Redstate

said to be cooperating and has revealed the same name, Karl Rove.

has this up on his site as well.

If this is true, what are the implications of the leak?  I only vaguely remember some hoohaw about it.  From what I remember, her husband had something to do with compromising her identity.  I could be way off though.  I never really paid any attention to the whole thing.

Mine was July 1st, 2005: 21:19:19. I posted it literally less than 3 minutes after I heard it.

Anyways. What does it mean? It means this could be some big damn trouble is what it means. I hope to God that Bush can distance himself far enough away from this that he can prove he had no knowledge, because most likely Rove could be facing criminal charges in the not so distant future and that's "IT" for his career.

I found out. Giving RedState what was basically an "exclusive first" with the story on the web about it. Should be promoted as it is a major story.

In fact they may have found the story here.

But I just don't see this. I suppose everyone can make a mistake and do stupid things, but Rove seems to be way too smart to jump into something like this. If he actually did it, I'd put money that he knew that she wasn't actually covered --- and he's got documentation to prove it.

I also just don't see Rove letting that slip out w/out some cover.

Here and over on Drudge are the only two places I've seen this.  I've even been lurking at Dkos for the past couple of hours and there is silence.  Seems to me that if this were true, Markos would be rallying the lynch mob post haste.

... but Lawrence O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group.

I take him with a boatload of grains of salt.

Further, Novak was already cooperating. If Cooper's notes say the same thing as Novak, there was no need for Cooper's notes, was there?

(Unless as additional evidence for an indictment-- which if there is evidence of a crime I support)

I'm guessing O'Donnell was talking out of his rear again. But we'll see.

That Karl Rove was also responsible for releasing the Bin Laden tapes a weekend before the election.

So said the unimpeachable Walter Cronkite, at least.

Didn't congress already hold some hearings on this and determine that the husband blew everything out of proportion and may have indeed been the one to disclose her identity?  I haven't googled yet because my kids just went to bed, so maybe I'll give it a look now.

It's for real, they just didn't expect this tonight, who did? While Lawrence O'Donnel revealed the source he was obviously irritated with the entire process of journalist being compromised and just "went off" and spilled the beans, in a manner that had the whole table falling out of their chairs.

Robert Novak, Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller will back up the claim along with Lawrence O'Donnel. O'Donnel is being Subpenaed as we speak.

In front of a Grand Jury, Rove is gone. I can't believe he made such a dumb mistake. No amount of  paperwork is going to override the testimony of those 4 in the eyes of a Grand Jury, big surprise.

The administration must preparing for tomorrows onslaught as the Dem's are going to be all over this in an attempt to push Bush about his ethics. I like to see if there is indeed anyway out of this that is viable.

The administration might have been ready for this and have a good explaination. I can't comment on what the outcome will be as far as any indictment but, friends in D.C. are telling me several prominant Senators are looking into forming a Grand Jury and presenting the idea tomorrow morning after the questioning of O'Donnel tonight.

... "West Wing" scripts.

If Rove broke the law, he should pay the price.

But if O'Donnell said something, I'd dismiss it as partisan namby-pamby until otherwise verified.

only that this was said. I am on the phone doing what I can. I'll let you know

"tonights" McLaughlin Group for any easier understanding.

Valerie Plame on google and got some info about the deal.

Sounds to me like this is much ado about nothing and now that I know who Lawrence O'Donnell is, I'll take the comments with a boat load of salt as has been suggested.

I just don't see Rove as being this stupid.  But, if he is and he really did something illegal, we'd better batten down the hatches and get ready for a bumpy ride this summer.

I'll be curious to see Nick's response to this when the morning comes around.

Since you are up at this God-awful hour, what do you make of this?

I'll admit, I'm a bit uneducated about this one.  If this is true though, WTF?

has no glorified record for me. But, I am not so stupid not to know what I am watching, how the emotions played out, what possible motives O'Donnell's might have made, but most importantly, the very specific behavior. He had vendetta in his eyes and was more than just completely confident of his claim, but rather gloated in it and it became obvious.

I am not saying I could not be wrong, (or rather my accounts of his actions) I'm saying it's remote that I am. Even O'Donnell doesn't go off like that, there was the odor of fish in the air and everyone could smell it.

Tomorrow mornings' news will definitely tell the tell. I just thought it was nice to get a scoop on a story I thought important, no matter how insignificant it might seem to be to others.

I don't understand what "crime" is alleged to have been committed. It is against the law to reveal the name of a covert agent where the U.S. is taking affirmative steps to conceal that agent's relationship with U.S. intelligence activities, but I cannot imagine how that applies to someone working in the U.S. at CIA headquarters.

You said even he doesn't go off like that?

He is unstable. Link.

The silence on both sides is remarkable.  I've looked all over the net for something on it tonight and all I have seen is the post here and the one on Drudge.

There isn't anything coming up on the McLaughlin Group site either.

Remember, the left thought the Downing Street Memo was a big deal as well.  

Seriously, I think if Rove did anything illegal, the independent council would have had his a** by now.

I could be wrong, in which case, pass the popcorn in a nervous way.

