Further evidence tying Rove to Plame-outing

Those in-the-know in Washington aren't saying, and those that don't know are yapping their beaks off! Example of the latter would be Woodward & Bernstein on CNN this evening catigating Karl Rove for uncertain allegations while at the same time defending the unnamed source! Talk about hypocrisy! Look up the word in Webster's lexicon and Woodward & Bernstein are featured!

This "affair" that you mention, re: Valerie Plame's so-called secret career path, was more well-known than the Wonkette's back door preference!

 

I love that part. That being said, there are so many good parts to choose from.

Like this one:

I want to see McClellan's face when this one was asked:

 

Honestly, I can't think of a reason why anyone would want to be the WH press secretary, regardless of the administration.

 

I actually feel sorry for McClellan.

To quote Billy Conolly: "Someone vomited in the Petunias"

This is some seriously deep shite. Rove in his arrogance may get a cattle prod up his arse. One can only hope.

David Gregory and Terry Moran really went after him. The video is pure comedy.

 

Once again, you're not smart enough to get the point. You're using Rove's lawyer and Rove's buddy (possibly also his lawyer) to disprove something.

Show me yours and I'll show you mine.

But it doesn't explain why Novak didn't then write, Wilson's wife works for the CIA. He wrote that she was a CIA operative.

 

That's not the question on the table. The question is, if Rove is the source, how do you defend him on the grounds of his not knowing Plame had NOC unless you posit that a 3rd person DID know and, by an amazing coincidence, told Novak without Rove's direction?

It is? Based on what?

 

And yet, it wasn't. Link please.

 

"Andrea Mitchell was asked, on MSNBC, whether it was generally known to news people, before the hullabaloo, that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. She answered, somewhat reluctantly, that it was."

 

Hey Ian, sick of those Che shirts? Here's your sartoral rejoinder:

 

That's an unlinked comment from a blogger. I need something more than that. I don't cite, for example, Josh Marshall asserting something as fact as having any value, unless he links to a non-partisan source.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/11.html#a3868

Y'all should check this out, and watch the morning gaggle. A couple of reporters got absolutely pissed off at Scotty. He wouldn't comment on anything, even things he'd commented on before. It's really funny.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the MSM was on Bush's side when he lied to the American people about tax cuts, and the August briefing on AQ, and Saddam's WMDs, and on and on and on. If anything, they admired the Bushies' ability to lie to the American people about matters of substance and get away with it. But this time, the Bushies have lied to the press, and they're gonna f*** him for it.

I think.

 

The whole press briefing is on the Whitehouse site. Here's the link to the transcript and video:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html#

 

My 1 link of evidence trumps your 0 links.

 

You know, if my grandma had balls, she'd be a man.

Which is what you aren't.

So, to play your game of hypothetical, if Rove is so OBVIOUSLY guilty, why haven't we seen an indictment?

 

Let's sum up so far, shall we?

--No indictments of anyone from Fitzgerald.

--No firings of anyone in the Bush administration.

--Source of Valerine Plame's "outing" have been revealed -- Libby and Rove.

--Reporter Cooper has caved because corporate management told him to; plus he got waivers from sources.

--A hyperventilating press corps tries to grill Scott McClellan.

--All the parties to the grand jury investigation have gone before the grand jury.

--The only person in jail as of this writing is Judy Miller -- a reporter!!

--The New York Times, who desperately wanted a "special prosecutor gone wild" got exactly what they asked for. But the SP has only managed to nail one of its own! Do you think they appreciate the irony, even as they compare in an editorial Judy Miller to Martin Luther King (which gives new meaning to the phrase, "That's a stretch!!")

--Meanwhile, the left, just as desperately, want this affair to bring down the Bush adminstration...of course, they absolutely totally believed, that the Duelfer Report, the 9/11 commission report, and the Downing Street Memo would "bring down" the administration.

Yes, I do love the United States of America. God bless our great nation, if only for its high entertainment value!!

