Might Karl Rove go to jail?

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

What other kind of money is a lawyer going to accept if he is defending a drug dealer?

(I remind you that someone has to defend the drug dealer, and this someone doesn't do it for free. And he shouldn't, unless you think that drug dealers are worthy of charity.)
 
rmsharpe said:
Good attorneys don't work for peanuts.

I posted this information knowing that you, if nobody else, would be willing to leap to Luskin's defence ;)

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

:lol: Only if I give the information on super-duper double secret background. Anyway, I was never banned.

What other kind of money is a lawyer going to accept if he is defending a drug dealer?

(I remind you that someone has to defend the drug dealer, and this someone doesn't do it for free. And he shouldn't, unless you think that drug dealers are worthy of charity.)

Er, you seem to have missed the point.

Accepting drug money as payment for legal services was a pretty damn big crime.
 
Well that's odd. So if the government succeeds in prosecuting a drug dealer, it has a case all set up against his lawyer as a result.

How are drug dealers supposed to defend themselves in court, then?
 
cgannon64 said:
Well that's odd. So if the government succeeds in prosecuting a drug dealer, it has a case all set up against his lawyer as a result. How are drug dealers supposed to defend themselves in court, then?

I'm a little confused here because you seemingly do not understand the law...

If a defendant cannot afford an attorney, the state provides one for him. Everyone has the ability to waive their right to a private attorney and take one of the "public defenders" instead. Being poor (or in this case, having a congenital allergy to honest work, and thereby having no money that wasn't filthy lucre) does not exclude you from the right of due process including the right to an attorney. I'm not saying the system's perfect - the public defenders are usually the worst of the lot from law school - but it works as well as it can.

Of course in this case the government DID "have a case all set up against his lawyer" because both client and lawyer were either stupid or sleazy enough to think Luskin could be paid in obvious drug bling (which according to the plea deal was supposed to have been ceded) and not raise eyebrows. I guess they knew partisan Republicans like Rmsharpe would always be willing to overlook a little crime and blatant corruption here and there.

Heck, with the Bush record of hiring Nixon ex-cons, I think they might actually be counting a stint in the slammer as a PLUS on their resumes.
 
Yes, yes, I know all about public defenders. :rolleyes:

My point is that the defense lawyers are put in a rather strange position, being that if they win their case, they've done nothing wrong, and if they lose, they're going down with their client.

Must be a rather strange position to be in.
 
"If they lose they're going down with their client"? Not really. It was the defendant's choice to pay his lawyer in drug money, and the lawyer's choice to accept what was undoubtedly illicit payments. If they hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't be in further trouble. If attorney Luskin hadn't decided to accept payment in the form of fifty highly suspicious bars of solid gold, he wouldn't be in trouble for knowingly accepting drug money, and there would be zero consequence to him losing the trial for his client. Of course Luskin and his client both fell prey to the same old hubris, believing that even though the kingpin was standing a trial that put him away for life, they could pass around gold bars and money from Swiss bank accounts right under investigator's noses.

Anyway, it sure does illuminate Luskin's character and his defence of Rove.
 
Harl Kove said:
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):

She wasn't overseas at the time she was "outed" And again it doesn't matter what her classification at the CIA was. What matters is whether she counts as a "covert agent" under the DEFINITION provided in the LAW. The LAW does not say that "covert agent" means whatever the CIA says it means. The LAW provides a SPECIFIC definition which it says is the one that is operative for the purposes of the LAW.

Slate btw is an ultra-liberal publication. It is run by Michael Kinsley who is ultra-liberal. He used to be Pat Buchanan's liberal counterpart on CNN's Crossfire.

Why would she need active cover while safely in the USA, not on a mission?

If her cover wasn't good while in the US at that time, then obviously the CIA wasn't too concerned with anyone finding out that she was CIA. You just made my point! :goodjob: The LAW says that it is only a crime if the United States is PRESENTLY taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship with US intelligence services.

Until she was outed, we have nobody's word but Karl Rove's that she was ever even SUSPECTED of being a CIA agent.