But my guess is O'Donnell was being the partisan hack he always is.

and treat it as nothing. Seemed when I first heard it, it was a substantial claim.

Maybe this will help as it is what I read:

________________

Disclosure of the identity of an undercover intelligence officer can be a federal crime if prosecutors can show the leak was intentional and the leaker knew about the officer's secret status.

__________________

In a popularly quoted remark, Wilson said after a speech in 2003 that it would be "fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Wilson accused Rove of spreading word of the Novak column to reporters.

Maybe if it does turn out to be a bigger deal than is being thought of, I might get some credit, but why do I try.

As I recall there is some 'grace' period after the agent is withdrawn --- ostensibly to protect contacts, other agents, etc., who may still be in place.

But I also recall that there was quite a bit of dicussion about whether she was actually still covered and if her former status had not already been made public.

As I said I don't see Rove doing something stupid like this and I really don't see Bush putting up with it.

Wasn't there something last year about Novak disclosing everything to the prosecutor and/or Grand Jury? It seems to me that the situation with the reporters is more procedural than anything.

Who exactly is on the independent council? I'll look that one up and see if there might be some political problems from the makeup of that council.

"Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since stated that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative--the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not a crime."

 In his October 1, 2003 article "The CIA Leak" Novak states this explanation for the two "senior administration officials" and the "CIA official" referenced in his June 14 article:

"At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."

This just seems like another Downing Street Memo non-smoking gun.  Much ado about nothing.

To OhSure-

Your comments have not been in vain.  When the moonbats start barking, we'll be ready to debunk them.

Now, time for me to go to bed.

Supposedly it will be tomorrow that either Biden or Reid will call for a Grand Jury investigation into the allegations made. So, it seems somebody has taken it seriously.

either of them.  They are desperate, just plain desperate.

We'll see what comes to light in the morn.

Here is a link to a dkos diary about the comment by O'Donnell.  I missed it while lurking the first time.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/1/194354/6579

The moonbats are shrieking with delight.

is of course predictable. Nice to see some believe it will go nowhere and may not even be a crime, but they're going to gloat all the same as this will not look so good even in the best of scenerios. It's circumstance is not without ammunition and I'm sure they'll fire every round they can find.

With the investigation, certainly someone in the administraion knows and is prepairing for what will need to be done. Let's hope it can be dismissed soon with some factor or condition that lends a meaningful out and dispells the issue altogether, but this is Washington, I'd say put your helmet's on, the bird crap will be flying soon..

posted at 4:43 PDT. on dkos, and I got it at 8:19 EST. That means they beat me by 36 minutes? I can't imagine it was showing in a market sooner than the one I saw it in, but maybe. Now I feel cheated, LOL. Maybe I am reading the times wrong, (I hope).

From those two dimbulbs one would hardly expect otherwise. Fortunately for the Republic all they can do is 'call for a Grand Jury', they have no power to impanel one. They just talk to hear themselves talk.

First one on the block to accuse someone get's the candy. They're acting like the Pinata just broke open and it's a free for all. May they find sour jalapenos instead and their eyes burn from their overzealous "bandwagoneer's".

As of 4:51 this fine Saturday morning, well at least that's when I got the phone call, I hear that Bolton is mentioned in the draft for "Grand Jury Review" to be subpenaed to provide testimony under oath about the leak. Looks like the lefties are going to go after anyone they can remotely associate this with, it seems, and why not Bolton since he's a target anyways?

And to think, I thought there might be a chance to actually have some form a bipartisan cooperation in the next 2-3 years. I really must be a moderate, middle-of-the-road kinda guy that will make pretty much no difference with moderate views. I'll hold steady and be true to myself at least as a consolation prize.

Slate, in 2003, ran a story entitled Did Rove Blow a Spook's Cover?

I am now somewhat convinced that the administration has been prepairing and is prepaired for what is to come. Let's cross our fingers it's substantial.

All the same, I think that Bush can distance himself from this if anything comes of it, which I suppose there will be flack, but he'll be ok. But, some form of damage is inevitable if even remotely true.

How to deal, especially with SC nomination coming in the immediate future? He must distance himself for the time being.

Oh yeah, Rove and Bolton did it. What's next, Halliburton?

So it begs the question: Why was Tove not indicted by the SP?

Which begs the answer: because no crime was committed.

So the MSM and lefties, in their frenzy to take down President Bush have succeeded in weakening themselves via the courts, while doing nothing.

I concur with others on this thread that a charge from Lawrence O'Donnell per se needn't inspire fear amongst the GOP and conservative faithful.  The man is a liberal bombthrower.  He has his sane moments, but his shrill ones as well.

If, indeed, it was Rove who slipped about Plame's identity, he impresses me as being too shrewd to not be ready for the impending brouhaha.  And, I'd bet he's actually likely to use said brouhaha to turn the PR tables on the Democrats, and inflict some damage on them.

Can you say... Robert Torricelli?

We all remember Torricelli.  The NJ Dem Congressman who, during the Jennifer Harbury controversey, publicly outed a Guatemalan official who was a covert CIA source.  Torricelli claimed he did it due to his conscience and his sense of duty to expose wrongdoing.  And, he felt that the CIA shouldn't be working with someone as unsavory as this fellow, whom the CIA had apparently recruited as a covert source.

