Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 22 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: Phokus
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Holy SH1T, did Scott McClellan get GRILLED or what?

http://www.sherlockholmesarmy.net/public/Scotty_Rove.wmv

He's no Ari Fleischer, that's for sure :D

hahahaha, my favorite quote: "scott, you're in a bad spot right now" ... LOL

OWNED! :laugh:

Buwhahahahahahahahahahah!!!!

What a backpedding assclown!
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: conjur

Two dozen times McLIEllan avoiding answering the question under the lame excuse of not commenting on an ongoing investigation (like that ever stopped them before.)

Six and a half minutes of him NOT answering questions. :)
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
It's more than that! The whole press briefing is 31 minutes. The WhiteHouse website has the full video.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: bamacre
Front page of Yahoo now. This is getting good. Too bad this didn't all get out until after the election.

The lies, deception and brainwashing machine of the Republicans was outstanding.

I'm not sure what has changed that they have lost that loving feeling. :confused:

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
More character assassination. Wilson had exceptional credentials with respect to Iraq and did not agree with Bush 43's rush to invade. Contrary to the simplistic, "with us or against us", black and white myopia of many Bushies, Wilson expressing his disagreement with those actions does NOT make him a "Bush-basher". It makes him informed and independent, exactly the kind of person you want to do an objective investigation instead of a whitewash. In that sense, I suppose you're right: BushCo obviously wanted nothing to do with him. The CIA, however, is usually a bit less blindly partisan. They authorized Wilson's trip.
"Informed and independent?" LOL.

It makes him a partisan shill
There's a rare outburst of honesty from one of the Bush faithful. Someone who reports the truth instead of whitewashing inconvenient facts is a "partisan shill" in BushWorld.


Whoever authorized Wilson's trip, his wife had a hand in it, a fact that was noted in the SCI report and yet flatly denied by Wilson. Wilson claims his wife didn't attend the CIA briefing prior to the trip when more than one attendee of that meeting claimed his wife introduced Wilson at the meeting.
For someone who is so anal about precise semantics when defending BushCo, you're awfully loose with with drawing conclusions here. There is nothing contradictory about Wilson's wife introducing her husband to a group of people, yet not participating in their meeting. If you brought your spouse into your workplace for a meeting with others, it would be the most natural thing in the world for you to introduce her first, before you each moved on to your own activities. For you to insist otherwise is a perfect example of that "jump blindly into the deep end of the partisan pool" and "rabid ranting" attacks you're so quick to attach to others.


The guy is so FOS I would bet his eyes are brown. He's a lying sack too and his dishonest op-ed in the NY Times is what brought him down.
Speaking of rabid ranting. :roll: More of that gratuitous BushCo signature character assassination; long on venom, devoid of substance.


Actions speak louder than words. Your uncritical embrace of everything BushCo demonstrates who you idolize quite plainly.
There are enough Bush critics in here. There's no reason for me to wade in with the shrill sheeple who can't even get their facts right most of the time. They have to be corrected constantly and are an embarrassment to real liberals who don't see the need to jump blindly into the deep end of the partisan pool just so they can extract their pound of flesh as retribution for the rogering Clinton took while in office.
Let me fix that absurd crock of purely partisan Chicken manure for you:
  • There are enough Bush worshippers in here. There's no hesitation for you to wade in with the shrill sheeple who can't even get their facts right most of the time. They have to be corrected constantly and are an embarrassment to real conservatives who don't see the need to jump blindly into the deep end of the partisan pool just so they can extract their pound of flesh as retribution for the questioning BushCo.
You keep calling yourself "liberal" all you want. I sincerely doubt there's even one person here who believes you (though given some of the nonsense your peers spout, anything's possible). Actions speak louder than words, and your actions are consistently those of the most devout Bush worshippers: non-stop bashing of the left, and unabashed embrace of everything BushCo.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Note the ass-kissing question:
Q One follow-up. Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove's excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the President hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

Who the FVCK tossed that softball and what are they doing in the press room?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... ]
Why? Because I respond to all the BS rhetoric and outright lies and correct the Bush-hating trolls who can't seem to get their facts straight? Please forgive me for sticking to the facts instead of joining into the rabid ranting of what passes for a moderate liberal in here. Unfortunately, the supposed moderate liberals in here are actually members of the conspiracy-laden loonie left. Their perceptions are so skewed they, and you, can't even recognize that though.
Whoa! You've out-ranted yourself. Let me fix that crock as well:
  • Because you are a major source of BS rhetoric and outright lies and attack any Bush critics who offer facts instead of BushCo propaganda. You are unapologetic about parroting BushCo disinformation while regularly joining into the rabid ranting of what passees as a conservative here. Unfortunately, the supposed conservatives in here are actually members of the conspiracy-laden loonie Bush apologists. Their perceptions are so skewed they, and you, can't even recognize that though.
You are consistently a blatant example of all the behaviors you invent to attack Bush critics.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: conjur
Note the ass-kissing question:
Q One follow-up. Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove's excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the President hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?
Who the FVCK tossed that softball and what are they doing in the press room?
Lester Kinsolving
Editor's note: Lester Kinsolving is a radio talk show host in Baltimore who was a practicing Episcopalian minister and a columnist on religious affairs; his essays were published regularly in hundreds of newspapers and won him two Pulitzer Prize nominations. He is now also White House correspondent for WorldNet Daily and his dialogues with the President and more often, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer (and which are posted on the WorldNet Daily site), are a pleasure to read.
: puke;
: puke;
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: conjur
Scotty McLIEllan was shown a bit ago on C-SPAN. The press was hammering him if he stood by those involved who've said things in the past that Rove did nothing wrong. Was asked if the Propagandist had confidence in Rove. Was asked what Rove was doing today.

