Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[jimkyser]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
To me, it's a little different to pardon an elected official for attempting to cover up a burglery then pardoning an appointed official for releasing classified information.

I wasn't making a value judgment as to what is worthy of a pardon or not. I was just responding to conjur's question about whether someone can be pardoned before they are convicted. Precedent would say, yes they can be.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like one of the right-wing blogs has has performed something similar to Kos's "oppo" research on the signatories of the CIA letter complaining about the outing of Plame. Turns out that many were already voracious critics of the Bush admin to begin with:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/131127/416

No surprise there.

No surprise at all. Half of all Americans are Bush critics.

Actually, if you look at the polls, a good majority more than half are now Bush critics. Has the approval rating dipped below 40% yet? If not, it definately appears to be heading in that direction.

Edit: Appears that I was a little off. Seems the approval rating is right around 50% depending on how the question is asked.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like one of the right-wing blogs has has performed something similar to Kos's "oppo" research on the signatories of the CIA letter complaining about the outing of Plame. Turns out that many were already voracious critics of the Bush admin to begin with:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/131127/416

No surprise there.

No surprise at all. Half of all Americans are Bush critics.

Actually, if you look at the polls, a good majority more than half are now Bush critics. Has the approval rating dipped below 40% yet? If not, it definately appears to be heading in that direction.

Edit: Appears that I was a little off. Seems the approval rating is right around 50% depending on how the question is asked.

Which poll are you looking at? Most I've seen are between 42% and 46%...

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: jimkyser

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
To me, it's a little different to pardon an elected official for attempting to cover up a burglery then pardoning an appointed official for releasing classified information.

I wasn't making a value judgment as to what is worthy of a pardon or not. I was just responding to conjur's question about whether someone can be pardoned before they are convicted. Precedent would say, yes they can be.

Nixon was pardoned because a trial might have torn the country apart. They set a precedent of pardoning a USA president before being convicted, but have other people been pardoned before being convicted?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Looks like one of the right-wing blogs has has performed something similar to Kos's "oppo" research on the signatories of the CIA letter complaining about the outing of Plame. Turns out that many were already voracious critics of the Bush admin to begin with:

http://redstate.org/story/2005/7/23/131127/416

No surprise there.

No surprise at all. Half of all Americans are Bush critics.

Actually, if you look at the polls, a good majority more than half are now Bush critics. Has the approval rating dipped below 40% yet? If not, it definately appears to be heading in that direction.

Edit: Appears that I was a little off. Seems the approval rating is right around 50% depending on how the question is asked.

Not approving of Bush does not necessarily make someone out to be a Bush critic just as those who approve of him are not necessarily praising him either.

 

[Gaard]

Honest question: How do you not approve of someone without criticizing them?

 

[conjur]

http://www.conyersblog.us/

The Ten Week Gap
Rovegate, the CIA and the DOJ

I just blogged on the Huffington Post about the details of a ten week gap in the Rovegate investigation the Central Intelligence Agency advised me about in January of 2003.

Going back a couple of years, I wrote two letters on September 29, 2003 about Treasongate. The first was a public letter (pdf) -- to the Department of Justice asking for a Special Prosecutor (I think I was the first Member of Congress to ask, but I have no illusions that my letter forced their hand).

The second (pdf) was not a public letter. It was to Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet. I was troubled by reports that the DOJ was, to put it mildly, being less than responsive to the CIA concerns about the leak. The response I received (pdf), reported way back then by Josh Marshall of Talkingpointsmemo on a Friday night (it is amazing how I always get the most valuable responses to my letters on Friday nights), added some stunning detail to the Justice Department's footdragging. Mr. Marshall reminds us about the story today.

The letter indicates that the Central Intelligence Agency was repeatedly stonewalled by the DOJ and, in fact, couldn?t even get their letters answered or calls returned. Here are some details:

-- On July 24, 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the Department of Justice noting his concern with recent stories apparently exposing the identity of Valerie Plame, an employee of the agency working under cover. There was apparently no response from the Department.

-- On July 30, 2003, the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of the DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. There was apparently no response from the Department.

-- The CIA again transmitted their concerns by facsimile on September 5, 2003. There was no response.

-- On September 16, in accordance with the Agency?s standard practice in these matters, the CIA advised the Department that it had completed its own investigation of the matter, provided a memorandum setting forth the results of the investigation and requested that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation of the matter.

-- Finally, on September 29, 2003?sixty-seven days after the initial concerns were expressed by CIA employees?the DOJ responded and advised the CIA that the Counterespionage Division had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.

