Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[dmcowen674]

This really deserves it's own thread but let's see which method of execution is most popular for the head of the treasonist Rove.

Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think there is any other penalty for high treason other than execution, right?

1) Guillotine on the Mall in front of the Washington Monument

2) Firing Squad in front of White House

3) Hanging from Lincoln Monument

4) Stoning on steps of Capitol Building

any other ideas???

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

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

Bets on time to resignation?

I pray that this incident does not stop with Karl. I pray that this become Bush's watergate: What did Bush and company know, and when did they know it?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
This really deserves it's own thread but let's see which method of execution is most popular for the head of the treasonist Rove.

Correct me if I am wrong, I don't think there is any other penalty for high treason other than execution, right?

1) Guillotine on the Mall in front of the Washington Monument

2) Firing Squad in front of White House

3) Hanging from Lincoln Monument

4) Stoning on steps of Capitol Building

any other ideas???

Life imprisonment with eye propped open forced to read Riprorin threads.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

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

Bets on time to resignation?

I pray that this incident does not stop with Karl. I pray that this become Bush's watergate: What did Bush and company know, and when did they know it?

There's been grand jury testimony that Bush knew BEFOREHAND of the plan to out Plame, but did nothing to stop it.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Life imprisonment with eye propped open forced to read Riprorin threads.

:shocked: Ouch! That's harsh!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Life imprisonment with eye propped open forced to read Riprorin threads.

:shocked: Ouch! That's harsh!

No kidding. That's the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

ROFL!

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Life imprisonment with eye propped open forced to read Riprorin threads.

:shocked: Ouch! That's harsh!

No kidding. That's the very definition of cruel and unusual punishment.

ROFL!

haha, I would gouge my eyes out if I was put through that

 

[Gusty987]

Democrats urge Bush to fire Rove in leak scandal

 

[daveymark]

All I see is a bunch of reporters pouncing on Scott like vultures, when all he's doing is respecting the investigator's preference that the WH not comment on the ongoing investigation AFTER he made those statements concerning Rove in '03. The reporters somehow think that Scott can disobey the investigator's requests, just because the requests wre made after he mode those statements in '03. Hilarious, Scott saying "no comment" too many times to count, and the reporters can't get it thorugh their thick heads. Awesome.

 

[baoytl]

Originally posted by: daveymark
All I see is a bunch of reporters pouncing on Scott like vultures, when all he's doing is respecting the investigator's preference that the WH not comment on the ongoing investigation AFTER he made those statements concerning Rove in '03. The reporters somehow think that Scott can disobey the investigator's requests, just because the requests wre made after he mode those statements in '03. Hilarious, Scott saying "no comment" too many times to count, and the reporters can't get it thorugh their thick heads. Awesome.

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.

Was it determined when the request was made?

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: baoytl

Originally posted by: daveymark
All I see is a bunch of reporters pouncing on Scott like vultures, when all he's doing is respecting the investigator's preference that the WH not comment on the ongoing investigation AFTER he made those statements concerning Rove in '03. The reporters somehow think that Scott can disobey the investigator's requests, just because the requests wre made after he mode those statements in '03. Hilarious, Scott saying "no comment" too many times to count, and the reporters can't get it thorugh their thick heads. Awesome.

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.

Was it determined when the request was made?

no comment

 

[shurato]

Uh oh... I smell a Chewbacca defense stirring...

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: shurato
edit: Isn't this sort of thing considered treason and once grounds for capital punishment?

This isn't anything close to treason, no lives were put in danger, and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that this was malicious.

 

[shurato]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: shurato
edit: Isn't this sort of thing considered treason and once grounds for capital punishment?

This isn't anything close to treason, no lives were put in danger, and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that this was malicious.

Of course it isn't. The suspect in question isn't a Democrat.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: shurato

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: shurato
edit: Isn't this sort of thing considered treason and once grounds for capital punishment?

This isn't anything close to treason, no lives were put in danger, and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that this was malicious.

Of course it isn't. The suspect in question isn't a Democrat.

the special prosecutor involved doesn't think there is any indictable offense. Must be a Republican prosecutor, eh?

 

[umbrella39]

His excuses for his no comments were torn to shreds.

 

[Jhhnn]

From daveymark-

"This isn't anything close to treason, no lives were put in danger, and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that this was malicious."

I'll agree that it doesn't rise to the level of treason. It is, however, a very serious breach, otherwise, the CIA wouldn't have requested an investigation from the DOJ. That's why there's an investigation, after all...

The assertion that no lives were put in danger is pure speculation bordering on fantasy. We'll never know if any of Plame's contacts lost their lives or freedom as a result of this disclosure, or to what extent vital information sources were compromised. It's the nature of the mission of the CIA to keep such information secret.

