Rove NOT to be charged

[RightIsWrong]

I think Howard Dean sums this up best:

"Good news for the White House, not so good news for America,"

Source

WASHINGTON -- Top White House aide Karl Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said today.

Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, leaves U.S. District Court in Washington in this Oct. 14, 2005, file photo. Rove has been told by prosecutors he won't be charged with any crimes in the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity, his lawyer said today.

Fitzgerald has already secured a criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove," Luskin said in a statement.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said. "We believe the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

Fitzgerald has been investigating whether senior administration officials intentionally leaked the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame in retribution because her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sharply criticized the administration's pursuit of war in Iraq.

Rove, who most recently appeared before a grand jury in April, has admitted he spoke with columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in the days before they published Plame's name in July 2003.

Rove, however, did not originally tell prosecutors about his conversation with Cooper, only revealing it after his lawyer discovered a White House e-mail that referred to it.

Fitzgerald was investigating whether Rove lied or obstructed justice in failing to initially disclose the conversation. The presidential aide blamed a faulty memory and sought to testify before the grand jury after finding the e-mail to correct his testimony.

The threat of indictment had hung over Rove, the man President Bush dubbed "the architect" of his re-election, even as Rove was focusing on the arduous task of halting Bush's popularity spiral and keeping Democrats from capturing the House or Senate in November elections.

Fitzgerald's investigation has been underway since the start of the 2004 election, and the decision not to indict Rove is certain to cheer Republicans concerned about Bush's low approval ratings and the prospects of a difficult 2006 congressional election.

"The fact is this, I thought it was wrong when you had people like Howard Dean and (Sen.) Harry Reid presuming that he was guilty," Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman told Fox News Channel's "Fox and Friends" show this morning.

Democrats, on the other hand, had no reason to cheer the development.

"Good news for the White House, not so good news for America," Dean, the Democratic Party chairman, said this morning on NBC's "Today" show.

Rove has been at Bush's sides since his days as Texas governor and was the architect of Bush's two presidential election victory. A political strategist, Rove assumed new policy responsibilities inside the White House in 2005 as deputy chief of staff.

However, as part of the shake-up brought by new White House chief of staff Joshua Bolton, Rove shed those policymaking duties earlier this year to return to full time politics.

Fitzgerald's case against Libby is moving toward trial, as the two sides work through pretrial issues such as access to classified documents.

Libby, 55, was charged last October with lying to the FBI and a federal grand jury about how he learned and when he subsequently told three reporters about CIA officer Valerie Plame. He faces five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice.

Plame's identity was exposed eight days after her husband, Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, alleged that the U.S. government had manipulated prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi nuclear threat.

With Rove's fate now decided, other unfinished business in Fitzgerald's probe focuses on the source who provided Washington Post reporter Bob Woodwind information about Plame.

Woodwind says his source, who he has not publicly identified, provided the information about Wilson's wife, several weeks before Novak learned of Plame's identity. The Post reporter, who never wrote a story, was interviewed by Fitzgerald late last year.

 

[jlmadyson]

No fitzmas after all eh? Which reminds me, so much for the Jason Leopold story from truthout, and the so called Rove charges within 48 hours about a month a go.

 

[ScudRunner]

Good news for Freedom and the American Way

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: ScudRunner
Good news for Freedom and the American Way

I love it when you are sarcastic like that...

FS

 

[fitzov]

same old story of rich man's/poor man's justice

any ordinary citizen would be in jail without due process, interrogated, and there would be no press conference

 

[EatSpam]

No wonder we had the recent resurfacing of the "OH NOES!!! TEH GAYS!!!! TEH CHILLLLREN!!!" wedge issue. Rove is out of hot water, so he's back to gay bashing the Republicans back into office.

 

[marvdmartian]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think Howard Dean sums this up best:

"Good news for the White House, not so good news for America,"

Yeah, that's what we need.......more pearls of wisdom from Mr Howard "Yeeeeeehaaaa!!!!" Dean. :roll:

 

[techs]

This doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just that there is not evough evidence to charge him.

 

[Triumph]

I don't understand this whole debacle

1. If the name of a CIA operative is classified AND
2. Rove does not have authority to declassify THEN
3. Rove should go to jail AND
4. Robert Novak should be charged with unauthorized receipt of classified material.

The rules on classified information are quite clear.

And I just don't understand what the newspaper had to gain by releasing the name of a CIA operative.