Recently, it was revealed that the White House was given a 12-hour ?heads up? from the Department of Justice about the investigation at the request of then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. Media reports gave the White House an even earlier forewarning. This, of course, runs counter to every other prosecution I have followed. Typically, and most recently during the Enron investigation, once it is determined that the White House is in possession of relevant information or documents, an immediate notification is sent to the Counsel?s office and the Counsel?s office, in turn, sends an immediate notification to the White House staff to preserve all documents and records. That didn?t happen here.

Why? And what did the White House do during those 12 hours anyway?
Collectively, these disclosures appear to demonstrate that on at least two separate occasions, DOJ personnel acted to permit delays in the investigation, which may have resulted in the loss or destruction of critical evidence. That is why I, and nine of my Judiciary Committee colleagues, have written today to the Department?s Inspector General asking for an immediate investigation to examine the extent that this course of conduct and other delays by the Department are consistent with standards of prosecutorial conduct and integrity. The letter (via Rawstory) is here.

A final twist: Congressional oversight. The Republican Majority in Congress has been absurdly lax in investigating misdeeds by this White House, including this emerging scandal. Yesterday, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees announced they would be holding hearings on this. It appeared the Congress would begin doing the real work needed on this. Maybe they would look at the Justice Department's footdragging on this.

Then I read the fine print (via DailyKos):

?[Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) spokeswoman Sarah] Little said the Senate committee would also review the probe of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been investigating the Plame case for nearly two years.?

First, it was an attack on Joe Wilson. Then, they attacked his wife. Then, they attacked the press for covering the story. Now, it appears the Republican attack machine has set its sights on the prosecutor.

update: I see Raw Story has more.

Judiciary Democrats seek investigation into why probe took so long; Sixty-seven days?

RAW STORY

Michigan Democrat John Conyers and nine Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a letter to the U.S. Inspector General calling for an investigation into a 12-hour delay between the Justice Department learning of the outing of a CIA agent and telling the White House to preserve documents, RAW STORY has learned.

Perhaps more significantly, however, Judiciary Democrats point to the 67 day gap between the time the CIA called the Justice Department to investigate the CIA outing and the time that the Justice Department directed the FBI to investigate the matter.

"It appears the now infamous 12 hour delay the Justice Department granted the White House before issuing an order to preserve documents was not an isolated instance," Conyers remarked. "I received information from the Central Intelligence Agency indicating a pattern of foot dragging by the Justice Department before it would commence a criminal investigation, or even respond to CIA requests."

"While the Republican Congress prepares to launch hearings, which appear to be fishing expeditions designed to discredit the Special Counsel investigating this matter, it defies reason that it would not investigate the DOJ's obviously partisan administration of justice," he added.

A letter written to the U.S. Inspector General follows.
#

July 26, 2005

Dear Inspector General Fine:

We write to request that you immediately commence an investigation of the Department of Justice's handling of the investigation of the leak of the identity of a covert CIA operative's identity by high-ranking Administration officials. Press reports and other information obtained by House Judiciary Committee Democrats appear to demonstrate that on at least two separate occasions, DOJ personnel acted to permit delays in the investigation, which may have resulted in the loss or destruction of critical evidence.

First, over this past weekend we learned that then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales received what appears to be a "heads-up" about the commencement of the investigation from Justice Department officials in the evening of September 29. Through White House staff, he asked DOJ personnel if it was permissible to wait an additional 12 hours to notify the White House staff of the investigation and presumably direct the staff to preserve all relevant documents and records relating to the inquiry. According to Mr. Gonzales, "Department of Justice lawyers" gave their assent to this delay:

I specifically had our lawyers go back to the Department of Justice lawyers and ask them, "Do you want us to notify the staff now, immediately or would it be okay to notify the staff early in the morning?" And we were advised, go ahead and notify the staff early in the morning, that would be okay.

Notwithstanding this request, Mr. Gonzales informed the White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card about the investigation. It is not yet known who the White House Chief of Staff advised about the investigation prior to the Counsel's official notification twelve hours later.

For example, this twelve hour head start is a clear and troubling departure from Department practice. When White House contacts with Enron became essential to that investigation, then-Deputy Attorney General Christopher Wray immediately directed the White House to preserve all e-mails, memos, notes, letters and other documents from Enron employees or "any individual acting officially or unofficially, directly or indirectly on behalf" of the company. Less than an hour after receiving the directive, Mr. Gonzales issued an "administrative alert" directing officials to comply.4

Second, we previously received information about a similar delay with respect to the original criminal referral of this matter by the Central Intelligence Agency. In a letter to Ranking member Conyers, dated January 30, 2004 (enclosed), the CIA describes repeated delays and inaction by the Department. The Agency notes that Executive Order 12333 requires the Central Intelligence Agency to report to the Attorney General "possible violations of criminal law." Pursuant to this requirement, according to the letter, the CIA did the following:

1.