Not true. Besides Robert Novak's word, Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume said that he had heard the rumor and he implied he hadn't heard it from Rove. Another person, I already named earlier in the thread specifically says that he heard it from a non-Govt source. There are probably a few others who have come forward that I just don't know about.

Why would anyone investigate her - until she was outed?

What if someone had been interested in buying that property and discovered it was owned by some company which didn't even have any office of any kind there? :king:

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."

This was a financial or lawyer company or something like that. It would be expected for certain to have an office. Besides she was listed as being an "analyst" at this front company and you can't be an analyst for it if the company only exists on paper and doesn't even have an office.

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

No, only laws that are RIGHT. If there was a law that said you had to kill your child would you obey it? No you wouldn't. (They have a law like that in China -- if you have too many babies or something, you are required to abort your baby)

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.

They did give an explanation. They said that it would cause her personal "difficulties" if she chose to travel abroad. That means that it would ONLY cause her difficulties and that it would NOT endanger her life or anyone else's life or endanger national security. I mean come on, don't you think that if it would endanger national security that the CIA would at least MENTION that it would to Novak?... like say something like, "Don't publish the story; it'll endanger national security." They don't need to explain how; they could just mention it; but they didn't.

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.

I already mentioned two people by name who say that they heard the same rumor. One said he heard it from a NON-GOVT source. The other (Fred Barnes) implied that he didn't hear it from Rove and the impression I got from watching him on Special Report was that he didn't hear it from a govt source, at least not a high level official. He may have spoken about it in greater depth elsewhere.

True, and a mistake on my part!

There's hope for you yet ;) :goodjob:

They're stonewalling the PRESS.

I would stonewall them too, especially that NBC news guy who had the nerve to not only interrupt the White House press secretary but also to tell him that he couldn't finish! White House press secretary said "if you would let me finish..." and NBC news guy said, "No! You are not finishing; you're not saying anything....this is ridiculous blah blah blah" (I'm paraphrasing).

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!

Well in one press conference they were able to extract out of him that the President has confidence in "all" his advisors or staff or something like that -- and "all" would include Rove. When they made comments before it was not as though Rove wasn't a "subject" of the investigation then and also when they made comments before it's not clear if that was before or after the prosecutors asked them to not make comments. Besides, answering the questions would just turn it into more of a circus than it already is and be a big distraction from more important things like the war on terror.

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? ;)

Well, I'm not going to go through 100 columns, but a cursory glance at his columns shows that a great many of them are critical of the GOP and/or Bush administration. In fact it may even be that more of his columns criticize the GOP and/or Bush administration and/or Republicans than they criticize Democrats. Here's one of countless examples:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20020404.shtml

Robert Novak said:
WASHINGTON -- George W. Bush was spending an Easter holiday at his Texas ranch last Saturday, with no intention of saying a word publicly about anything. Rising Israeli-Palestinian violence, however, impelled him to speak. That was unfortunate from the standpoint of presenting a coherent U.S. policy to the world, but it did show more clearly where President Bush really stands.

U.S. Foreign Service professionals were bewildered. Hours before, the Bush administration supported a United Nations Security Council resolution (adopted 14 to 0, with Syria abstaining) calling for Israel's military withdrawal from "Palestinian cities." President Bush, far from advocating Israeli forces to pull back, came close to fully condoning Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's aggressive activity. What's more, almost off-hand, he widened the circle of potential American enemies by linking Iran and Syria to the crisis.

Bush's remarks seemed so far off from a rational U.S. strategy that they suggest no president should discuss delicate foreign policy issues without a script or, at least, careful briefing. The president appeared to be picking sides in a debate of vast importance mostly fought below the surface in an administration that is particularly loath to admit internal disagreement . . .

The deep concern among former senior foreign policy officials, Republicans and Democrats, is that Sharon's offensive -- however unintentionally -- can result in Yasser Arafat's death. Sharon's iron fist transformed Arafat from a fading force in Islam to a hero, and his death would make him a martyr. The scope of this disaster has not been visualized by the president, to judge from his Easter Saturday remarks.

