent Vegetitative State). You are very ignorant if you think Fox News doesn't have liberals. In fact it has more liberals than conservatives. Let me just give you one of many liberal hosts on Fox: Greta van Susteran who:

1. Donates to Democrats
2. Was a Clinton-supporter
3. Was an OJ-Defender
4. Is a Scientologist.

Now back to the topic

Smith didn't ask him about his personal stock tips, he asked about the stock market's reaction to the bombing.

You would make a good Grand Inquisitor

 

[wit>trope]

She was OFFICIALLY ON COVERT STATUS.

Her official status is completely irrelevant. What a "covert agent" is is defined by the LAW, and not by the CIA or anyone else. This is how the LAW defines "covert agent"

(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

Also even if she WAS a "covert agent" as defined by the LAW, that doesn't make it a crime:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

[amadeus]

She was ON COVERT STATUS at the time.

Your source for that is what?

 

[amadeus]

The repub response to this would be funny if it wasn't so sick and dangerous for the country.

"Sick and dangerous?"

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Actually, if a democrat had done the same thing, as I know the facts at this point, I would be thinking they should resign, just like I think Rove should resign. He should have spoken publically months ago before an investigation was even required.

Heck, I'd be disappointed unless our theoretical Democrat president fired the traitorous piece of filth. And then let the jury throw him in jail for ten years. Whatever the political party, what Rove did was totally despicable.

So if the United States was not "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States" or if it was not known that that was what the US was doing, THEN IT IS NOT A CRIME under this law EVEN IF the agent is technically "covert."

And people here have reminded you REPEATEDLY that she WAS undercover. Again, why are you being obtuse? She was classified at the CIA as being a NOC (nonoffical cover), which means (to quote Slate):

the most covert CIA operatives. They typically work abroad without diplomatic protection (often they pretend to work for some commercial enterprise). If these spies are caught, there's no guarantee that the United States would admit their true identities. When using official cover could put a spy's life and work at risk, NOC is the only alternative.

Don't be fooled by the name. NOC is the deepest cover type. So deep that if Plame was caught in an enemy country (say, North Korea) there is ZERO GUARANTEE that the USA would demand her return or even acknowledge that she was a spy. Hence, "non-official": no recognition, no protection, no extradition back to America, no diplomatic immunity. You're on your own. "Official cover" means that if you're caught the US ruefully admits it and asks for you back... alive, please. "Nonofficial"? No such luck.

Slate, incidentally, makes the exact same point that I am making, and that you have STUPIDLY failed to realize despite me repeating it at least twice:

...her discovery could compromise intelligence operations she was involved with around the world, which would explain why she maintained her nonofficial cover even when she was back in the United States. "Hard target" countries like China and North Korea often keep records of every known meeting between Americans and their scientists and officials. Almost certainly, those lists would have been frantically reviewed when Plame's identity was revealed, and any sources she recruited could have been exposed.

And with your next quote, I have to wonder exactly how deliberate this ignorance of the key points is:

Um if you went to the address of the company, the property was completely EMPTY. No one there! Not even a secretary or any kind of office. The "company" existed only on paper. The only thing it had that was "real" was a PO Box. Those who are under "deep cover" don't get a cover like that -- it'd be INCREDIBLY STUPID for the CIA to try to conceal someone on "deep cover" with a company that existed only on paper and that ANYONE who investigated for a few hours by like going to the address would realize that something was up. Those who are under "deep cover" are placed in real companies, companies that actually have offices and things like that.

Why would she need active cover while safely in the USA, not on a mission? Until she was outed, we have nobody's word but Karl Rove's that she was ever even SUSPECTED of being a CIA agent. Why would anyone investigate her - until she was outed? Why would anyone look up her company - until she was outed?

Plame had worked for the CIA for TWENTY YEARS. She was probably near retirement. This front was the equivalent of C.Y.A. - "Let's just make sure anyone doesn't discover what Plame did until she's safely out of harm's way and all ops that could even possibly be linked to her through contacts and acquaintances from her years of service are wrapped up."

Besides, there are plenty of companies that have little more to their name than a PO Box. You know, these Republican "grassroots organizations" that have "Family" or "Jesus" or "Modernizing Social Security" in their names... snark snark. Ok, less sarcastic response, plenty of startup businesses. Including all these so-called "energy explorers."

You think Novak should be in jail!

Personally? Meh. But the law's the law. I've already explained it quite clearly, not going to do so again. Go back, read previous post, try to understand this time.

Those who do the right thing by honoring professional secrecy shouldn't go to jail regardless of what some law says anyway.

I see that, like Karl Rove and many of his friends, you have that dangerous, Republican predilection for only obeying the laws you like.

Novak says that while the CIA asked him not to reveal her name that the CIA did NOT say that revealing her name would put her or anyone else in danger.

Usually, when the CIA tells you not to out their operatives, you listen and obey. You don't leak the info anyway cuz they didn't humor you with an explicit explanation of why such a leak would be dangerous, traitorous, and, um, a felony.

That is, unless you're Robert Novak, or a total idiot.

Sorry, did I say "or"?

His statements were all absolutely 100% true. He DIDN'T know her name and since he didn't KNOW her name, obviously he couldn't TELL anyone her name. The meaning of his statements is very clear. If some stupid reporter gets fooled and doesn't ask a followup: "But did you ever talk about her to a reporter without mentioning her by name?" then that's that stupid reporter's fault.

You must not be keeping up with this at all, I guess.

We already know that Rove mentioned Plame to Cooper as "Wilson's wife." Now, unless our friend the diplomat happens to be from Utah (or Saudi Arabia!), this narrows the field down quite a bit... in fact, I think Wilson has just ONE wife (at the moment)... Heck, he's not even divorced and remarried. The guesswork? Not very difficult.

The law does not distinguish between outing an agent by explicit name or by such blatant implication that only one person could possibly be suggested.

It is ridiculous to believe that Rove didn't know Plame's name, anyway. Since he has yet to bring forward a SINGLE one of these "hundreds" of people who participated in the alleged rumor-spreading, it's only logical to believe that Rove discovered Plame while (mis)using his security clearance to gather dirt on Wilson.

Just like Watergate... sigh... they NEVER learn, do they?

Moreover (you should read my posts, you might learn something) Rove's lawyer REFUSED TO RESPOND when asked by a reporter if Rove knew that Plame was covert. Why refuse to respond if Rove DIDN'T know? Why refuse when thrown such an obvious softball, ie "You didn't know she was really on NOC, didya? C'mon, ya didn't"? Can there be any doubt here? Can you offer an explanation?

In your other post you said that maybe he HADN'T told any lies (you said that he and others may have been the innocent victim of Rove's lies), but now you are saying that he DID! Another self-contradiction!

True, and a mistake on my part! If the first scenario was true (Rove didn't tell the President anything) then all the lies and coverups coming from McClellan and Bush have been made as a result of being duped by Rove.

Of course, to believe that scenario would be underestimating the strength of Bush's connection, friendship, and complicit connection with Rove. I believe Rove's told him everything and Bush has been C'ing his A ever since. Not like it doesn't come natural to this Preznit to mislead.

Um, they aren't stonewalling. They are cooperating completely with the investigation.

They're stonewalling the PRESS. We have, of course, only their word that they are cooperating with the INVESTIGATION (although I guess Fitzgerald would kick up a fuss in the media if they weren't - best way of making them fold.)

The prosecutors asked them not to make any further public comments.

And you believe this? They were happy to make comments when Rove was NOT "a subject" of the investigation. Now that he's a subject? All clammed up! And they have so far graciously refused from rushing to Rove's aid and insisting he's innocent! All because the prosecutors asked em to!

You may be the one man on Earth who actually believes EVERYTHING that comes out of Scotty McClellan... even when he's not exactly talking out of his MOUTH per se... :lol

1. You hadn't even read the law!

I had indeed read the law, but decided not to link to it as that would be slightly patronizing. Don't worry though - I've changed my assessment

Go try find a site that has an archive of his columns and try reading a random selection of say 20 of them. He criticizes Republicans or Republican governments ALL THE TIME!