The answer to all of the questions: No Comment.


:laugh:


Squirm liar boy! Squirm!
About damn time. Where have they been for the last 4.5 years?
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: conjur: puke; : puke;

Ahhh. They should have their testies wired to electrodes and whenever they "ask" questions like that, they should be zapped. Let someone real centered like Gary Busy be in control of the nut switch. Bet they don't ask "questions" like that any longer.
 

chambersc

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2005
6,247
0
0
QUICK: TURN ON CSPAN. IT'S ON NOW! I just turned over so..... don't quote me on that. McCllelan is on. turn it
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: chambersc
QUICK: TURN ON CSPAN. IT'S ON NOW! I just turned over so..... don't quote me on that. McCllelan is on. turn it

Watching it now, thanks.

Edit: He looks very flush. Like he it is getting hot under those lights.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
OMG, Scotty Dog sounds just like William H. Macy's character Jerry Lundegaard from Fargo.

"I'm answering your questions! I'm cooperating!"

Go do the lot count, Scotty. Get back to us when you figure it all out. :laugh:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: conjur
RealVideo link for the entire press conference
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.v.smil


Note the ass-kissing question:
Q One follow-up. Considering the widespread interest and the absolutely frantic Democrat reaction to Karl Rove's excellent speech to conservatives last month, does the President hope that Karl will give a lot more speeches?

MR. McCLELLAN: He continues to give speeches. He was traveling this weekend talking about the importance of strengthening Social Security. And he has continued to go out and give speeches.


And my favorite part:
Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their -- or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q Scott, can I ask you this; did Karl Rove commit a crime? :laugh: :laugh:

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to an ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than we're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --

Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?

MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.


Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

Go ahead, Terry.

Q Well, you're in a bad spot here, Scott, because after the investigation began, after the criminal investigation was underway, you said -- October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby, as I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this." From that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization Terry, and I think you are well aware of that. We know each other very well, and it was after that period that the investigators had requested that we not get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation. And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this, because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point, I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q Do you recall when you were asked --

Q Wait, wait -- so you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore, and since then, you haven't?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation, and I'm just not going to respond any further.

Q When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you peg down a date?

MR. McCLELLAN: Back at that time period.

Q Well, then the President commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MR. McCLELLAN: John, I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Go ahead, Dave.

Q We are going to keep asking them. When did the President learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with the President -- with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife and the decision to send --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q When did the President learn that Karl Rove had --

MR. McCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions, Dick.

Go ahead.

Q After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the President's word that anybody who was involved would be let go?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q And a follow-up. Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the Deputy Chief of Staff?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q Scott, there's a difference between commenting on an investigation and taking an action --

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Goyal.

Q Can I finish, please?

MR. McCLELLAN: You can come -- I'll come back to you in a minute. Go ahead, Goyal.

Two dozen times McLIEllan avoiding answering the question under the lame excuse of not commenting on an ongoing investigation (like that ever stopped them before.)
:laugh:

Where's Baghdad Bob when you need him? He could have spun it for BushCo. "There's no e-mail from Cooper about Karl. There is no prosecutor investigating anything. There is no CIA. It's all liberal lies!"
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,058
70
91
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Where's Baghdad Bob when you need him? He could have spun it for BushCo. "There's no e-mail from Cooper about Karl. There is no prosecutor investigating anything. There is no CIA. It's all liberal lies!"
:thumbsup: :cool: :beer:

Maybe, as part of the Iraqi recovery, they hired him to write McClellan's scripts. The Bushwhackos could claim it's part of their plan to get some cash back into the Iraqi economy. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,058
70
91
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, I don't understand why anyone expects anything except raw propoganda out of Scotty-boy.
Agreed, but as long as he wants to disguise himself as skeet... PULL! :laugh:
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Honestly, I don't understand why anyone expects anything except raw propoganda out of Scotty-boy.
Agreed, but as long as he wants to disguise himself as skeet... PULL! :laugh:

This man isn't taking a bullet, he's had the whole clip emptied into him.

Bets on time to resignation?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I thought this comment from Joe Wilson might be timely. He said it almost two years ago, on 8/21/2003:
It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words.
Seems like that comment might not have been quite so over the top as many Bushies cried.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: chambersc
QUICK: TURN ON CSPAN. IT'S ON NOW! I just turned over so..... don't quote me on that. McCllelan is on. turn it
Thanks! That was priceless. I wish every person in America could have witnessed that weasel stonewalling. I can't wait to hear all the rationalizations about why BushCo won't stand by their previous words ... if we ever get to that mythical "appropriate time".
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
For one, it's only illegal to pass along classified information if the person doing the providing has a security clearance and garnered their information using that clearance in the first place. If you or I had secret information we could pass it along without repercussion (Assuming you hold no clearance at the moment. Mine ended years ago.)

Do you make this stuff as you go along, or are you just horribly misinformed?

From Section 1 of the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917:

(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

Note that the above includes those "lawfully or unlawfully having possession".