So Novak here even characterizes Bush's remarks as irrational, even "SO far off" from a rational US strategy.

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

Right, so maybe then I knew what I meant and you didn't know what I meant ;)

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

Right. He calls Bush's policy above "so far off" from a rational policy and you say that he's not independent of the Bush administration :rolleyes: :goodjob:

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

COOPER'S EMAIL SAYS THAT ROVE TOLD HIM TO USE IT!!!! That's what "background" means! When someone gives a reporter something on "background" that MEANS that the reporter is not to use it. COOPER's email says that Rove gave this to him on "background."

Again I don't think you understand what "background" means or maybe you didn't realize that COOPER's email says this.

Oh - finishing touch, ice on the cake - he told the same classified tidbit to Novak

Novak hasn't revealed any of his sources to the general public. He mentioned two sources and has said that one mentioned it "off-hand" and that the OTHER didn't mention it at all but rather that NOVAK mentioned it to HIM and HE (or she) said, "O, you know about that?" -- so it could have been ROVE who was this second source who just said, "O you know about that?" (assuming he was one of the two to begin with)
 
IglooDude said:
#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?

Igloo, we do not know that Novak hasn't revealed his source. Most commentators, both liberal and conservative, believe that Novak has revealed his source to the secret prosectutorial/grand jury investigation. The testimony in a grand jury is kept secret. It's part of the legal system. Some commentators think Novak has taken the 5th Amendment (which allows people to refuse to testify in order to avoid self-incrimination -- if Novak's lawyer was concerned that Novak had committed a crime by publishing the story, Novak may have taken the 5th Amendment and legally avoided testifying)
 
If her cover wasn't good while in the US at that time, then obviously the CIA wasn't too concerned with anyone finding out that she was CIA. You just made my point! The LAW says that it is only a crime if the United States is PRESENTLY taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship with US intelligence services.

The quality of her cover isn't at issue. The law says the CIA must be providing her with cover. Undoubtedly, it was.

What if someone had been interested in buying that property and discovered it was owned by some company which didn't even have any office of any kind there?

And that someone happened to be an agent for a foreign intelligence agency, eh? Your tales get taller by the minute.

Not much of your post merits an actual reply in fact, you seem to insist on repeating lies that have been debunked pages ago. Here are a few tidbits, as I've got time to waste:

especially that NBC news guy who had the nerve to not only interrupt the White House press secretary but also to tell him that he couldn't finish! White House press secretary said "if you would let me finish..." and NBC news guy said, "No! You are not finishing; you're not saying anything....this is ridiculous blah blah blah" (I'm paraphrasing).

Why don't you read Scotty's press briefings for yourself? Fun game: count the number of times Scott has used the phrase "ongoing investigation" in the past three days.

So Novak here even characterizes Bush's remarks as irrational, even "SO far off" from a rational US strategy.

Wrong, Novak doesn't criticize Bush for speaking a strategy he disagrees with, but for "speaking without a script." He feels that the President is being inarticulate and bumbling (ya think?) and is therefore not conveying the sensible, REPUBLICAN strategy on Israel. It's criticism on management, not ideology.

If this is the best of "countless examples" that you can find, I think we can lay this point of the debate to rest. Unless you want to try again?
 
Harl Kove said:
Not much of your post merits an actual reply in fact, you seem to insist on repeating lies that have been debunked pages ago. Here are a few tidbits, as I've got time to waste

Right I prove you wrong about things and you say it doesn't merit a reply. Like how I pointed out that Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume says that he heard the same rumor or how Clifford May on National Review Online says that he heard the same rumor from a NON-GOVT person.

Why don't you read Scotty's press briefings for yourself? Fun game: count the number of times Scott has used the phrase "ongoing investigation" in the past three days.

I read one of his press briefings already. The one where the NBC reporter was extremely rude to him. I'm not going to engage in some mindless exercise or read everyone of his briefings.

It's criticism on management, not ideology.