 

[alchemize]

Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

I imagine if you were being honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge there are damned good reasons for the dislike of Karl Rove by his political opponents (leaving aside, for the moment, the merits of the criminal case against him). He has, IMO, had a more negative effect on the American political process than any other individual during my lifetime, including Nixon. His shameless, school-of-dirty-tricks tactics informed the late, unlamented Lee Atwater (himself a thoroughly sleazy figure IMO), and he has singlehandedly made American politics a lower, coarser, meaner process than it has ever been in recent history (say, the past 80-100 years).

His "push-polling" in South Carolina in 2000 (in which he hired phone callers to ask registered Republicans whether it would affect their votes if they knew John McCain had an "illegitimate black child") was a good example of his vicious, below-the-belt, scorched-earth politicking - this man is just disgusting, and the idea that President Bush would rely on such a man as his closest advisor is telling and, IMO, disturbing.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Triumph
I don't understand this whole debacle

1. If the name of a CIA operative is classified AND
2. Rove does not have authority to declassify THEN
3. Rove should go to jail AND
4. Robert Novak should be charged with unauthorized receipt of classified material.

The rules on classified information are quite clear.

And I just don't understand what the newspaper had to gain by releasing the name of a CIA operative.

Tis my question as well when it comes to this case. People claim it was to discredit Joe Wilson, but who knows Joe Wilson? Outside of a few people who follow DC politics or read the NY Times editorials who the hell would know about joe wilson and his claims about yellowcake? Enough to release the name of his wife, which I dont understand how that discredits anything. The story and theory is convoluted and one that seems overly complicated for such a simple situation.

And it is obvious she wasnt classified or rove didnt have anything to do with the leak because he wasnt indicted. I dont think it takes that much to get indicted, a conviction is another story. I mean those guys at Duke got indicted for rape charges when it appears there is a plethora of evidence saying they didnt do it.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Tis my question as well when it comes to this case. People claim it was to discredit Joe Wilson, but who knows Joe Wilson? Outside of a few people who follow DC politics or read the NY Times editorials who the hell would know about joe wilson and his claims about yellowcake? Enough to release the name of his wife, which I dont understand how that discredits anything. The story and theory is convoluted and one that seems overly complicated for such a simple situation.

And it is obvious she wasnt classified or rove didnt have anything to do with the leak because he wasnt indicted. I dont think it takes that much to get indicted, a conviction is another story. I mean those guys at Duke got indicted for rape charges when it appears there is a plethora of evidence saying they didnt do it.

I think your latter point is well-taken, but respectfully, at the time the White House leaked Valerie Plame's identity, Joe Wilson was not only well-known but he was starting to look like a major thorn in the White House's side. He knew, perhaps better than anyone else, that they were lying when they claimed Saddam had tried to procure uranium, a central claim in their arguments to the UN and the American public to justify the war in Iraq. I don't see how anyone interested in American politics at the time could have failed to know his name. Hence the point that although the newspapers gained nothing by leaking Plame's name, the White House did benefit, by teaching a lesson to Joe Wilson and those who might do something similar in the future.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

LOL, took a page right outta my play book!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

I imagine if you were being honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge there are damned good reasons for the dislike of Karl Rove by his political opponents (leaving aside, for the moment, the merits of the criminal case against him). He has, IMO, had a more negative effect on the American political process than any other individual during my lifetime, including Nixon. His shameless, school-of-dirty-tricks tactics informed the late, unlamented Lee Atwater (himself a thoroughly sleazy figure IMO), and he has singlehandedly made American politics a lower, coarser, meaner process than it has ever been in recent history (say, the past 80-100 years).

His "push-polling" in South Carolina in 2000 (in which he hired phone callers to ask registered Republicans whether it would affect their votes if they knew John McCain had an "illegitimate black child") was a good example of his vicious, below-the-belt, scorched-earth politicking - this man is just disgusting, and the idea that President Bush would rely on such a man as his closest advisor is telling and, IMO, disturbing.

Sure he's a sleazy guy, won't get any argument from me. Perhaps someday the dems will quit pandering to the far left and snap up the moderates that are just begging to be converted. Doubtful though, they've embraced Rove's game and are trying to make it their own.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Genx87

Tis my question as well when it comes to this case. People claim it was to discredit Joe Wilson, but who knows Joe Wilson? Outside of a few people who follow DC politics or read the NY Times editorials who the hell would know about joe wilson and his claims about yellowcake? Enough to release the name of his wife, which I dont understand how that discredits anything. The story and theory is convoluted and one that seems overly complicated for such a simple situation.

And it is obvious she wasnt classified or rove didnt have anything to do with the leak because he wasnt indicted. I dont think it takes that much to get indicted, a conviction is another story. I mean those guys at Duke got indicted for rape charges when it appears there is a plethora of evidence saying they didnt do it.