What happened to Torricelli?  Whatever formal action the Congress took, it lacked real teeth.  Torricelli not only kept his seat.  He became a hero of the left, and NJ elected him to be Senator.

When the Dems shriek and tear their hair over the viciousness of what Karl Rove did (if, indeed, he did it), we should ask--LOUDLY AND OFTEN--how his crimes were so much worse than Torricelli's.  Torricelli, after all, outed a CIA source who was still living overseas!  In the midst of those who he apparently informed on!  Boy, I'll bet that spectacle sure helped CIA recruiting worldwide.  (Would YOU like to be a CIA covert source, especially if you lived in a dangerous place, with folks like Torricelli and the Dems having access to your identity?)

I'll bet the Dems have a technically correct answer.  It'll probably sound something like this:  

While Torricelli was technically wrong--and, don't forget, he DID get a reprimand (or, some other meaningless penalty) from Congress--he had legal protection as a Congressman.  ROVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD NO NO NO SUCH PROTECTIONS!!!!  SO, HE MUST HANG HANG HANG FOR HIS CRIME CRIME CRIME!!!!

Bunk.  Let them make THAT case to the American people.  It's OK for a Congressman to do it, because the privleges of Congress allow him to skate when he does something that he KNOWS is wrong?  Isn't that taking advantage of the system?

If the Democrats wish to fight this battle, then I say stand to.  Don't automatically assume or concede that Rove is a dastard who deserves to burn at the PR stake.  Let the Dems make--and SELL--the case that Rove deserves to fry while Torricelli walked.

Besides, as some have already noted here, Rove likely has a good defense.  Points of that defense could include:

1. He didn't KNOW OR SUSPECT, at the time he made his remark to Novak, that Plame was undercover.  I'd be interested if, during her time as a "covert" operative here in the USA, she ever drove to Langley or went to parties/functions of CIA employees.  If she did, even just a few times, then how "covert" could she have been?  Rove may have technically committed a legal violation, if he failed to make sure that Plame wasn't undercover before he spoke to Novak of her association with the CIA (again, if indeed that's what happened). But, an inadvertent "outing" is not the same as a deliberate one, such as what Torricelli did to the covert CIA source in Guatemala.
   
   
2. The MSM has made the case that Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller haven't really broken the law.  If they're GTG, then how is Rove a fiend?  Again, there may have been a technical line that Rove crossed which Cooper/Miller avoided.  But, that's still a fine distinction to make.  I say we let the Dems try to make it, and try to make it stick.
   
   
3. Do Valerie Plame and her PR-hungry hubby Joe Wilson cut a sympathetic figure to you?  Do they come across as meek public servants who've been crushed unfairly by an evil political operative?  If you say yes, let me ask you this:  Did the employees of the Clinton White House Travel Office appear in Vanity Fair ?
   
   
4. Rove can argue that, the real reason the Dems are pursuing him is that he's EFFECTIVE!
   
   
5. When asked, "Why did you let this controversy go on so long", Rove can reply that he, as would ANY confidential source, wanted to KEEP his identity confidential.  He therefore stayed silent, in hopes that the legal battles would end in a way where he could stay unknown. I'd LOVE to hear the MSM argue that Rove was wrong, and should have outed himself, while other confidential sources--say, Democratic and liberal ones --have a right to anonymity that is as sacred as the Ten Commandments we're busily erasing from the walls of Kentucky courthouses. (I throw this in because, if I were Chuck Schumer (UGH!!!) , I'd claim that Rove is a cad, and did America a disservice, by letting this brouhaha drag on for as long as it did.)  

Rove must have known that his identity as the leaker (again, if that's what he turns out to be) might come out based on the SCOTUS ruling.  Once outed, he assuredly knew there'd be a fight.  IMHO, Rove can win, once the gloves come off.

THE ONE THING I FEAR, is that high-minded conservatives will hold Rove to the highest of principles, and call for his ouster on principle.  If Rove KNOWINGLY outed Plame, and KNEW she was a covert CIA source, I'd consider joining those high-minded conservatives.  But, if Rove instead said something that he didn't know or suspect to be verboten, then I give him the benefit of the doubt. IMHO, Redstaters should as well.

This a battle we can win...as long as we choose to fight it.    

 

This sure looks like it would apply: 50 U.S.C. 241

The Dem's are being very careful to verify aspects of the story. Here's a latest link;

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_conten
t_id=1000972839

With the amount of caution being displayed, maybe there is nothing to it after all.

The story itself was compelling, and a bit surprising when it came stumbling out of O'Donnell's mouth. I have a sense Rove is not so stupid and there is some form of cover. However, if that's not the case, we'll have to see how bad it it.

Either way we'll have to wait until somebody says something. Maybe it will just go away as they may know something we do not.

Is:

1. Intent
   
   
2. That Valerie really was 'undercover'
   

The CIA wanted it both ways: have their employees be politically active and well known, but never mentioned publicly.

It looks a lot like Rove is going to do again what he likes to do best: tick off liberals a whole lot.

