Further evidence tying Rove to Plame-outing

There are likely two (perhaps three) possibilities in this regard:

1) Rove lied to his boss about his involvement, who then told McClellan it was OK to stand at the podium and say that Rove was not involved

2) Rove told the truth to his boss about his involvement, who then nevertheless told McClellan it was OK to stand at the podium and say that Rove was not involved

(perhaps) 3) Bush et all decided it was better not to know the particulars, then still decided to send McClellan to the podium to swear to Rove's innocence.

The worst-case scenario for Bush is (obviously) no. 2, not least because it would mean he a) went back on his word to discipline/fire/whatever anybody involved (or more accurately said those statements to the press knowing he had no intention on carrying them out) and b) actually promoted someone he knew was involved.

 

I'm pretty sure Deputy Chiefs of Staff can't be impeached.

 

Good point Michael Russ! No...excellent point!

Valerie Plame's neighbors, friends, even her enemies, co-workers; all these are potential sources of her employment which the MEDIA refuses to accept! It's not even clear she was a NOC at this point! Her husband seems to be best and most likely source!

THIS STORY IS ABOUT ONLY ONE THING... Dems think they can get a jab at Bush via Rove... they smell blood.... they'll do anything to make their fictional version of events true... even lie....

 

Touche

 

I wouldn't wish that upon anybody.

 

Unfortunately for supporters of the administration, like myself, if this latest story is true, SoFla Metro is right. If Rove actually was the person mentioned by Novak as confirming the story, than there is no excuse for their public statements. those statements are the sword they gave the Democrats, and I can't blame them for using it. If Rove was not completely straight with McClelland up front, he deserves to go.

BTW, my guess would be SoFla Metro's option 3.

 

Hark the herald angels sing!

I think that's the least likely actually. That would require McClellan (who, keep in mind, never ever ever says anything from the podium that hasn't been dissected and approved from above - he's nothing but a mouthpiece) to make a definitive statement that could/would later be held against the administration if it turned out to be false (which it apparently was). I think options 1 or 2 are most likely, and right now it's a coin flip to me.

 

Unfortunately, I think the only person likely to lose his job in all this is McClellan; unfortunate for the fact that Bush and Rove effectively threw him under the bus - strike that, the TRAIN - when they had him go out there and deny Rove's involvement. The WH press corps won't believe a thing he says now (if they ever really did), so he's toast.

 

Rove coordinated two political campaigns and has dealt with the media on a daily basis... it would be both a mistake and uncharacteristic of him to do what you are alleging... I doubt he made a mistake...

 

He was also fired from the first President Bush's '92 campaign for doing exactly what he did again. So, not exactly uncharacteristic of him.

 

Wrong and wrong. He's run a lot more than two campaigns, and he rarely speaks directly to the media. He may play them like the dupes that they all too often are, but he doesn't deal with them directly.

 

Are you kidding!!! This is exactly what Rove does. Ya know, W's pop fired him once already for being a devious b*stard. Remember the whisper campaigns and the push polls about McCain's "illegitimate" kid? This deal has Rove written all over it.

 

That's not the case. He might not speak on the record very often but he apparently spent quite a lot of time talking to reporters on background.

 

You're a little late.

Fox News' John Gibson says "little wifey" deserved to be outed, and that Rove should get a medal for doing so.

 

Maybe someone else already noted this, but you're "forgetting" that it was established almost two years ago that 6 different reporters got the information.

Kanute, is it your position that the leakers, *6* times!!!, accidentally let it slip at the end of a conversation originally on another topic?

 

That's not true. It's only the jurors and other court personnel who can commit this crime.

It's like, Novak committed no crime when he outed Plame. The person who told him, however, did.

PS...it would be wholly unsurprising if Rove or his attorney were the leaker.

 

People seem to be forgetting, so I'll remind them, that there were (at least) *2* leakers, and, again, at least 6 leakees.

Alot of the conversation here is made irrelevant or even wrong by those two facts.

BTW, he revealed her IDENTITY. That's all the statute requires.

 

A Republican special prosecutor is not going to drag the most powerful man in Republican politics through the wringer and jail a NY Times reporter unless he knows he has the goods to nail somebody to the wall.

 

When do the Congressional hearings start?

 

Didn't some GOP senator (anonymously) tell Tim Russert that if Democrats were involved, the Republicans would certainly be calling for hearings?

 

That's what Russert said on the Today Show.


EDIT: He just said it was a Republican. Didn't identify him/her as a Senator.