The Blogs are saying it Was Rove who Outed Plame

My post fixing highlights a crucial difference. If you're a member of the extremist wing of the Reep Party, a CEO or trust fund kid, things have been going just fine under Bush as they did under Clinton. All I can say is thank Poku for Alan Greenspan because if the Bushies had as much influence on the economy as he does, we'd be really screwed.

 

You are right, people should not hide behind lawyers, especially if they did nothing wrong. Only problem is that innocence is not always a good defence. BTW what were Clinton's legal bills? 12 mil? or something like that. Any sort of government prosecuter with an axe to grind can ruin an innocent person.

It would be really funny if Rove set up his own legal defence fund into which some would surely contribute. Just for the shear comedy of it, I would like to see that happen.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that if Newsweek or any other major media outlet had any proof at all the Rove actually was responsible for the leak, they would have published it.

Just think back to all of the marginal reports that were published, with far less on the line than this. Dan Rather went to press with nothing but made up documents and the obvious intent to influence an election.

This is looking more and more like a smokescreen to gain leverage over the SC nom, which is the big apple right now.

We shall see.

 

Good. maybe while they have him under oath, they can ask him whether he's a turd burgler.

Never married, mid-50's...you do the math....

 

At first, I thought that was a picture of Truman Capote.

 

Well, then your mind needs to be fixed. Novak knows for a fact who the leakers were, but he hasn't published the name. At least 5 other journos know for a fact who the leakers were, and yet it remains a mystery. And if I'm not mistaken, one of them is at Newsweek.

 

Cooper's going to testify.

 

Hmm...Rove falling on his sword?

 

I have a $20 that says it's his patsy-du-jour.

 

But her compatriot in ink, fellow reporter Matt Cooper of Time, agreed to testify:
"I am prepared to testify and I will comply," Cooper told Hogan Wednesday.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161677,00.html

 

Geez - it ain't the time to be a successful businesswoman these days.

Martha, Little Kim, Judith Miller...

 

I don't have any real love of Judy "WMD" Miller but jail time in a case like this is just being vindictive and isn't going to solve anything.

 

I'm sorry, but did you just compare Lil Kim to Judith Miller?

 

Why sure. I kinda hoped both would go to jail.

One to rot, and one to star in a reality-tv women's prison show reminascant of 70's & 80's jailbabes movies.

 

I sure hope you're talking about L'il Kim.

 

Bush called him over a plate of waffles this morning and promised a full pardon.

 

Four months in a D.C. jail might make her appreciate the importance of providing Judge Hogan what he asked for and sets a standard for the media. While it does touch on "vindictive" I can understand and appreciate why judges resort to this occasionally.

"...Miller was taken into federal custody by two court marshalls and will be transported to a Washington, D.C., prison. She will remain there until October..."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161677,00.html

 

Except that he's already got two reporters talking -- Cooper and Novak. Provided that they're telling the same story, the prosecutor has his corroborating witness already, and all the judge has done is make her into a sympathetic victim.

There are only two circumstances where Miller's testimony is critical today:
1. Cooper and Novak are not telling the same story, in which case someone's in trouble for perjury (I'm looking at you, Mr. Novak).
2. Miller was told by someone else, and she told Cooper and/or Novak.

#1 is less likely because the prosecutor didn't know that until he got Cooper's notes last week. If it's #2, then she should be pleading the 5th, not the 1st, because she's just as guilty as her original source.

 

First of all, you're probably right, but you don't KNOW that. You don't know what the prosecutor suspects she knows. EDIT: you covered this in a later post. However, you're likely wrong about one thing. If Miller found out about Plame's status in her work as a journo, she can't be prosecuted for telling someone else. The law, I think, only applies to current or former gvt. employees. The law was passed in response to that rogue ex-CIA agent from the early 80's (Hunt?) who was spilling all kinds of secrets, some of which weren't prosecutable because nobody had written a law to cover them yet.

Second, the media are f'ing up on this one. I understand the sanctity of the source and all that, but really, the purpose of that protection is to enhance investigative journalism. This case is the opposite extreme...a thuggish outing of a CIA employee working under NOC in order to intimdate anyone else from questioning the Stupid Pointless War. Journos going to the mattress on this is of a piece with the use of anonymous sources to spin, or do briefings on official gvt. policy. Media ethics are being used by this administration against the media.

Media people are too stupid to put limits on or re-define journalistic ethics, so, unfortunately, prosecutors and judges are doing it for them. If journos self-policed better, we wouldn't be here.

 

First of all, you don't KNOW that.