Not malicious? It's a pure "attack the messenger" ploy, charging nepotism, ignoring the fact that Wilson was highly qualified, and that the information he provided was entirely more honest and accurate than anything coming out of the Admin at the time. Tenet admitted as much shortly thereafter, even though the Admin and the British continue to defend the African uranium claim to this day, if in a very feeble manner...

And there's this-

"the special prosecutor involved doesn't think there is any indictable offense. Must be a Republican prosecutor, eh?"

That's also highly misleading speculation, seeing as how the prosecutor has issued no such statement. The investigation isn't over. It's really more along the lines of wishful thinking.

Wilson's low esteem for neocon policy is well founded- their rationale for invasion is faulty, reflecting arrogant assumptions and errors in judgement, reinforced by the notion that everything is political, manipulable, that there really are no principles beyond what's possible. Nowhere in their lexicon of "democracy, free, freedom, liberty" will we find any reference at all to the idea of self determination of peoples, which is central and vital to true democracy...

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: shurato
edit: Isn't this sort of thing considered treason and once grounds for capital punishment?

This isn't anything close to treason, no lives were put in danger, and there isn't a shred of evidence to prove that this was malicious.

That is not the way this White House operates. The president expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No would be authorized to do such a thing.

...

If anyone in this administration was involved in [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.

Scott McClellan -- September 29, 2003

 

[BBond]

DEAD MAN WALKING

Rove disclosure puts Bush in bind

He had promised to punish source of leak

July 12, 2005

BY STEVEN THOMMA
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

WASHINGTON -- The White House refused Monday to repeat earlier assertions that any administration official who leaked classified information would be fired. The refusal comes days after Karl Rove, one of President George W. Bush's top aides, was revealed as the source of a news leak that exposed a CIA undercover officer in 2003.

The White House's stance came as a fast-growing legal and political controversy erupted around Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, a longtime friend of Bush and the architect of Bush's two presidential campaigns.

Recent news reports have identified Rove as the source of at least one leak to the news media in July 2003 that exposed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Such a disclosure could be a felony. Investigation by a special prosecutor is coming to a head after more than 18 months. But even if Rove didn't violate the law, the proof that he disclosed Plame's identity could damage his effectiveness in public life and focuses attention on whether Bush will punish his aide for leaking the sensitive information.

Democrats and interest groups demanded Monday that Bush fire Rove. They also said the president owed the country an explanation of why he was allowing Rove to remain at a sensitive White House post.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined Monday to reiterate the administration's pledges to punish anyone who leaked Plame's identity.

Bush repeatedly pledged after Plame's name was leaked that anyone in the administration who was caught leaking classified information would be punished.

"If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003, the day the Justice Department launched its inquiry. "This investigation is a good thing."

McClellan went farther a week later.

"If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates," he said on Oct. 7, 2003.

Plame's identity was first disclosed in July 2003 by conservative columnist Robert Novak, quoting unnamed administration sources. The disclosure effectively ended her career as an undercover CIA officer after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush White House of distorting intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.

Rove didn't comment Monday. His attorney told the Washington Post this week that Rove discussed Plame with a Time magazine reporter in July 2003 but never identified her by name. Newsweek published e-mails from the Time reporter about his conversation with Rove that reveal Rove identified Plame as a CIA officer, though not by name. Nevertheless, that was enough to shred her cloak of secrecy.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Rove's argument now "would seem to be a distinction without a difference" and pressed anew his standing request for an inquiry into the controversy by the House Government Reform Committee.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: shira

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".

Erm, here's where I get the stuff I just "make up as I go along :roll: :

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/...hapters/iv/sections/section%5F421.html

Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(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.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
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 five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

That's the applicable law.

Now. You were saying something about being misinformed?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: baoytl

Originally posted by: daveymark
All I see is a bunch of reporters pouncing on Scott like vultures, when all he's doing is respecting the investigator's preference that the WH not comment on the ongoing investigation AFTER he made those statements concerning Rove in '03. The reporters somehow think that Scott can disobey the investigator's requests, just because the requests wre made after he mode those statements in '03. Hilarious, Scott saying "no comment" too many times to count, and the reporters can't get it thorugh their thick heads. Awesome.

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.

Was it determined when the request was made?

Welll, if it was "at that time period", nine months later the Propagandist commented on the investigation, apparently in opposition to the prosecutors' request.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond
DEAD MAN WALKING

Rove disclosure puts Bush in bind

He had promised to punish source of leak

July 12, 2005

BY STEVEN THOMMA
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

WASHINGTON -- The White House refused Monday to repeat earlier assertions that any administration official who leaked classified information would be fired. The refusal comes days after Karl Rove, one of President George W. Bush's top aides, was revealed as the source of a news leak that exposed a CIA undercover officer in 2003.

The White House's stance came as a fast-growing legal and political controversy erupted around Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, a longtime friend of Bush and the architect of Bush's two presidential campaigns.