It's really that easy?

Ok, you do it. Find me twenty columns in which Rove levels substantial criticisms of the Bush administration. Heck, if he's even SLIGHTLY unbiased then at least 20% of his columns written since 2000 ought to criticize the Bush Administration. EXPLICITLY. As vehemently as he attacks Democrats.

Too high a bar for you?

I thought so. Will you even respond to this, or will you drop it like a hot potato, just like you've dropped everything else I've written that you can't give a slick, misleading answer to?

Um you just basically said with your argument here that conservatives can't engage in "independent thought." ... as if engaging in independent thought means you have to be liberal or moderate ... that's not what "indepedent thought" means, dude!

Wrong, "independent thinker" was YOUR OWN quote to describe Novak as some sort of impartial, independent paragon...

(go look back & check, heck, I revise my prior statement, maybe you should read YOUR OWN posts as well, not just mine!)

...whereas I have shown, and you have hilariously denied, that Novak is anything BUT independent of the Bush Administration.

And you are not realizing that if Rove wanted to embarass Wilson that he wouldn't have told Cooper this on "double super secret background."

If Rove did not know that his information was BS, and his method of giving it a felony, then he would have HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE AND ANNOUNCED THIS INFORMATION OPENLY.

I think you're having trouble realizing how deep your idol is in his own excrement. Don't worry, you will eventually

"Off the record" means that the reporter can use the information but can't attribute it to the source. "Background" means that the reporter can't even use the information -- so the reporter can't mention it at all. Do you see now how your theory is a house of cards? Rove told Cooper to not use the information AT ALL (remember this is according to Cooper's own email) -- why would he do that, if he wanted Cooper to publically embarass Wilson?

Your rhetoric is lagging two hours behind the leading conservative blogs, I see :lol Tsk tsk, keep up!

Yes, Rove told Cooper a highly classified tidbit & then told him not to use it. I suuure believe that one.

Oh - finishing touch, ice on the cake - he told the same classified tidbit to Novak (to whom he had previously leaked sensitive information WHICH NOVAK THEN IMMEDIATELY PUBLISHED) and told Novak "please don't publish this... this time, eh"? :lol

If this is the latest conservative response you guys are getting LAMER by the minute Why tell the reporters your CHIEF ALLEGATION against Wilson and then act soooooo disappointed when they "accidentally" publish it? "Oops! Ok, she's fair game now," says Rove. :lol They didn't even BOTHER to appear disappointed.

Do you understand what OFFICIALLY ON COVERT STATUS is?

Again, she was NOT on OFFICIAL cover status. OC status gives you a measure of protection, including diplomatic immunity. Nonofficial cover is far more serious - and dangerous for the spy involved.

Of course, according to the law it's still "covert status" so I may be understanding you, sorry

Um, he IS liberal. During the Shiavo crisis, he kept on saying that Terri was in PVS (Persistent Vegetitative State).

And we know now that this was a fact. Oh wait, don't tell me, THE FACTS WERE BIASED AGAINST CONSERVATIVES. GASP! HOW DARE THEY!

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

"Sick and dangerous?"

You bet. Letting the politically motivated leak of an intelligence officer's cover-blowing go unpunished? Bad precedent, don't you think?

 

[GenMarshall]

Egad, did I just heard a wolf's howl just a moment ago after a poster named Harl Kove (A parody of Karl Rove) registered?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Do you know the story of the Book of Esther? In the Jewish tradition, when the story of Esther is retold on the feast of Purim (the festival celebrating Esther's liberation of the Jews from Persia) whenever the narrator mentions Haman (the king's evil advisor, who plotted against Mordecai and Esther) the audience rattles toys (called "raashim", literally "noisemaker") to drown out his name.