On July 24, 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the Department of Justice noting his concern with recent stories apparently exposing the identity of Valerie Plame, an employee of the agency working under cover. There was apparently no response from the Department.
2.

On July 30, 2003, the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of the DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. There was apparently no response from the Department.
3.

The CIA again transmitted their concerns by facsimile on September 5, 2003.
4.

On September 16, in accordance with the Agency's standard practice in these matters, the CIA advised the Department that it had completed its own investigation of the matter, provided a memorandum setting forth the results of the investigation and requested that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation of the matter.
5.

Finally, on September 29, 2003-sixty-seven days after the initial concerns were expressed by CIA employees-the DOJ responded and advised the CIA that the Counterespionage Division had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter.

Thus, it appears, that not only did DOJ personnel countenance a 12-hour delay in notifying White House staff to preserve all records (while the White House Chief of Staff was given a heads up of the existence of the investigation), but that the DOJ also appears to have ignored repeated entreaties from the CIA to initiate a law enforcement investigation into this matter several months before hand. We would therefore urge you to examine the extent that this course of conduct and other delays by the Department are consistent with standards of prosecutorial conduct and integrity.

Please respond to us at your earliest convenience though the Judiciary Committee Minority Office, 2142 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Honest question: How do you not approve of someone without criticizing them?

It's done the same way my parents did when I dated girls they didn't particularly care for. They would let me know they didn't care for her, or didn't think she was right for me, but they never criticized them.

Lack of approval!=criticism.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Gaard
Honest question: How do you not approve of someone without criticizing them?

It's done the same way my parents did when I dated girls they didn't particularly care for. They would let me know they didn't care for her, or didn't think she was right for me, but they never criticized them.

Lack of approval!=criticism.

Is reviewing facts and refuting disinformation criticism?

 

[conjur]

Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html

Protesters march outside fundraiser attended by Karl Rove
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda...template=contentModules/printstory.jsp


I bet :evil: Rove had fun putting his :evil: hex on the protesters.

 

[dahunan]

Maybe the CIA should convince the SS to go on strike and quit protecting those criminals until the Pres does more to support this investigation.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html
[ ... ]

Interesting, a lot of new information. For example:

• "Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
  
  "Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

This seems to contradict Novak's weasel-worded excuse about the CIA letting him reveal her name. It also shows again that the CIA considered Plame to be an "undercover operative" and that her identity was classified.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html
[ ... ]

Interesting, a lot of new information. For example:

• "Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
  
  "Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

This seems to contradict Novak's weasel-worded excuse about the CIA letting him reveal her name. It also shows again that the CIA considered Plame to be an "undercover operative" and that her identity was classified.

It's all a lie because Harlow is a Democrat, I bet.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: conjur
Prosecutor In CIA Leak Case Casting A Wide Net
White House Effort To Discredit Critic Examined in Detail
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html
[ ... ]

Interesting, a lot of new information. For example:

• "Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
  
  "Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

This seems to contradict Novak's weasel-worded excuse about the CIA letting him reveal her name. It also shows again that the CIA considered Plame to be an "undercover operative" and that her identity was classified.

It's all a lie because Harlow is a Democrat, I bet.

That damn liberal:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/harlow.html

Bill Harlow was appointed Director, Office of Public Affairs on 18 August 1997 after a career of 25 years with the United States Navy.

Previously he served as the Deputy Director of the American Forces Information Service (AFIS) at the Department of Defense.

For over three years he was Special Assistant for Public Affairs to the Secretary of the Navy. From 1988 to 1992 Mr. Harlow was Assistant Press Secretary for Foreign Affairs and National Security at the White House during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Prior to going to the White House, he was Military Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs in the Pentagon. From late 1984 until 1986 he was a Navy Department spokesman and served as head of the Navy News Desk in the Navy Office of Information in Washington, DC.

From 1981 to 1984 Mr. Harlow was Deputy Public Affairs Officer for the Commander in Chief, US Naval Forces Europe, in London, UK.

Other assignments include duty as spokesman for the Naval Training Center in Orlando Florida; Officer Programs Advertising Manager for the Navy Recruiting Command; action officer on the Navy News Desk; and public affairs officer aboard the aircraft carrier USS MIDWAY, based in Yokosuka, Japan.

He received his bachelor's degree in political science from Villanova University and his master's degree in public relations from American University. His novel "Circle William" was published by Scribner in February 1999.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
It's all a lie because Harlow is a Democrat, I bet.

That damn liberal:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/harlow.html

Bill Harlow was appointed Director, Office of Public Affairs on 18 August 1997 after a career of 25 years with the United States Navy.

Previously he served as the Deputy Director of the American Forces Information Service (AFIS) at the Department of Defense.