I think your latter point is well-taken, but respectfully, at the time the White House leaked Valerie Plame's identity, Joe Wilson was not only well-known but he was starting to look like a major thorn in the White House's side. He knew, perhaps better than anyone else, that they were lying when they claimed Saddam had tried to procure uranium, a central claim in their arguments to the UN and the American public to justify the war in Iraq. I don't see how anyone interested in American politics at the time could have failed to know his name. Hence the point that although the newspapers gained nothing by leaking Plame's name, the White House did benefit, by teaching a lesson to Joe Wilson and those who might do something similar in the future.

You must know something Patrick Fitzgerald doesn't. I never recall him releasing any info on the original souce of the leak and as it were, that original leak may have come from someone outside the White House. Trying to reinforce this grand theory doesn?t bode well when no one has actually been charged with the crime of outing a covert CIA operative. Some have said Armitage was the orginal source, but no one really knows outside of that prosecution team imo.

Senior Powell aide focus of CIA leak investigation, former spymaster says

Take this is rawstory with a grain of salt, but it's all theory, perhaps Armitage could even be a key witness at this point, who knows.

Lawyer disputes claim Powell aide focus of CIA leak probe; New indication focus is on coverup, not leak

A claim by former National Security director Bobby Ray Inman that a senior Powell aide was a target in the investigation into the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson drew a firestorm of response from individuals close to the case, RAW STORY can report.

A post yesterday by Steve Clemons, editor of the popular foreign relations-focused blog, The Washington Note, noted that the former NSA chief was privately telling associates that Powell's Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage was a focus of the CIA leak investigation.

Late yesterday, Clemons received a barrage of responses from others closer to the case, including a lawyer to one who has testified, Clemons told me. These individuals vehemently disputed claims that Armitage was in legal jeopardy, saying that the erstwhile Powell aide had been nothing but cooperative in his appearances before the grand jury.

According to Clemons' latest, Armitage testified three times before the grand jury. Those familiar with his testimony say he was "a complete straight-shooter" and "honest about his role and mistakes."

What "mistakes" he is referring to, I would love to know.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Sure he's a sleazy guy, won't get any argument from me. Perhaps someday the dems will quit pandering to the far left and snap up the moderates that are just begging to be converted. Doubtful though, they've embraced Rove's game and are trying to make it their own.

I think there's a chicken-and-egg effect there. Frankly I think the notion of the "radical left" is one of perception, and one that is largely a creation of the Karl Roves of the world. I don't see anything in the policies of the Democratic party that is extreme in any sense. Unfortunately, there just isn't much there in terms of real substance, and the Republicans (particularly Rove) have been very effective in painting the "far left" as extremists. Moreover, fighting against Rove-ian tactics requires a certain level of dirtiness, and the Democrats don't take to that as naturally as today's Republicans (that isn't a moral judgment on my part; I just don't think there's a Democrat alive with Rove's level of shamelessness and absence of soul - who else would have come up with the "illegitimate black child" gambit?).

The reality is that a party that holds the minority position in both the Legislative and Executive branches has very little opportunity to push substance, so it's all but inevitable that they will end up looking like whiners with nothing to say. The same thing was true early in the Clinton presidency - the Republicans were the ones who looked like sore losers.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

I imagine if you were being honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge there are damned good reasons for the dislike of Karl Rove by his political opponents (leaving aside, for the moment, the merits of the criminal case against him). He has, IMO, had a more negative effect on the American political process than any other individual during my lifetime, including Nixon. His shameless, school-of-dirty-tricks tactics informed the late, unlamented Lee Atwater (himself a thoroughly sleazy figure IMO), and he has singlehandedly made American politics a lower, coarser, meaner process than it has ever been in recent history (say, the past 80-100 years).

His "push-polling" in South Carolina in 2000 (in which he hired phone callers to ask registered Republicans whether it would affect their votes if they knew John McCain had an "illegitimate black child") was a good example of his vicious, below-the-belt, scorched-earth politicking - this man is just disgusting, and the idea that President Bush would rely on such a man as his closest advisor is telling and, IMO, disturbing.

So basically Rove is the GOP's Steeplerot? Cry me a river. Politics is a dirty business, always has been, always will be. If you don't have the stomach for it there's always Entertainment Tonight........

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

I imagine if you were being honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge there are damned good reasons for the dislike of Karl Rove by his political opponents (leaving aside, for the moment, the merits of the criminal case against him). He has, IMO, had a more negative effect on the American political process than any other individual during my lifetime, including Nixon. His shameless, school-of-dirty-tricks tactics informed the late, unlamented Lee Atwater (himself a thoroughly sleazy figure IMO), and he has singlehandedly made American politics a lower, coarser, meaner process than it has ever been in recent history (say, the past 80-100 years).