Plame's hubbie lied and played with the intel from Niger, clearly got in through Valerie's connections and both were active political players.

This seems to mostly be, once again, where lefties want to play hardball until someone returns the favor.

If Rove has not perjured himself, I bet he gets off with no indictment at all

explained to me a few minutes ago that Cheney and or Scooter Libby or both will be asked to testify before a Grand Jury about the leak. Supposedly one or both of them has been implicated by more than 3 people.

More to come.

Yes, I noticed that the Press-Democrat (except for MSNBC) is staying away in droves.

I seem to recall Novak saying that his source was not in the White House.

Another source tells me that McLaughlin himself knew of the revelation before it came throwing-up out of O'Donnell's mouth and that the whole thing has been planned for several weeks or even months now, specifically timed to when a SC seat was to open up, because someone knew Cheney and the rest would be dragged into it, embarrasing the administration as a whole during the confirmation process, which in turn undermines the floor support itself.

The shadowy figure of planned and preconceived action now seems to be showing it's ugly head. This is looking more and more like some well layed out, preplanned assault. I can't imagine the administration wasn't prepaired for this.

I can't get anyone in D.C. on the Rep's side to tell me anything. It's like the iron curtain went up and all is silent. Does anyone know anything that they can get?

In the last half hour the phone is going off the hook here and some interesting, but I believe speculative info is arriving. Please re; my latest entries below. I think I see what was intended.

Under what conditions does the scheme described above constitute a conspiracy to obstruct justice?

the timing could be as damaging as if any potential charges were real or not. By that time, the nomination process is over. Clearly more needs to come out. As I am struggling not to speculate too far ahead without more info, but doing what I can. I need some help as the entire town (D.C.) seems to have crawled into a box and no one is saying anything.

There is no one here. I am the last person left in DC who is not a tourist.

I have been informed that the announcement could come either within the hour or Tuesday morning for maximum effect. Apparently viewership is being considered because of the 4th.

Announcement of what?

Concerning Rove: both he and Scooter Libby released the reporters from their confidentiality agreements some time ago, so that the reporters could discuss their conversations with the Special Prosecutor. This does not sound like people hiding anything. This sounds like people setting somebody up.

except a setup? I mean I guess I could consider other things. But again, it might be just a bunch of non-sense, and nothing much at all in the end. But, it's too quite, and too much is swimming around in the murky areas for me to get any real assessment yet.

More is needed. I just can't figure out why it's so quite.

because it is the weekend of the 4th.  Nick's right.  All the political types are out of dodge for the weekend.

The moonbats are crazy if they think this will matter one hill of beans re-the court nominee.  The court nominee will have nothing to do with any of these guys, unless W decides to nominate Gonzales.  Honestly, I think W got the hint that Gonzales was not going to fly, so it will be someone outside of the admin.

Average Joe American isn't going to give two hoots about this.

Desperate measures for desperate people.

I can't say I'm comfortable speculating anything at this point, too many conflicting pieces of info coming in to me. And, I don't think the base will care one iota. Certainly the left will make hills of beans as best they can.

The strangest thing I've heard so far, is that Fitzgerald had, prior to last night already moved the investigation from finding an actual source to indictment on perjury, this is nothing new. But, a new name has surfaced this morning that, supposedly will be included for additonal subpena and questioning, and that name is Cheney.

The info to me is so fragmented right now I can't make heads or tails out it, just some reaching inferences. So take what I write with a grain of salt, until we see a true reaction from both sides.

I not only don't do this, I have never done this.

But here it is;

"Karl Rove will be indicted late this, or early next week."

I'm trusting a source. So either I am made a into an overzealous horses a**, or..., I have good sources and may be more trusted to get these things right.

The leak or perjury?  The more I read about this whole ordeal, the more I think it is just goose chasing.

So, he gets indicted for perjury.  So what?  The left will have a hard time screaming about that one given their favorite son Bill Clinton set the precedent that perjury is no big deal anymore.

I understand there is nothing more than this if anything that will happen. Everyone else has nothing to worry about. Indictment, if it happens will result in virtually nothing.

Looks like this will turn out to be more or less insignificant.

Is this what you HOPE will happen, or is there truth in this?

Novak outs the operative and O'Donnell is the partisan hack?

Yeeeeeee-ah.

Novak outs the operative and O'Donnell is the partisan hack?

Yes. Here's why: that someone was "outed," in the sense that some law was violated by identifying this person as being associated with the CIA, is a Known Fact.

A "Known Fact" is something that is not true, but which is held to be true anyway by those of a certain political persuasion. Such people may reasonably be termed "partisans."

Virtually no one serious who has looked at the case of Ms. Plame believes that any law was violated. However, certain partisans will claim otherwise, just to make noise. This is because they think they see some partisan advantage in making this noise. Hence the term "hack."

from everything I've seen, this will end up at worst, with the single indictment that goes absolutely nowhere, or the whole thing goes nowhere period.

Looked interesting at first I must say, but after talking to some "legal friends" it looks somewhat weak. A perjury charge may be filed, but is very difficult to prove at best.