Almost prophetically appropriate! :raashim

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

well, i think its safe to say that he wasnt refering to you AAA, a noted centrist type, and highly reasonbile man.

Thank you!

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: Cierdan, if you use 'um' at the beginning of every sentence again, I'm going to ban you for trolling. It irritated me, and I don't get irritated very easily. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[IglooDame]

I've got two questions for the group:

#1 - Can anyone give me a similar case that occurred during the Clinton Administration that we might use for comparison, to perhaps weed out the "he's a Republican, so he's innocent" responses from the "he didn't do anything wrong" responses? (And the "he's a Republican, so he's guilty" responses from the "he did something illegal" responses, too.)

#2 - Can anyone explain to me succinctly why Novak hasn't revealed his source but is not in jail, while Judith Miller is in jail and the Time reporter would be if the magazine hadn't rolled?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Josh Marshall blogs and investigates Rove's lawyer, the enigmatic Mr. Luskin. I guess all questions about Luskin's credibility are answered, eh?

So I was curious: Is Robert D. Luskin the sort of lawyer who never gets caught in a fib or a misstatement on his client's behalf? Or is he a bit more fast and loose?

Well, it turns out that Luskin is a rather colorful figure with not a bad sense of humor... One case that jumps out at you is his representation of Stephen A. Saccoccia.

Saccoccia and his wife Donna were eventually convicted of laundering more than a hundred million dollars for various Colombian drug kingpins. Stephen is currently serving a 660 year sentence. Their racket was laundering drug money through companies which traded in precious metals.

Saccoccia was convicted in 1993. And Luskin took up his case on appeal.

Eventually the Feds got the idea that the money Saccoccia had paid Luskin and his other attorneys for their services was itself part of the $137 million in drug money he was ordered to forfeit. Now, on the face of it this seems a bit unfair since under our system everyone is entitled to good representation and how was Luskin to know it was tainted money.

Well, the prosecutors thought he should have gotten some inkling when Saccoccia started paying Luskin's attorney's fees in gold bars.

Yep, you heard that right. Luskin got paid more than $500,000 of his attorney's fees in gold bars from his client who was trying to appeal his conviction on charges that he laundered drug money through precious metals dealers. Who woulda thought that was drug money?

Luskin insisted that he "never have, and never would, knowingly accept a fee that was the proceeds of illegal activities."

But when federal prosecutors finally got a chance to depose Luskin and Saccoccia's other lawyers, they found that their lawyers' fees had come in forms "such as gold bars, cash that was dropped off at hotels and trunks of cars, and money transfers from Swiss bank accounts."

Eventually, in 1998, Luskin came to a settlement with the government in which he agreed to cough up $245,000 of the money he'd gotten from Saccoccia.

 

[amadeus]

If you're a defense attorney, it is your job to represent people that sometimes don't deserve to be represented.

 

[cgannon64]

It's about keeping one's sacred promise of professional secrecy.

Does this sacred promise cover all possibilities? No matter what, a journalist keeps his source secret?

"I'll keep it a secret as long as you are fine, upstanding moral person; but if I find out that you are a very bad, immoral, mean person who flouts the law, I am going to tell everyone what you told me in secret."

Revise that statement a little, and it's correct. The unspoken subtext of the journalist's promise is: "If I find out you're releasing this information for immoral reasons, and are flouting the law for immoral reasons, I will not keep your secret any more."

If a client tells a lawyer something and it turns out to be really, really bad (like the client is responsible for 1000 murders and rapes or something), the lawyer is still bound by professional ethics to keep the professional secret. Same for a priest who hears a confession and same for a reporter who gets something from a source.

Of course, but the priest, lawyer, and doctor are all bound by an official code - hell, they probably signed a document!. The journalist is not, and did not.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If you're a defense attorney, it is your job to represent people that sometimes don't deserve to be represented.

Hence his current employment.

Regardless, accepting drug money from your client doesn't really fit under the definition of "zealously defending" their interests in court.

 

[amadeus]

Good attorneys don't work for peanuts.

I'd also like to know what your pre-ban name was.