 

OK, lemme go make two posts in atrios' comments section, and then I'll be ahead 2 to 1.

 

You quoted something from Powerline that argued that even if Rove is the leaker, he didn't commit a crime. The whole conversation played out in that alternative universe where we know Rove is the leaker. But we don't really know that, yet, and even if we know it, we don't know if Fitzgerald can prove it in court.

Karl, you really are slow witted. YOU YOU YOU brought up the powerline post meant to show Rove might have undermined our national security, but hey, there's no crime, so there's no problem.

 

That would be two own goals on your part.

 

No, pal, your dumbness knows no bounds. God, you're stupid.

You, and the lefty moonbat White House press corps, assume that a crime was committed when Rove talked to the media. This is likely very wrong.

Meanwhilke, Isikoff was just on MSNBC. The Cooper email he says proves nothing about whether a crime has been committed. He was followed quickly by the paragon of objectivity, Dana Millbank, who also had to conced that there is not proof of a crime, but that it is a PR problem for the White House.

Well, duh.

Right now, I would speculate that the only thing that is happening is that Fitzgerald is desperately trying to catch Rove and Libby in a set of "inconsistencies" in their grand jury testimony (by the way, Rove's been there THREE times and a very forthcoming witness, supposedly) with the testimony of Cooper tomorrow.

If Cooper's and Rove's testimony dovetail, my bet is that this tempest in a teapot is over.

 

This deal is becoming as real sh!tstorm:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=5&u=/nm/bush_leak_dc

wow.

 

Fox News just mentioned that Rove simply talking about a CIA operative even without mentioning her name was in violation of federal laws. And we all know that Fox News is fair and balanced so there's no questioning them.

 

Rove is an a$$ and should burn for this if true

However, Ms. Plame should have been a tad more discreet about her employer. Then again, it is the same agency that let Aldrich Ames run amuck.......

 

So how's he suppose to answer the reporter's question? Geez Chicago...get a brain! The reporter asked Rove -- Rove didn't volunteer information. Get thee facts straight will ya?

 

Hey Karl, here's one for your team.

Yes, we know she had NOC. Yes, we know she "worked" for a CIA front company. Yes, we know that Novak called her an "operative." That's all bad for the leaker. OTOH,

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/12/rove/index1.html

My emphasis.

Of course, it's from Salon, so it can't be true but there you have it. The leaker could skate if the prosecution can't disprove beyond reasonable doubt that despite the NOC, despite the front company employment, the fact that at the time she had a desk job at CIA headquarters, or wasn't permanently based overseas, disqualifies her from being covered by this law.

Now, we in this thread have all read powerline's excerpt of the law, and I don't see it. Toensing and Sanford can say what the law is supposed to mean, but it's written in black and white, and THAT'S what matters. But it's possible that elsewhere in federal statutes the term "covert agent" is defined in such a way that she doesn't qualify. I still come back to this: to an outsider, having NOC, and working for a front company, and having Novak refer to her with a term he always previously had used for covert agents, that's aLOT for the leaker to overcome. But it's a specialized field with its own lingo, and "common sense" understandings of a term like "covert agent" may not apply.

See, Karl, this is how it's done. You start with what you know, (and you and Ian may need to google "know" or look it up at dictionary.com), and THEN draw your conclusions. And this also points out the difference not just between Salon and Powerline, but even between Salon and the National Review. You'd never see ammunition for the other side in the NR, because they're part of the will to power machinery of the hard right.

 

How do you know she wasn't discreet? Do you think she told Rove where she worked? Or do you think Rove found it out at a meeting or via some memo in his work at the White House? BY FAR the latter is more likely. Remember, her neighbors were all shocked when they found out the truth.

If y'all remember back 2 years, the focus was on Scooter Libby more than Rove, because Libby had access to her status directly. Rove did not. Someone would have had to have told Rove, or he would have to have read something he wasn't supposed to read.