For over three years he was Special Assistant for Public Affairs to the Secretary of the Navy. From 1988 to 1992 Mr. Harlow was Assistant Press Secretary for Foreign Affairs and National Security at the White House during the Reagan and Bush administrations.
[ ... ]

Exactly. That damn liberal. (Bush-lite is the only true conservative. Reagan and Bush Sr. were closet liberals. Evreyone who questions or contradicts BushCO is a commie-lib. It's all in the memo. You're either with us or you're a damned liberal ... or a terrahist, but that's the same thing.)

 

[Moonbeam]

The credibility and reputation of the Republican party is more important than national security because they ARE national security. It is only a minor sin to out an agent for the greater good of the party because only by protecting the party can the nation be saved. A great many people don't believe this and so the party must work in secret and lie until power is absolute. The Republican party and its faithful are working to save the nation. Only with absolute power, only with absolute control, can we ever be sure we can create the kind of peace required that will assure we never remember our traumas and experience how bad we feel. Hale to the Party, long live the party, God bless the party, the one and only way.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

"Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."[/list]
This seems to contradict Novak's weasel-worded excuse about the CIA letting him reveal her name. It also shows again that the CIA considered Plame to be an "undercover operative" and that her identity was classified."

Smoking gun??? What smoking gun??? :roll:

Someone in the administration's obviously been smoking something, and it sure smells like a BS gun. :|

 

[zendari]

Clinton pardoned a national security leaker.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005 10:12 a.m. EDT

Bill Clinton Pardoned Nat'l. Security Leaker

No wonder 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been silent as a churchmouse about Karl Rove while her Democratic colleagues call for his prosecution for leaking classified information about CIA employee Valerie Plame.

Turns out - in the only case in U.S. history of a person successfully prosecuted for leaking classified information to the press - Hillary's husband pardoned the guilty party.
On January 20, 2001, President Clinton pardoned Samuel Loring Morison, a civilian analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence. In 1984, Morison had been convicted of providing classified satellite photos of an under-construction Soviet nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to Britain's Jane's Defence Weekly.

He received a two-year jail sentence.

In pardoning Morison, Clinton dismissed the advice of the CIA.

"We said we were obviously opposed - it was a vigorous 'Hell, no,'" one senior intelligence official told the Washington Post at the time. "We think ... giving pardons to people who are convicted of doing that sends the wrong signal to people who are currently entrusted with classified information."

Morison is the only person ever successfully prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act, the law invoked by Democrats who want to nail Rove after it became clear that he didn't violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

But it's going to be difficult for Dems to feign national security outrage over Plame's outing when the husband of their party's presidential front-runner let an actual convicted leaker off the hook.

Last week, when Sen. John Kerry called for Mr. Rove to be fired, with Hillary standing by his side, she nodded silently. When reporters asked her what she thought of the alleged Rove outrage, she offered only, "I'm nodding."

No doubt while remembering her husband's pardon of Mr. Morison.


Hahahaha.

 

[conjur]

Well, I guess we should pardon Rove, then.


Two wrongs make a right? :roll:


Just another duh-version from the story.

 

[zendari]

There is nothing to pardon as there is no crime. But the truth about Hillary and where she stands is known.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
There is nothing to pardon as there is no crime. But the truth about Hillary and where she stands is known.

There will be nothing to pardon... once Rove is tried, convicted and shot for treason.

 

[zendari]

I thought the libs don't believe in the death penalty unless its for a fetus.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: zendari
I thought the libs don't believe in the death penalty unless its for a fetus.

There you go lumping everyone into the same category. A "PRETZEL" for you to choke on!

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: zendari
Clinton pardoned a national security leaker.

Well okay but pardoning Rove has to follow the EXACT same set of steps involved in the pardon of Morison.

1 - Lose security clearance forever.

2 - Fired from position.

3 - Tried and convicted.

4 - serve prison sentence.

5 - 10-15 years later be pardoned by the President.

 

[conjur]

Works for me, PE.


BTW, somewhat related:

Karen Hughes refused to answer questions re: Plame outing during confirm.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Karen_Hug...uting_during_confirmation_he_0727.html

Senior Bush adviser Karen Hughes, headed to confirmation in the full Senate for the State Department's top public relations post, provided a terse two sentence answer to questions submitted by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) about her role and knowledge about the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, RAW STORY has learned.

Kerry's line of questioning focused on whether Hughes knew Wilson was a covert operative, and whether she had ever spoken with Bush adviser Karl Rove about the agent.

Hughes response was curt: "Because of my ongoing contact with the White House, I was interviewed as part of that investigation and was happy to cooperate, as I noted in my Senate Foreign Relations Committee questionnaire. As you know, these questions relate to an ongoing criminal investigation. I believe that I should honor the prosecutor's request not to discuss this matter until he has completed his investigation."

See PDF images at RawStory.