Rove is slippery, and he may dodge this bullet, but he aint out of the woods: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/update-on-rove_3584.html Lawrence Odonnell stands by his story.
I doubt you need to be a genius to put one over on the american public. Just someone who remembers the immortal words of P.T. Barnum.
Hmmm. If Rove is as slippery and as much of an evil genius as some say, he may very well be cleverly setting this O'Donnell guy up for a huge fall. On the other hand, I've no idea who this guy is, but he writes for Ariana Huffington, so how seriously can he be taken, and how far can he really fall? Besides, Huffington has too many axes to grind and her blog cannot be considered a serious source, regardless of how much some of you may like what comes out of it. But seriously, we should wait and see how the Newsweek story develops. So far, based on the Newsweek link which somebody provided, they've gone as far as asserting that Time magazine did speak to Rove, but they state that it is unclear what was said. That is as far as we got, other than rumors by people with an axe to grind, and the willingness of some people here to believe those rumors. Perhaps there is more to the story, perhaps Rove is guilty, and perhaps the investigation will uncover his guilt. But none of that has happened yet. Lets see where it goes before we pass judgement on it.
As I understand it, the prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the person on trial was the leaker, but also that the defendant knew Plame was an operative and not a run-of-the-mill CIA employee. If it's not possible to accomplish the latter, I'd rather they not waste everyone's time and money with a trial.
Reagan successfully prosecuted a guy for leaking 3 photos of a Soviet Aircraft to Jane magazine - under one of two statutes which would be applicable to this leak. And there is also the change of a perjury charge too, depending on who the actual leaker was, and what he/she might have said to the grand jury (if anything).
So it has been prosecuted before, sucks for the leaker that he cannot now use the Al Gore "no controlling legal authority" argument. As for perjury, the guy can also go back to his testimony and pontificate on the meaning of "is" or any other word to worm his way out.
If we can some how figure out how to bring everyone from Iraq back about twenty minutes earlier, I say let's have a trial.
The downfall of many a super villain in the comics. They climb to the top and then they get careless, blinded by their own success. Who would Karl Rove be?
I agree that Rove's supposed genius is overrated. He's undoubtedly good at manipulating poorly informed voters, and at staging political dirty tricks. That doesn't necessarily translate into showing good judgment in other areas. Take Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo op, which Rove orchestrated. Common sense should have indicated that the war in Iraq wasn't really over until the bad guys accepted that it was over, and that the chance of that particular image coming back to haunt Bush was much higher than the chance that he'd get lasting political benefits from the stunt. But grasping that fact would have required some actual insight into the reality of Iraq and of war, and that's apparently beyond Rove's interest or capacities. For him, giving Bush the chance to strut around on in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier was of utmost importance; everything else was a secondary concern. Outside of his little world, where propaganda and intimidation rule, I don't see much evidence that Rove is all that brilliant.
And, while it's impossible to draw any definitive conclusions from the scraps of info we've gotten about this investigation, I think Rove may be in some trouble here. His lawyer has admitted that he spoke with Cooper just before Novak's article came out, which as far as I can tell seems to contradict his previous statements that he didn't become involved in pushing the story until after it became public. I'd say the immediate relevant questions are: - What did Rove know about Plame, when did he know it, and who told him? And was he legally entitled to know it in the first place? - What exactly did Rove say to Cooper about the case before Novak's column appeared? - Do any of the notes about that conversation conflict with statements Rove made to investigators or the grand jury? - Is Fitzgerald targeting Rove himself, or he might he be putting pressure on Rove in order to get testimony about other people? Once those questions are answered, we'll know a little more about where this case is heading.
Agreed. He's not smarter, just more thuggish. Has anyone seen "The Krays?" The level of violence to be a feared gangster in England is rather quaint. Just cuz Rove is with the Medellin cartel in comparison doesn't make him smarter, it just makes him less moral. He's like Atwater. The GOPs can have consultants like that for two reasons. First, the party of smaller gvt. actually benefits from people hating gvt. Such tactics would be somewhat counterproductive for a Dem. Second, the GOPs, psychologically, are less questioning of power and hierarchy. If some Dem tried crap like that, there would be a number of Dems who would independently ask themselves if they approved, and potentially withhold their support. GOPs just follow orders. Which makes it all the sadder that operation Yellow Elephant is failing. Those guys are born PFCs. Well, except for the appalling cowardice and lack of personal responsibility.
Yeah, the Dems would be in a tizzy if one of their guys committed perjury and had secret police threatening women into signing false affadavits. They'd throw that dirtbag out of office toute de suite, huh?
Froomkin Seems like the, 'Rove's the leaker' rumors aren't going away. In fact, its starting to hit the mainstream press.
Rove 'Knowingly' Refusing Interviews on Plame Leak Editor & Publisher Monday 04 July 2005 New York - Two days after his lawyer confirmed that his name turned up as a source in Matthew Cooper's notes on the Valerie Plame/CIA case, top White House adviser Karl Rove refused to answer questions about the development today. Rove traveled with President Bush when he spoke at a July 4 event in West Virginia today, but refused all requests for interviews about his role in the controversy that threatens to send Cooper, of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times to jail this week for refusing to reveal sources. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had called on Rove to clear the air on Sunday. "We've heard it from his lawyer, but it would be nice to hear it directly from Mr. Rove that he didn't leak the identity of Valerie Plame, and that he didn't direct anyone else to do such a dastardly thing," said Schumer. Outside the presidential rally in Morgantown, one protester made reference to the case, holding a sign that read: "Jail Karl Rove," according to a New York Times dispatch. Rove's lawyer has asserted that while he was interviewed by Cooper he was not the key source who revealed Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Rove's critics, however, suggest that he could be charged with perjury if he did not tell the truth about this to a grand jury. Several dozen other protesters demonstrated against the war in Iraq, the paper said, chanting, "Please support our troops, not the president!" But a large turnout for the president more than countered that. Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link on Friday, wrote on the Huffington Post blog today, that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly. "Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent '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.'"
Somehow you forgot to mention the assassination of Vince Foster and the U.N. black helicopters. Other than that, nice try at creating a false moral equivalence in a desperate attempt to preserve your discredited worldview.
Keller-ote is big into efficiency and his mindlessly repeating catch-phrases helps him post more efficiently by saving him the time and effort needed to think for himself independently. With all the intellectually dishonest sophistry the Ridiculous Right has had to burp out over the past five years to try to bolster their own faith in "their" president's various witting or unwitting un- and/or anti-American activities, I seriously wonder if they'd be all that upset anymore even if it did turn out that Rove outed Palme. Who knows, maybe they'd be secretly proud (although they'd never publically admit it) if Rove outed Palme since it would, in their eyes, be "sticking it to the liberals" and therefore a sign of the macho strength they crave in their father figures. Maybe it is no longer the case that their blind partisan allegiance to the party they believe represents their dogmas seems to have pretty much wiped out their ability to think objectively and critically about current events so that they grasp at any half-truth or pseudo-plausible deniability to save face so much as they've given up trying to fool themselves and now knowingly value strictly partisan Reep interests over those of the country as a whole. Their guiding "principle" in that case would be "Anything that makes the Bush administration (and, by proxy, ourselves) look good is Good and everything else (regardless of its effect on the American people) is automatically Bad". After all, just think how different their reaction to this topic would be if it was the Clinton adminstration that was being reported as possibly outing any CIA agent.