So? Criticism is criticism. Are you saying that someone who has the same ideology as someone else can't truly be critical of them or can't be "independent"? :crazyeye: :goodjob: So someone could harshly criticize someone and excoriate them and even say that they should resign or say that they should go to jail or whatever and that wouldn't show that they are "independent" and you would say that they they are their "subsdiary" just because they happen to share the same political ideology? :crazyeye: :goodjob:

Besides, he WAS criticizing the President's view there. "Strategy" meant the strategic policy towards the Middle East -- THAT's what he criticized as highly irrational. And if that's not clear to you, note that he specifically said that the President has failed to realize the potential disaster a policy of supporting Israel in that particular effort could cause -- saying that the President has failed to realize the potential disaster, is not just criticizing "management"

If this is the best of "countless examples" that you can find, I think we can lay this point of the debate to rest. Unless you want to try again?

I'm not going to "try" to show criticism of ideology because whether they have the same ideology or not is completely irrelevent (FYI, they don't -- for example Novak is more pro-life than Bush is -- and as I showed above Novak specifically criticized Bush for not realizing the potential disaster that might be caused by a certain view of his with regard to Israel)
 
cierdan said:
She wasn't overseas at the time she was "outed" And again it doesn't matter what her classification at the CIA was. What matters is whether she counts as a "covert agent" under the DEFINITION provided in the LAW. The LAW does not say that "covert agent" means whatever the CIA says it means. The LAW provides a SPECIFIC definition which it says is the one that is operative for the purposes of the LAW.


If her cover wasn't good while in the US at that time, then obviously the CIA wasn't too concerned with anyone finding out that she was CIA. You just made my point! :goodjob: The LAW says that it is only a crime if the United States is PRESENTLY taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship with US intelligence services.

Not true. Besides Robert Novak's word, Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume said that he had heard the rumor and he implied he hadn't heard it from Rove. Another person, I already named earlier in the thread specifically says that he heard it from a non-Govt source. There are probably a few others who have come forward that I just don't know about.

Well the CIA filed a criminal report with the Justice Dept. The Bush Justice dept. found enough merit to appoint a special prosecutor. I think I will go with their authority in interpreting the federal law unless you would care to enlighten us on your qualifications (or Brit Humes’ or Fred Barnes’) and knowledge of the facts to interpret this and other federal law. BTW it is a different federal offense to reveal any classified information as well it should be. Why do you hate America?
 
Mark1031 said:
Well the CIA filed a criminal report with the Justice Dept.

No they didn't. They requested an investigation, for some reason a long while after the fact (most likely because of political pressure from Democrats) and it is something routine and mandatory.

The Bush Justice dept. found enough merit to appoint a special prosecutor.

Not true. Ashcroft and his staff was to investigate but Ashcroft recused himself because of the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest. That's why an independent prosecutor, a US attorney in a certain state, working with other prosecturs, was appointed.

I think I will go with their authority in interpreting the federal law unless you would care to enlighten us on your qualifications (or Brit Humes’ or Fred Barnes’) and knowledge of the facts to interpret this and other federal law.

What does Brit Hume or Fred Barnes have to do with anything? I don't think I even quoted Brit Hume or mentioned anything that he said. I only mentioned that Fred Barnes has said on the show "Special Report with Brit Hume" that he too had heard the same rumor that was going around town -- this was to refute a false statement made by someone in this thread. In addition to Fred Barnes, also Clifford May has stated on National Review Online that he heard the same rumor from a NON-GOVT source. There's no issue of "interpreting" anything here. This is just the cold hard facts.

As for interpreting the law, if you're not going to even bother to read the law, then it's no wonder that you have bought into the extreme liberal line about Rove. And secondly TIME magazine, a liberal publication and which is the publication that COOPER worked for, has reported that a violation of that law IS NOT WHAT THE INVESTIGATION is about currently -- they've reported that it's morphed into a PERJURY investigation (just like Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted NOT for insider trading, but for lying to investigators)

Why do you hate America?