Recent news reports have identified Rove as the source of at least one leak to the news media in July 2003 that exposed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Such a disclosure could be a felony. Investigation by a special prosecutor is coming to a head after more than 18 months. But even if Rove didn't violate the law, the proof that he disclosed Plame's identity could damage his effectiveness in public life and focuses attention on whether Bush will punish his aide for leaking the sensitive information.

Democrats and interest groups demanded Monday that Bush fire Rove. They also said the president owed the country an explanation of why he was allowing Rove to remain at a sensitive White House post.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined Monday to reiterate the administration's pledges to punish anyone who leaked Plame's identity.

Bush repeatedly pledged after Plame's name was leaked that anyone in the administration who was caught leaking classified information would be punished.

"If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003, the day the Justice Department launched its inquiry. "This investigation is a good thing."

McClellan went farther a week later.

"If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates," he said on Oct. 7, 2003.

Plame's identity was first disclosed in July 2003 by conservative columnist Robert Novak, quoting unnamed administration sources. The disclosure effectively ended her career as an undercover CIA officer after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush White House of distorting intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.

Rove didn't comment Monday. His attorney told the Washington Post this week that Rove discussed Plame with a Time magazine reporter in July 2003 but never identified her by name. Newsweek published e-mails from the Time reporter about his conversation with Rove that reveal Rove identified Plame as a CIA officer, though not by name. Nevertheless, that was enough to shred her cloak of secrecy.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Rove's argument now "would seem to be a distinction without a difference" and pressed anew his standing request for an inquiry into the controversy by the House Government Reform Committee.

Here's the statement from Bush on Sept 30 concerning the Plame situation:

"If there?s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Funny how the fruit loopers don't quote that one.

 

[conjur]

Oh, now we're qualifying it? Saying it was Wilson's wife and not specifically giving her name means it's perfectly a-ok to shop the info around to several reporters?


And you try to come off as not a Bush-God apologist?


Give me a break!

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
DEAD MAN WALKING

Rove disclosure puts Bush in bind

He had promised to punish source of leak

July 12, 2005

BY STEVEN THOMMA
FREE PRESS WASHINGTON STAFF

WASHINGTON -- The White House refused Monday to repeat earlier assertions that any administration official who leaked classified information would be fired. The refusal comes days after Karl Rove, one of President George W. Bush's top aides, was revealed as the source of a news leak that exposed a CIA undercover officer in 2003.

The White House's stance came as a fast-growing legal and political controversy erupted around Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, a longtime friend of Bush and the architect of Bush's two presidential campaigns.

Recent news reports have identified Rove as the source of at least one leak to the news media in July 2003 that exposed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity. Such a disclosure could be a felony. Investigation by a special prosecutor is coming to a head after more than 18 months. But even if Rove didn't violate the law, the proof that he disclosed Plame's identity could damage his effectiveness in public life and focuses attention on whether Bush will punish his aide for leaking the sensitive information.

Democrats and interest groups demanded Monday that Bush fire Rove. They also said the president owed the country an explanation of why he was allowing Rove to remain at a sensitive White House post.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined Monday to reiterate the administration's pledges to punish anyone who leaked Plame's identity.

Bush repeatedly pledged after Plame's name was leaked that anyone in the administration who was caught leaking classified information would be punished.

"If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action," Bush said on Sept. 30, 2003, the day the Justice Department launched its inquiry. "This investigation is a good thing."

McClellan went farther a week later.

"If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates," he said on Oct. 7, 2003.

Plame's identity was first disclosed in July 2003 by conservative columnist Robert Novak, quoting unnamed administration sources. The disclosure effectively ended her career as an undercover CIA officer after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush White House of distorting intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.

Rove didn't comment Monday. His attorney told the Washington Post this week that Rove discussed Plame with a Time magazine reporter in July 2003 but never identified her by name. Newsweek published e-mails from the Time reporter about his conversation with Rove that reveal Rove identified Plame as a CIA officer, though not by name. Nevertheless, that was enough to shred her cloak of secrecy.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said Rove's argument now "would seem to be a distinction without a difference" and pressed anew his standing request for an inquiry into the controversy by the House Government Reform Committee.

Here's the statement from Bush on Sept 30 concerning the Plame situation:

"If there?s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of."

Funny how the fruit loopers don't quote that one.

You complete ridiculous hack.

Are you KKKarl Rove???

Why aren't you GONE ALREADY???

The White House on the Leak

Doing damage control early today, eh chicken?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: conjur
Oh, now we're qualifying it? Saying it was Wilson's wife and not specifically giving her name means it's perfectly a-ok to shop the info around to several reporters?


And you try to come off as not a Bush-God apologist?


Give me a break!

Right. Pointing out a quote makes me an apologist. :roll:

Stop being such an idiot.