His "push-polling" in South Carolina in 2000 (in which he hired phone callers to ask registered Republicans whether it would affect their votes if they knew John McCain had an "illegitimate black child") was a good example of his vicious, below-the-belt, scorched-earth politicking - this man is just disgusting, and the idea that President Bush would rely on such a man as his closest advisor is telling and, IMO, disturbing.

So basically Rove is the GOP's Steeplerot? Cry me a river. Politics is a dirty business, always has been, always will be. If you don't have the stomach for it there's always Entertainment Tonight........

I am not dishonest, nor do I need dirty tricks, go cheney yourself cornhole.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: marvdmartian

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I think Howard Dean sums this up best:

"Good news for the White House, not so good news for America,"

Yeah, that's what we need.......more pearls of wisdom from Mr Howard "Yeeeeeehaaaa!!!!" Dean. :roll:

You could not have said anything more perfectly true!:thumbsup: But you just don't realize it yet!:laugh:

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: alchemize
Commence Wailing and Gnashing of teeth.

I imagine if you were being honest with yourself, you'd acknowledge there are damned good reasons for the dislike of Karl Rove by his political opponents (leaving aside, for the moment, the merits of the criminal case against him). He has, IMO, had a more negative effect on the American political process than any other individual during my lifetime, including Nixon. His shameless, school-of-dirty-tricks tactics informed the late, unlamented Lee Atwater (himself a thoroughly sleazy figure IMO), and he has singlehandedly made American politics a lower, coarser, meaner process than it has ever been in recent history (say, the past 80-100 years).

His "push-polling" in South Carolina in 2000 (in which he hired phone callers to ask registered Republicans whether it would affect their votes if they knew John McCain had an "illegitimate black child") was a good example of his vicious, below-the-belt, scorched-earth politicking - this man is just disgusting, and the idea that President Bush would rely on such a man as his closest advisor is telling and, IMO, disturbing.

So basically Rove is the GOP's Steeplerot? Cry me a river. Politics is a dirty business, always has been, always will be. If you don't have the stomach for it there's always Entertainment Tonight........

Heh, yea, Rove doesn't hold a candle to Atwater imo either. The one thing Rove has done is focus the debate around issues he can win with. He will almost certainly do it again this November, and judging from the outcome of CA 50 I highly doubt there will be sweeping change this fall. Time will tell however.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: DonVito

So basically Rove is the GOP's Steeplerot? Cry me a river. Politics is a dirty business, always has been, always will be. If you don't have the stomach for it there's always Entertainment Tonight........

Steeplerot is not running a Presidential campaign, is he? Last time I checked he was just one of this board's resident goofballs, like you. Has he been promoted or something?

What do you think of the push-polling Rove used against John McCain? Do you think that was a legitimate tactic? Here's what I think:

1) It was misleading and perpetuated an unfairly negative impression of McCain (he and his wife had in fact adopted their daughter Bridget from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh - he had no illegitimate child, regardless of race);

2) It was irrelevant to any real-world issue in the campaign; and, most importantly

3) It was disgusting in that it played on the racism of some Southern voters.

Believe it or not, there was a time, not so long ago, that this was not the way campaigns were run. I'd like to see campaigns run on the issues and on RELEVANT, ACCURATE character traits of the candidates, not on this kind of racist slander. Karl Rove has, IMO, been an incredibly destructive force in American politics.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Heh, yea, Rove doesn't hold a candle to Atwater imo either. The one thing Rove has done is focus the debate around issues he can win with. He will almost certainly do it again this November, and judging from the outcome of CA 50 I highly doubt there will be sweeping change this fall. Time will tell however.

I don't think you understand the relationships at work. Atwater was Rove's protege - he learned at the feet of the Dark Master himself.

 

[jlmadyson]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Heh, yea, Rove doesn't hold a candle to Atwater imo either. The one thing Rove has done is focus the debate around issues he can win with. He will almost certainly do it again this November, and judging from the outcome of CA 50 I highly doubt there will be sweeping change this fall. Time will tell however.

I don't think you understand the relationships at work. Atwater was Rove's protege - he learned at the feet of the Dark Master himself.

Ah I understand the relationship clearly, but I still do not believe Rove holds a candle to Atwater whatsoever.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Ah I understand the relationship clearly, but I still do not believe Rove holds a candle to Atwater whatsoever.

In what way? It seems to me he has been even sneakier and more evil than Atwater in his tactics, and much more successful. At least Atwater was selling a decent product (I'd call GHWB a 50th-percentile President), and he faced a dreadful candidate in Dukakis. Rove is saddled with an awful candidate who demonstrably did a terrible job during his first term, and still managed to get him re-elected.