Why do you say I hate America? I love America. I think it's the greatest nation in the whole world even though just like any other human country, it's not perfect. Just because I don't have the same opinions you do, doesn't mean I hate America. In fact, one of the great things about America is that people are allowed to have different opinions here, unlike certain other countries.
 
Like how I pointed out that Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume says that he heard the same rumor or how Clifford May on National Review Online says that he heard the same rumor from a NON-GOVT person.

You're right, it does actually merit a reply. Here it is:

1. When people from more credible sources than FOX or NRO talk about it, I'll believe it. These people are Novak's former coworkers. Plus they have a partisan interest inherent in being Bush shills.
2. If these people are telling the truth (unlikely) then they will eventually be dragged before the grand jury to testify more specifically about the issue, and we'll hear about it then.

The one where the NBC reporter was extremely rude to him. I'm not going to engage in some mindless exercise or read everyone of his briefings.

You said previously that you didn't believe the White House was stonewalling the press, and that "ongoing investigation" was a genuine excuse that truly arose from the prosecutors asking the White House not to talk. I linked you to the briefings so that you could read FOR YOURSELF exactly what kinds of questions Scott McClellan uses the "ongoing investigation" BS to dodge (also for anyone else who's reading this debate). But hey, if you want to ignore that self-incriminating aspect of the White House's behavior, OK with me.

The fact is, the press is finally waking up to the Valerie Plame scandal after letting it lie dormant for several years, and Scotty can't stand the scrutiny.

So? Criticism is criticism. Are you saying that someone who has the same ideology as someone else can't truly be critical of them or can't be "independent"? So someone could harshly criticize someone and excoriate them and even say that they should resign or say that they should go to jail or whatever and that wouldn't show that they are "independent" and you would say that they they are their "subsdiary" just because they happen to share the same political ideology?

Absolutely, criticizing strategy is DIFFERENT from criticizing ideology. I'm amazed that you cannot see the difference. For example, any liberal can criticize the STRATEGY of Democrat leaders but that doesn't keep them from being liberals. It doesn't keep them from being subservient to larger liberal interests. Paul Begala criticizes Democrats all the time on technicalities - strategies and methods - but almost never on ideology. And he's a partisan Democrat.

You have tried to prove that Novak is either nonpartisan or impartial, or both, and failed miserably. In fact, you even explicitly admit that he is further to the right than Bush (more pro-life). Thus, if he isn't a Bush Republican TM, your only alternative is one even further to the extreme?

This part of the debate has always been more of a game than an argument because everyone knows Novak is a partisan hack with ties to dozens of far-right organizations (including this Presidency) but you can believe whatever you like ;) I'm not going to try to convince someone who thinks that Fox News is leftist. :screwy:
 
Harl Kove said:
You're right, it does actually merit a reply.

:goodjob:

1. When people from more credible sources than FOX or NRO talk about it, I'll believe it.

Special Report with Brit Hume is broadcast on national television and broadcast internationally. I saw it myself with my own eyes and own ears. Fred Barnes said what he said. I heard him say it myself. If you don't believe me, then go order a transcript ... they may even have it on video.

These people are Novak's former coworkers.

No they aren't. Fred Barnes never worked with Novak, at least not to my knowledge. Novak works for a Chicago newspaper and for CNN. Fred Barnes works for a magazine called the Weekly Standard and is a Fox News Contributor (just like by the way are many liberal Democrats, Fox News Contributors, such as Susan Estrich, an ultra-liberal feminist and Democratic strategist ... I believe she worked on ultra-liberal McGovern's campaign ... or was it Dukakis' campaign ... one of those two). To my knowledge, Novak and Barnes have never worked together for the same company or other organization. I don't know enough about Clifford May to say whether he worked together with Novak before, but I haven't heard anything about it.

2. If these people are telling the truth (unlikely) then they will eventually be dragged before the grand jury to testify more specifically about the issue, and we'll hear about it then.

So you're saying now that there's some kind of grand conspiracy :lol: So not only Rove, but also Novak, Barnes, and May are all making up stories about this rumor :lol: ... u know I'd do some digging to produce possibly a dozen other people who say they heard the same rumor, but then your conspiracy would just become even more grand ;) This is strange because you seem to be very willing to admit it when you are wrong or make a mistake :goodjob: .... but you also seem to not want to admit what is obvious about this case. I guess you have two distinct often conflicting motivations: 1) honesty :goodjob: 2) a partisan dislike of Rove and the GOP

You said previously that you didn't believe the White House was stonewalling the press, and that "ongoing investigation" was a genuine excuse that truly arose from the prosecutors asking the White House not to talk. I linked you to the briefings so that you could read FOR YOURSELF exactly what kinds of questions Scott McClellan uses the "ongoing investigation" BS to dodge (also for anyone else who's reading this debate). But hey, if you want to ignore that self-incriminating aspect of the White House's behavior, OK with me.

I don't think you understood what I wrote. I have ALREADY READ WHOLE AND ENTIRE one of the press briefings. Why would reading the other press briefings on other days change my mind? If you give me a good reason, I'll go ahead and read it.

Paul Begala criticizes Democrats all the time on technicalities - strategies and methods - but almost never on ideology. And he's a partisan Democrat.

I've never seen him criticize any Democrat ever. But then I've only watched him on CNN's Crossfire ... he and James Carville were the reasons I stopped watching ... they turned the show into an entertainment/comedy show. Besides, Novak wasn't criticizing Bush on some "technicality" -- he said Bush was being highly irrational ... that's not a technicality ... and it was his view and policy that he was saying was irrational.

In fact, you even explicitly admit that he is further to the right than Bush (more pro-life). Thus, if he isn't a Bush Republican TM, your only alternative is one even further to the extreme?

He is significantly more conservative than Bush. But so what? Are you saying that people more conservative than Bush can't be independent? :lol: That's like saying that Pat Buchanan, who is a traditional archconservative, is unable to independent from Bush ... but guess what when Bush I was President, Buchanan RAN AGAINST HIM!!! and I believe he almost won the New Hampshire primary (in other races I believe he actually outright won it). Not only THAT, but this more-conservative-than Bush I/Bush II fellow DESERTED the Republican Party and ran as the candidate for the Reform Party founded by Ross Perot. But according to you, if you are really, really conservative, you can't be independent :goodjob:
 
Headlines: Harl Kove Outed! National Security Crisis! Leaked White House Talking Points Deny Leaking Kove's Identity To The Press!

:lol: Thank you, Lefty :p Hehe.

Anyway, wrapping this one up for today:

Special Report with Brit Hume is broadcast on national television and broadcast internationally.

Yeah, and people like you watch it.

I saw it myself with my own eyes and own ears.

See? :p

So you're saying now that there's some kind of grand conspiracy So not only Rove, but also Novak, Barnes, and May are all making up stories about this rumor

Not at all! Why is a conspiracy needed? Are you alleging that it's not in these people's very natures to lie, cheat, and mislead? Because if you are then there's a track record which says you're being horribly naive :)

In the case of Robert Novak, he is one of the new GOP prototype models; he doesn't even need a talking points bulletin to arrive on his desk before he starts telling formulaic lies in the Bush Administration's interest, it's an actual, implanted biological reflex. :D

If you give me a good reason, I'll go ahead and read it.

Again, so you can see more of the questions that Scotty blocks with the idiotic "ongoing investigation" BS. This is another basic fact (proven - not an allegation) that you've ignored throughout our debate.

The White House, through McClellan, HAS lied about Rove's involvement (McClellan stated that Rove wasn't involved and hadn't spoken) and there are probably more lies which will be uncovered. "Ongoing investigation" is CYA: Ask us no questions and we'll tell you no blatant, misleading falsehoods.

This blind spot of yours with regards to the White House is a major sticking point in the debate and one reason why I think I won't be able to convince you. Impossible to win a debate when the opponent refuses to accept basic facts ;)

To sum up, the basic points of the Rove case, and my last word:

1. Rove spoke with at least one reporter, in the process outing Valerie Plame. This is undoubtedly knowingly leaking classified information (felony, ten years) and could possibly secure a conviction for knowingly outing a covert agent, depending on whether Plame has been overseas in the past five years (felony, another ten years, sentences are cumulative).