Near as I can tell Fitzgerald might be pursuing a perjury charge. Maybe? Have I qualified my ignorance enough yet?

Rove may've said he didn't leak -- as his lawyer asserted -- but in fact he did? Who knows.

If it is perjury expect loads of delayed Clinton era angst going into nuclear catharsis on my side. A non-crime found out via a tangentially related investigation made into a crime because of grand jury lies. It's made to order.

from everything I've seen, this will end up at worst, with the single indictment that goes absolutely nowhere, or the whole thing goes nowhere period.

I wonder about that. I think something might come of it, but that 'something' may not be what the Democrats and the media had in mind.

Since even Juan Williams can figure out that identifying Plame broke no law, the question arises, "Why was the Administration so willing to cave to demands from the Press-Democrat that a 'special counsel' be named, and why name an Organized Crime buster like Fitzgerald to the post?"

The Press-Democrats should have been more careful what they wished for, because the next thing they knew, their own reporters were being threatened with jail unless they coughed up their notes.

In order to get subpoenas and threaten reporters like that, the special counsel has to have determined that a crime was committed. What was the crime if it wasn't outing Plame? Why did Fitzgerald go after Time and the New York Times, but not Novak?

I have no sources, no inside info, but can we review the facts, as they appear at present.

1 - A long time ago, IIRC, the POTUS ordered all staff to fully cooperate with the prosecutor. Several staff have appeared several times to testify, including Mr. Rove.

2 - Several reporters have been questioned, or sought for questioning, about their sources.

3 - Of the reporters, two are threatened with contempt for failing to disclose their sources to the prosecutor. THOSE MUST BE SOURCES WHO DESIRE TO MAINTIAN THEIR CONFIDENTIALITY. Mr. Novak is not one of the reporters threatened with contempt. Therefore, either he violated his source's desire for confidentiality, or his source released him for that desire (see #1 above!?).

4 - Mr Cooper's employer has released certain info, and gossip (at this point) indicates Mr. Rove communicated with Mr. Cooper. I do not know if Mr. Rove was a source, the source, or one of several sources, or a source at all, for Mr. Cooper. Allegations seem to include any and all of these possibilities.

Now a few questions.

Are there any reporters of stature in DC who Mr. Rove has NOT spoken to?

That said, who did he speak to about this particular incident?

Perhaps all the reporters involved?

If so, why is one reporter not threatened, but the other two are?

Could Mr. Rove have disclosed different info to different reporters?

Could it be that the SOURCE DESIRING CONFIDENTIALITY IS NOT MR. ROVE?

If it is not Mr. Rove, who is it?

Could it perhaps be someone on the entire other side of the political spectrum?

Could the prosecutor have determined that nobody in the White House has any culpability?

If he has determined that there is no culpability in the White House, and determined that the only indictable offense remaining is perjury during prior testimony, who, other than those mentioned so prominently, could have perjured themselves?

----------------------

We are clearly and concurrently in both "he said/she said" and "what did they know and when did they know it" territory.

My wild guess is that almost everyone was talking, and very few, if any, may of known of the original covert/non-covert status of Ms. Plame, upon which turns the element which could have given rise to the originally suspected criminal charge. It seems as if everyone know the Plame/Wilson relationship (and clearly we all do now - see Vanity Fair)

I would hope that Ms. Plame, and as few as one and no more than three supervisors, knew if she was still covert. But as for confidence in CIA operations, see numerous other articles deflating that, as well as info on FBI-Felt, Mark.

Finally, what happens if the prosecutor simply declares the investigation over, no indictable charges, no evidence of a crime, no disclosure of that evidence as to who did what and when, and grand jury testimony remains sealed? What does that say about the politics involved? Does the system work or not?

Look at what the nutcases are posting on Kos...

<img src="http://zoom.cafepress.com/9/7839719_zoom.jpg">

the reporters are being threatened with is 'contempt" and maybe later even tampering with evidence, I know of nothing else.

And I'll caution you Nick, (although I know you don't need to be), that we don't know what is actually going on yet, and what evidence or lack thereof, exist.

I am almost sure Rove is getting recalled from what I can tell, but I can't find anything on the surface that would say "crime" other than perjury in some form, at that is what other legal eagles seem to feel as well as far as Rove is concerned.

I haven't seen anything speculated about the reporters doing anything wrong, but I won't not rule that out as a posibility, although I am almost certain I would have had someone mention that to me by now.

Any contempt or perjury charges are after-the-fact. To even subpoena the reporters in the first place, Fitzgerald had to tell a judge that he had reason to believe a crime had been committed. What was the crime? It appears to be something that Time and the New York Times did, that Novak did not do.

I went to law school too, ok? (did not complete). You know as well as I do that contempt does not have to be after-the-fact. If I sit down, such as now, in front of a Judge, such as now (The honorable Lupe Salazar, old friend) and I were in a court setting, on the stand, and she directs me to answer a question, that I steadfastly refuse to answer, your going to tell me she can't throw my a** in the slammer for 90 days if she so desires for contempt? Most likely a day or two to think about it would be the norm I would say. What about you? You think she doesn't have the authority?  I know you know the answer.

