• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

It was Rove.

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.

Rove, his accomplice in the White House and Robert Novack all need to be fired immediately and tried for treason. Period.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.

Rove, his accomplice in the White House and Robert Novack all need to be fired immediately and tried for treason. Period.
That makes no sense. Why don't we wait for the investigation before we start saying people committed felonies. You are as bad as the idiots who are calling those who were against the war "traitors".
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.

Rove, his accomplice in the White House and Robert Novack all need to be fired immediately and tried for treason. Period.
That makes no sense. Why don't we wait for the investigation before we start saying people committed felonies. You are as bad as the idiots who are calling those who were against the war "traitors".
Worse, actually....
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.

Rove, his accomplice in the White House and Robert Novack all need to be fired immediately and tried for treason. Period.
That makes no sense. Why don't we wait for the investigation before we start saying people committed felonies. You are as bad as the idiots who are calling those who were against the war "traitors".
It was Rove. Period. And it is a felony. Period.

Why not wait for an investigation? I am waiting. The whole country is waiting. But the White House is insisting Justice handle it. Asscroft is too close to Bush to run an honest investigation.

It is time to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate this entire disgrace.

You're as bad as those idiots who defend anything this administration does. Whether it's lying to start a war or committing felonies. Wake up.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.

Rove, his accomplice in the White House and Robert Novack all need to be fired immediately and tried for treason. Period.
That makes no sense. Why don't we wait for the investigation before we start saying people committed felonies. You are as bad as the idiots who are calling those who were against the war "traitors".
It was Rove. Period. And it is a felony. Period.

Why not wait for an investigation? I am waiting. The whole country is waiting. But the White House is insisting Justice handle it. Asscroft is too close to Bush to run an honest investigation.

It is time to appoint an impartial special counsel to investigate this entire disgrace.

You're as bad as those idiots who defend anything this administration does. Whether it's lying to start a war or committing felonies. Wake up.
"It was Rove. Period. And it is a felony. Period."

How exactly do you know that?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.
Let me get this straight. A person says Rove was not the one who leaked the imformation and that makes Rove guilty? Am I missing something here?
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
One more time:

"It was Rove. Period. And it is a felony. Period."

How exactly do you know that?



BTW: Have you read the applicable laws? Thier are very difficult criteria that have to be met even if someone is identified as the leaker. The most stringent of which is that the person would have to know that the operative was undercover/covert. That will be very difficult to prove. So saying a felony was committed is premature at best.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
They've changed the story from "It wasn't Rove" to "Rove hasn't leaked any classified information." It's Rove. Unless CNN is making this up.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
They've changed the story from "It wasn't Rove" to "Rove hasn't leaked any classified information." It's Rove. Unless CNN is making this up.
Ohhhh...I see. You are I feel reading too much into that statement. That could also be construed as Rove didn't leak anything. Depends on your viewpoint.

Now back to "it was a felony".


Have you read the applicable statutes? What legal basis are you using to make that claim?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
McLellan is on CNN right now being questioned about the felony two senior administration officials and Robert Novak committed. The graphic on the screen below him reads, "McLellan says Karl Rove did not leak classified information" or words to that effect. I'm paraphrasing from memory.

To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.
Let me get this straight. A person says Rove was not the one who leaked the imformation and that makes Rove guilty? Am I missing something here?
No - it isn't you who is missing something;)

CkG
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Now back to "it was a felony".


Have you read the applicable statutes? What legal basis are you using to make that claim?
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
They've changed the story from "It wasn't Rove" to "Rove hasn't leaked any classified information." It's Rove. Unless CNN is making this up.
Ohhhh...I see. You are I feel reading too much into that statement. That could also be construed as Rove didn't leak anything. Depends on your viewpoint.

Now back to "it was a felony".


Have you read the applicable statutes? What legal basis are you using to make that claim?
"Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent's name, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The CIA officer's name was published in July by Novak, who said he based his report on two senior administration officials."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1064987005179650.xml
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Buddy, they don't go through this for spitting on the sidewalk.

"But sources told CNN that Novak was among as many as six journalists who were told Plame's name. The Washington Post reported Sunday that the disclosure came from two top administration officials.

Novak said a confidential source at the CIA told him Plame was "an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operatives." (Full story)

Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer.

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the White House was told of the probe Monday night.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales issued two memos Tuesday directing staff members to preserve all materials such as e-mails and phone logs that might be related to the leak. (Gonzales' first memo)

The second memo specifically mentioned records related to Wilson and his wife, as well as to any contacts with Novak and two members of Newsday's Washington bureau, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported in the Long Island, New York, newspaper July 22 that an intelligence official had confirmed Plame's position at the CIA. (Gonzales' second memo)"

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/index.html
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
They've changed the story from "It wasn't Rove" to "Rove hasn't leaked any classified information." It's Rove. Unless CNN is making this up.
Ohhhh...I see. You are I feel reading too much into that statement. That could also be construed as Rove didn't leak anything. Depends on your viewpoint.

Now back to "it was a felony".