2. The White House either lied about Rove's involvement, or Rove misled them himself. Statements made in 2003 and 2004 could secure perjury convictions against Rove (sentence unknown) and possibly other Bush Administration officials.

3. George Bush has pledged to fire anyone found to be involved with the leak who works within the White House.


From this set of FACTS you can draw whatever conclusions you like. Personally I think that the current wall of Republican spin is extremely thin because the plot to out Plame does not end with Rove, in fact it is likely that other senior administration officials were involved, and will eventually be brought into the case as the special prosecutor continues to "flip" his sources.
 
cierdan said:
As for interpreting the law, if you're not going to even bother to read the law, then it's no wonder that you have bought into the extreme liberal line about Rove. And secondly TIME magazine, a liberal publication and which is the publication that COOPER worked for, has reported that a violation of that law IS NOT WHAT THE INVESTIGATION is about currently -- they've reported that it's morphed into a PERJURY investigation (just like Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted NOT for insider trading, but for lying to investigators)

And, just like the Clinton impeachment, too. Funny, last time it was about what the definition of 'is' is, and now, it appears to be about what the definition of 'covert operative' is. Except, of course, that the Republican partisan hacks are on the defense and the Democrat partisan hacks are exploring every legal avenue to prosecution, whereas previously it was the other way around.
 
IglooDude said:
And, just like the Clinton impeachment, too. Funny, last time it was about what the definition of 'is' is, and now, it appears to be about what the definition of 'covert operative' is. Except, of course, that the Republican partisan hacks are on the defense and the Democrat partisan hacks are exploring every legal avenue to prosecution, whereas previously it was the other way around.

Errhmmm, I did not support the Clinton impeachment on the grounds of his perjury, etc. So there goes your argument.

The definition of the term "covert agent" IS EXPLICITLY LAID OUT IN THE LAW!!! If you're going to say that the definition doesn't matter, you're saying that that part of the law might as well not exist! You can't at the same time DEFEND the upholding of a law and then say that parts of that law are rubbish and shouldn't be heeded -- that's a self-contradiction. Here's the definition part of the law:

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 15 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 426 Prev | Next

§ 426. Definitions


Release date: 2005-03-17

For the purposes of this subchapter:
(1) The term “classified information” means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(2) The term “authorized”, when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.
(3) The term “disclose” means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.
(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.
(5) The term “intelligence agency” means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(6) The term “informant” means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.
(7) The terms “officer” and “employee” have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.
(8) The term “Armed Forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term “United States”, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term “pattern of activities” requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html

And finally the law specifically says that EVEN IF the person IS a "covert agent" that it is NOT a crime UNLESS certain other conditions are ALSO met.
 
Seems to me the only legal question is whether Plame's identity as a CIA agent was classified. That shouldn't be too hard to show one way or the other, as there are certainly documents distinguishing what is classified and what isn't.

Regardless, it was certainly a shady act in a long line of shady acts which Karl Rove has been party to. And remember, I hold no allegiance to the democratic party, and, in fact, would have voted for Bush in his first run had I been forced to vote. Hell, I even supported the war in Iraq until I found out that all the reasons given for it were falsified, and that the Bush administration apparently had no problem lying to the American public over matters of life and death. Karl Rove had a hand in that, and that is why I would love to see him burn (in a symbolic manner, of course;)).
 
It's been suggested that the mainstream media, usually only to happy to ignore the government's errors, have run with this Karl Rove story in order to distract attention from the real error - the Downing Street Memos
 
eyrei said:
Seems to me the only legal question is whether Plame's identity as a CIA agent was classified. That shouldn't be too hard to show one way or the other, as there are certainly documents distinguishing what is classified and what isn't.

I have to point out that Clinton was impeached not because he had extra martial affair but because he tried to cover it up
 
Back
Top Bottom