And, although it would be sweet justice to see it turn around as you suggest, I also know when your placating yourself. I'll keep my fingers crossed with you, but I am certain with some degree of confidence that nearly nothing will come of this either way.

I want you to know that I rated your post a 4, because you had the good sense to leave law school before they turned you into a lawyer.

It seems to be a fairly good analysis.

If Rove was indictable, he would have been by now.

He has been in front of the GJ multiple times.

Unless, as I pointed out, he has perjured himself. But since Washington leaks confidential info like a sieve, if his indictment was pending, we would likely have heard by now.

Dangit, is that a crime again?

It's so hard keeping up with Democrats sometimes.

Oh yes, I feared I might win an election and try to legislate from the bench, so for the sake of the Republic and my sanity, I went into business & finance were I can be a tyrant and get away with it.

If you keep racking up troll rated posts like you are tonight, your days here are numbered.  Just a friendly word of warning.

Now that is going to leave a mark. :)

Over at the The McLaughlin Group topic #4 comes in as "Roveman of Alcatraz", follow-up on what they'd like to see become a "BIG" story and,...

"Lawyer Says Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name"

from our dear friends at WaPo;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR200507020
1043.html

which surprisingly seems to vindicate Rove and...,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

from the always balanced folks at NEWSWEEK, ehhum, which again lends an insinuation that Rove will be cleared and there might be something amiss about the leak itself and how Valerie Plame was actually outed.

The Kossacks have gone stark raving nuts over this possible story today.  I tell ya, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy ain't got NOTHING on those jokers.

to the surface that I knew nothing about.

________________

Rove fired from Bush Sr's '92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak's piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust." Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak's source.

__________________

I know I'll go find out if this is true..., eventually. But if anyone knows before I put in the effort let me know. If he's made the mistake before, hmmm. Maybe I gave him too much credit.

Things swing in this issue by the hour.

firing Rove was probably one of the dumbest things he could have done.  No wonder WJC won.  Ha!

Still not thinking this is a big deal.

I have no idea whether that is true.

   Both Rove and Novak have denied that Rove was the source. But Mosbacher has held fast to his claim. I assume you have the link that spawn these reports? It's here. Obviously not the most neutral of sources, and both their citation links -- one to a Houston Chronicle story and one to Esquire are dead.

   However, I found the Esquire article, in which the reference is made about 1/4 of the way down the page. And the Houston Chronicle story appears, on it's face, legit because the headline shows up in a search of the HC's archives as written by Rick Casey, but you've got to pay to access it. If someone has Nexis (or, weirdly, an HC.com subscription) the citation is: "Karl and Bob: A Leaky History," Houston Chronicle, November 9, 2003. And it's by Rick Casey.

   Whether or not the story is wholly accurate is another thing. And whether or not Mosbaucher is correct when he claims Rove was the leaker back then is a whole other thing. So. It looks interesting, I guess, but maybe Mosbaucher was just paranoid. There's a Bush 1 "administration official" sourced in the Esquire article:

"Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted" -Ron Suskind, Esquire, 1/1/2003

  So I guess we'd need to know who that was and ask him before we could be sure one way or the other. As it stands I don't trust Mosbaucher enough to completely buy the story.

that impacts on the surface and you go out to investigate, not really believing, but still wondering if anything is going to pop out of the hole.

I'm not convinced it's anything either, because I still can find no smoking gun, no law that could have been distinctly violated, and no sugar here in the kitchen for my coffee, (which of course is the important issue right now). But I'll reserve complete judgement for now and keep a watch. I have no choice, mainly because of my personality trait to be cautious while the lions are still out playing.

All I have here is an email without the link, wonder why?

Well, at least it tells me this very well has some bias and cannot be trusted. I am trying to find more links and more info, I'll let you know what I find.

You've got Democratic psychology all wrong. If Karl gets indicted for perjury it will be an unimaginably cathartic vengeance for Democrats. So like the WJC saga, only reversed, so we (I'm a Democrat) can "eye for an eye" at long last.

You're viewing this as Democrats dumbing down the important of perjury, that they've neutered their ability to be outraged. Democrats view Republicans as UPPING it's importance when they used it to impeach WJC. Flip your comment and you'll see that no Republican could adequately defend perjury if they wanted Clinton gone for it. So, the history here cuts both ways and will be used by both sides to pursue their goals.

Perjury in a grand jury setting is almost the best thing that could happen, when you look at it through a Democrat's eyes. Be careful what you wish for!

only a dem could spin it this way.  :)

WJC set the precedent and it would be hard for the dems to make the doo-doo stick now.

I, for one, wouldn't let them.

that Rove could cause some big trouble for large parts of the administration should this be seriously accurate, most likely not the party however, and Rove doesn't really mean anything in the end anyways. Something has to be attached to either the President or Vice President for any significant to come of it.

Rove, in the worst case scenerio is expendable and that would pretty much be the end of it.

"On the way to hunting the Pres., we spotted a gopher and got him instead", (Forgive me for taking liberties with plausible statements) is not going to amount to much except for Rove. Poor little bunny rabbit (if he did do it and does get convicted). But that road hasn't even been proposed yet, so your correct, we'll all have to wait and see with this one.

Rove committed perjury, the system will churn away until the question of whether or not it is a crime is resolved.

Marth Stewart, a democrat, has some insights on the issue.

I am not aware of prosecutors of political sphere crimes who wait long to indict. It seems to me they tend to do so quickly, in order to show some results. However, since this prosecutor seems to actally be a praticing prosecutor, he may be acting differently.

Perhpas the MSM leaking of Rove's name is a sign of frustration that their nostalgic desire to revisit the heady of watergate are not yielding as much joy as desired.

honey works just as well.

:)

Title 50 § 421:(a)  (b) and (c) all include the phrase: "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, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

If the Office of the President is telling someone, the US is not, clearly, taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship.  As a member of the WhiteHouse staff Rove would be a policy maker on this point, and would know first hand if the US wanted her relationship concealed-- obviously not anymore.

"Wag of the tongue, law of the land. Pretty cool."

is in order.

Perjury is a big deal to me.  I just think it's going to be mighty hard for the dems to scream much about it given the recent history of their favored son.

is one of those "Known Facts" and not an established objective fact.

good kool-aid you are drinking.

You are correct that "perjury" is the wrong term. Clinton was fined $90,000 by the judge in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment suit for "contempt of court." The specific behavior cited was making false statements to the court. Thus did the judge artfully sidestep one of those "branches of government" disputes while disposing of the matter in a way that left no doubt as to what happened.

OK, jmaier, I'll try to be polite about this.  I may not succeed.

The 'Clinton perjured himself' thing would be an excellent example of the 'Known Facts' genus, except for one irritating little aspect of it -- he did, and it is objectively provable on such an epic scale that it approaches the 'water is wet' statement.  Here at RS, we enjoy debating the debatable, and we don't really mind proving the things that are pretty evident, or even mildly obvious.

What we get tired of is when someone wants to challenge the fact that grass is green and the sky is blue.  So, read on, troll.  I'll toss out some evidence from legal proceedings.

Here, for those who have room-temperature IQ's, is a copy of the consent order agreed to between Independent Counsel Robert Ray and David Kendall representing one William Jefferson Clinton on Jan 19, 2001.  A good bit of it is old news (duh!), but some interesting quotes of official rulings.  Notably (emphases mine):  

On April 1, 1998, Judge Wright granted summary judgment to Mr. Clinton, but she subsequently found him in civil contempt in a 32-page memorandum opinion and order issued on April 12, 1999, ruling that he had "deliberately violated this court's discovery orders and thereby undermined the integrity of the judicial system."

Judge Wright found that Mr. Clinton had "responded to plaintiff's questions by giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process [concerning] whether he and Ms. Lewinsky had ever been alone together and whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky."

Judge Wright offered Mr. Clinton a hearing, which he declined by a letter from his counsel, dated May 7, 1999.

That's a legal finding, pal, not a news article.  Read on, part of the consent order...

Mr. Clinton filed an answer on Aug. 29, 2000, and the case is in the early stages of discovery. In this agreed order, Mr. Clinton admits and acknowledges, and the court, therefore, finds that:

A. That he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers, in violation of Judge Wright's discovery orders, concerning his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, in an attempt to conceal from plaintiff Jones's lawyers the true facts about his improper relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, which had ended almost a year earlier.

The most amusing part of this come's straight from WJC's mouth:

I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely. But I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal, and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.

And just for fun, the legal definition of perjury, emphasis mine, because it seems such an amusing adjunct to Clinton's perjury

perjury n. the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood.

So, how about that "Known Fact"?  He was testifying under oath, and deliberately provided false answers.  have a nice day, troll.  

The definition of perjury you supply requires "intentionally lying".  All Clinton acknowleged

was giving "evasive and misleading answers".  And that's all that can be found in the record. Make all the meaning-of-is-is jokes you like, but there is a world of difference between the two.  I vaguely recall that a charge of perjury also required as an element that the false statement had to be relevant to the case at hand.  Clinton's wasn't.

As to the historical background and how it plays out with Rove - there's no pattern:

Reagan certainly lied under oath. The Prosecutor said he did but declined to pursue it because proving all the elements of perjury was beyond the evidence.

Clinton may have lied under oath. The Prosecutor said he did but was nowhere near being able to prove all the elements.

Which brings us to Rove - can the Prosecutor prove the elements?  And what will the media do? Will they roll over and pretend nothing happened like they did in '87? Or will they gnaw on it like a dog with a gravy benched bone like they did in '98?

but there seems to be two possible crimes: the outing, and obstruction of justice by someone who may have lied to Fitzgerald about it.  Not sure how this will play out, but I wouldn't mind taking an even bet on Rove getting indicted.  His out-of-character public remarks last week may signal he suspects he'll be indicted and is throwing caution to the wind.

Do you have any documentation about Wilson lies and "playing with intel"?  I thought the Niger uranium document was a fake.  And I thought Wilson was named an ambassador by Bush I.  Not your typical leftie.

First, I know it's a Rove thread, but I don't give 2 s***s about whether Rove lied, I was replying to a person who claims Clinton did not perjure himself.  I think the Reagan statement you made is crap.  Let's see some documentation from this prosecutor you are talking about, that supports your claim, Reagan certainly lied under oath.  Also, just an observation, but you're willing to say that Clinton did not perjure himself because he didn't admit it (read below, actually he DID), but Reagan certainly lied under oath because YOU say some prosecutor said he did.  Double standard.

Now back to Clinton.  This is tiresome, like explaining, yet again to a 5 year old why not to go walking into traffic.  In Clinton's non-confession confession, OF COURSE he tries to paint it in his best light, but let's just (again) parse the words of the KING of word parsers:  I tried to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely. But I now recognize that I did not fully accomplish this goal, and that certain of my responses to questions about Ms. Lewinsky were false.

The plain meaning of that statement is that he tried to give 'evasive and misleading answers' without lying, but failed in the 'without lying' part.  He was unable, in his own words,to walk a line between acting lawfully and testifying falsely.  Hello, earth to Dems, he admits right there that he failed to act lawfully, and instead testif[ied] falsely, hence certain of my responses...were false.  So how that's not a confession of perjury from his own mouth, I'd like you to explain that to me.

But the fact is, I rested my case not on what Clinton said, whose honesty, let's just say I don't personally hold in high regard --but that's just me -- not that Judge Wright, the Arkansas bar, or SCOTUS might agree, since (in order) Judge Wright ruled him in civil contempt for giving false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process (dang, sounds like PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION to me), the Arkansas bar suspended his law license for 5 years, citing he knowingly gave evasive and misleading answers...in an attempt to conceal...the true facts (can you define 'deliberately lied' without using the words 'deliberately lied'? It would sound alot like this).  Thirdly, SCOTUS banned him for life from ever arguing before them.  I don't believe they technically provided a reason.  But I'd say they did not have alot of confidence in his veracity.  

Instead, I rest my case on what Judge Wright said in her ruling:  false...answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.  That specifies falseness, and deliberate intent. Ergo, class, let's say it together, perjury.

Movie quote:  Do you understand me? Are you catching my drift? Or am I being obtuse?

"Dangit, is that a crime again? It's so hard keeping up with Democrats sometimes."

Depends on whether you're a Democrat or Republican. If you're a Democrat, lying about fellatio is impeachable, but if you're a Republican, outing CIA agents for political vengeance or lying/distorting facts to sell a war is explained by the Democrats "frenzy to take down President Bush." (In fact, any apparent offense by a Republican can be explained this way - and is.)

"No Crime here"

If there is no crime, why is their a grand jury investigation? If no wrong has been done, why did President Bush vow to remove anyone from the administration that was found complicit in the outing?

"Didn't congress already hold some hearings on this and determine that the husband blew everything out of proportion and may have indeed been the one to disclose her identity?"

I'm not sure if Congress determined this, but I'm pretty sure this was the conclusion of Sean Hannity. That and Democrats are just madly trying to take down the Bush Administration. Oh yeah, and 9/11.

Karl & Bob: A Leaky History

  I think the Reagan statement you made is crap.  Let's see some documentation from this prosecutor you are talking about, that supports your claim, Reagan certainly lied under oath.  Also, just an observation, but you're willing to say that Clinton did not perjure himself because he didn't admit it (read below, actually he DID), but Reagan certainly lied under oath because YOU say some prosecutor said he did.  Double standard

No it's not a double standard, because in each case I read the entire dang report and examined the evidence.  Walsh's report not only stated, and I quote,

 Of the President's statements to the Tower Commission on the four key subjects, only the President's claimed lack of knowledge of the diversion remains totally unimpeached.

but his report also specified in great detail which statements Reagan made under oath were impeached by the evidence and laid out - again in great detail- what that evidence was.  

I also read the entire Starr report and he did no such spadework. It's been a while but to my  he failed to identify a single statement that was downright false (as opposed to cleverly misleading) and he certainly did not get around to

spelling out in great detail evidence for each statement he though was false.  And the House managers of the impeachment proceedings never took that basic step either.

I think its downright offensive for you to cast stones at my integrity when you don't even know the basic facts of the subject (re: "this prosecutor that you are talkin about").  If you don't even know Lawrence Walsh's name (btw, he was a Republican) then you're certainly in no position to either say my statement is "crap" or accuse me of using a double standard.  I'd suggest you actually READ the Walsh report before you mouth off about it and call people who have read it names.  Just a suggestion - have a nice day.

If there is no crime, why is their a grand jury investigation?

Installing a grand jury has never proven that someone committed a crime. On the other hand, it's possible to convict someone for the murder of a missing person even if no corpse is found.

It's my understanding that in a case like this, the accused would have to possess a certain criminal intent. Simply proving one released the information is insufficent to prove one's guilt. So a blown cover doesn't even prove that a crime occurred.

In fact, liberals would rather send Karl Rove to Gitmo and release the terrorists pending their trials. Or just set all of the terrorists free, and put Karl Rove in front of a firing squad at the end of the week. They're a little ambivalent about their goals.