Have you read the applicable statutes? What legal basis are you using to make that claim?
"Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent's name, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The CIA officer's name was published in July by Novak, who said he based his report on two senior administration officials."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1064987005179650.xml

No...you read something from a news clipping. The actual statute involved is much more complicated.

The prosecution would have to prove that whoever leaked the name did so intentionally knowing that that person was covert/undercover..not just hey this person works for the CIA. That is a very difficult thing to do.
 

BOBDN

Banned
May 21, 2002
2,579
0
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: BOBDN
They've changed the story from "It wasn't Rove" to "Rove hasn't leaked any classified information." It's Rove. Unless CNN is making this up.
Ohhhh...I see. You are I feel reading too much into that statement. That could also be construed as Rove didn't leak anything. Depends on your viewpoint.

Now back to "it was a felony".


Have you read the applicable statutes? What legal basis are you using to make that claim?
"Federal law prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of a covert agent's name, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The CIA officer's name was published in July by Novak, who said he based his report on two senior administration officials."

http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1064987005179650.xml

No...you read something from a news clipping. The actual statute involved is much more complicated.

The prosecution would have to prove that whoever leaked the name did so intentionally knowing that that person was covert/undercover..not just hey this person works for the CIA. That is a very difficult thing to do.
Time will tell. But it was Rove. Who was the second "top official?"
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
No...you read something from a news clipping. The actual statute involved is much more complicated.

The prosecution would have to prove that whoever leaked the name did so intentionally knowing that that person was covert/undercover..not just hey this person works for the CIA. That is a very difficult thing to do.
LOL, you Bush loving apologist! Are you Karl Rove? ;)

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
To me that's an admission Rove was one of the two who leaked the name.
To me that's an admission that you are functionally illiterate.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
PBS with Jim Lehrer

She is an CIA operative.

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.




The difference between a CIA analyst and a spy

TERENCE SMITH: Tom Rosenstiel, the notion that Bob Novak put forward: an analyst, not a spy. I talked to the CIA -- they urged me not to do it but didn't suggest it would endanger anyone. What do you think of that reason?

TOM ROSENSTIEL: Well, I think it's weak. Bob Novak has done a really dangerous and terrible thing. If you are going to get involved in something like this where you're bumping up against breaking the law, as a journalist you have a civil disobedience test you have to meet. What's the public good of this story? What's the -- balanced against what's the danger to the people involved publishing the story. The third part of the test is, is it necessary in telling the story to do this or is there another way to do it, do you need to divulge this person's name, in other words, to convey the information you think is of the public interest.

This doesn't meet any one of those three tests. It's not of overriding public interest. Novak may be really just an instrument of Republican revenge here. Whatever the public good is of the story is far overwhelmed by the danger to this woman and her network of operatives. And it's gratuitous. You could have told the story without her name.

TERENCE SMITH: We should point out for the record that we invited Bob Novak to join this discussion. He told me this afternoon that he had said all he had to say on this. Your reaction, Larry?

LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.
At last an honorable Republican that sees what travesty this administrion has commited.

edit: oops this was meant to be a thread.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Given WE don't know and can only speculate about the who leaked what (which is a felony according to US Code, as I understand it) the questions one might consider are: Who would gain from 'outing' a CIA employee, Would they know Wison's wife was a CIA employee working on WMD data, how would they know this, would they know it is a felony, who would take that chance, would they be stupid enough to believe the outing would benefit beyond the downside, can they survive the investigation without being detected, will Novak be compelled to reveal the identity (yes).

So my little brain suggests the motive must be innocuous, sorta like someone who knew the Wilson's and on the salient topic of his trip to Niger said something to Novak about the Left and their cooking the information to slam Bush and it was Wison's wife also playing politics... 'she's up to her neck in the WMD thing.. over at CIA, he couldn't of gone had it not been for her'... or like that..
This could have been anyone who knew but was frustrated by the Niger uranium story and it would be said in a manner that did not consider the personal jeopardy the commentor would be placed in.. anyone could fit this bill..

I think it was NOT a case of "mens rea" and therefore, with that absent, not a felony.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,689
0
76
"Several of the journalists are saying privately, 'Yes, it was Karl Rove who I talked to.'" - Julian Borger
Audio Clip

Everyone on Capitol Hill knows it's Karl Rove, he has a long history of smears with Bob Novak and hes been fired by the Sr. Bush for something like this.

1 + 1 = 2

Not that hard people.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,137
1
0
If I were going to guess, I'd say it was Rove too. However, that would just be a guess. ;) Seriously though, this may just be the scandal the dems have been waiting for. They're gonna milk it for all it's worth...
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
I think it was NOT a case of "mens rea" and therefore, with that absent, not a felony.
You Bush loving apologist! Are you Karl Rove? ;)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,551
3
0
Politics is a vindictive game played by both sides. If it comes out it was Rove then he should be shown the door and have the relelvent charges filed against him. But until it can be proven I believe he is innocent until found guilty.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,850
0
0
What about a "pre-emptive" jail sentance for Rove, since people in this admin believe that's how world operates.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY