So will Karl Rove go to jail?

Hobbes

In light of the email showing he blew the CIAs cover?

btw like the daily shows take on it.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/12.html#a3898 )

magick

yeah, good peice, got the new daly shows dvd its class, really recommend it to anyone who hasnt seen the show yet, one of the best shows ive seen in a while on american tv

jman0

Hobbes wrote:

In light of the email showing he blew the CIAs cover?

Are you kidding?
He'd get a Presidential Pardon in all of 2 seconds.

Sleipnir

Bush can't be in power without Karl Rove so he will do ANYTHING to protect him, thereby protecting himself.

Hobbes

Actually thats mentioned at the end of the daily show. Said based on past mistakes by other administration members and promotions he is probably looking at Chief Justice Rove.

Bri

Hobbes that's a class peice. Never realised how good the Daily Show is. Gonna keep an eye on Comedy Central from now on

Jail? No, I doubt it given how important he is to him now (and before).

bonkey

David Corn has been discussing Rove quite a lot since the entire thing broke over on his CapitalGames blog.

(Standard Disclaimer: Corn is about as Anti-Republican a critic as you can get, and is sometimes guilty of making mountains out of molehills.)

One thing he discussed in detail is why there is enough wriggle-room in the relevant laws to pretty-much ensure that Rove cannot be found guilty of a criminal act.

What is perhaps a more pertinent question is how long Rove can remain in the US Administration...especially bearing in mind that Bush and others went on record saying that if they found out that anyone in the Administration had a hand in this affair, that they wouldn't be in the Administration any more.

Corn's comments on Monday about Scott McClellan's stonewalling were quite fun. I mean...you had a spokesman refusing to discuss comments he himself (and Bush) made in 2004 about the case....because in 2003 he had been asked not to discuss the case while it was ongoing.

It really looks like the Whitehouse is playing a stalling game, hoping that what little press attention this revelation has been given (and it is relatively little) will die away and the problem with it.

jc

Villain

Thats one class piece, cheers hobbes

Wheely

I dunno, wouldnt it be great if we had another watergate on our hands, remember it was nothin when it started and all the untouchables went down for it, Haldeman and Erlichman included and they were, I think, in a higher position, officially anyway than Rove is today. Also snakes, which is what Rove is, are all the more dangerous when cornered. They grassed up Nixon to take the slack off themselves and Nixon very well might have ended up in the clink himself if Ford hadnt given himim a Pardon.......wouldnt it be cool to see Dubya in the cooler....oh the stuff dreams are made of!!!

TomF

I'd say the whole tempest in a teapot is another example of the pure nastiness that seems to typify the modern U.S. Democratic Party. Here is a quote from Dick Morris' take.

"But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.

Washington is a mean town where human sacrifice has been raised to an art form. But Karl Rove does not deserve this fate. He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector. He has shown himself to be a man of uncommon integrity and selflessness in serving this administration and this country. He should not be tossed to the partisan wolves."
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/071405.html

jank

He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector.

A guy that also broke the law.

Funny that you have the title thread as Democratic Nastiness while the article you linked to was written by Dick Morris, who is in the front line of the Republican Nastiness Campaign against Hillary Clinton

Morris is the author of Rewriting History, a rebuttal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) memoir, Living History.

Doh!!

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

I'd say the whole tempest in a teapot is another example of the pure nastiness that seems to typify the modern U.S. Democratic Party. Here is a quote from Dick Morris' take.

He rats out an undercover CIA agent (which means dealth penalty in wartime btw :rolleyes: ) yet says he is ok because he "didn't actually say her name" instead said "The wife of...", I guess if the guy had 3 or 4 wives we could let him off? :rolleyes: .

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19359

That says it all really.

Hobbes

[edit]
I see Bush has flip-flopped now and said that if anyone on his staff was found to giving that information they would be fired if they are found to have broke the law! This is compared to 2003 where he said anyone found to be involved would be fired regardless if they broke the law or not.

I mean FFS if it was anyone else they would be in jail

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/DeanOnWilsonLeakWorseThanNixon.html

On July 22, Ambassador Wilson appeared on the Today show. Katie Couric asked him about his wife: "How damaging would this be to your wife's work?"

Wilson - who, not surprisingly, has refused to confirm or deny that his wife was a CIA operative - answered Katie "hypothetically." He explained, "it would be damaging not just to her career, since she's been married to me, but since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career. So it would be her entire network that she may have established, any operations, any programs or projects she was working on. It's a--it's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law."

And, indeed, it is.

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

I see Bush has flip-flopped now and said that if anyone on his staff was found to giving that information they would be fired!

Yup. He's now saying instead that anyone found breaking the law regarding this issue would be fired.

<sarcasm>
This I find very comforting. Its nice to hear the President of the United States confirm that he will not allow convicted criminals (convicted of divulging national secrets to the press for whatever reason) to serve on his staff.
</sarcasm>

jc

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

I see Bush has flip-flopped now and said that if anyone on his staff was found to giving that information they would be fired!

I mean FFS if it was anyone else they would be in jail

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/DeanOnWilsonLeakWorseThanNixon.html

is it not up to the district attorney or whatever their DPP is called to decide on who gets prosecuted? Separation of executive and judiciary and all that?

Hobbes

After reading Tom Tomorrow I can finally see that Karl Rove is the victim here.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19366

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

I'd say the whole tempest in a teapot is another example of the pure nastiness that seems to typify the modern U.S. Democratic Party.

If you were a little more consistent with your moral stance on whistle blowing, Tom, you wouldn’t come across as such a hypocrite.

athena 2000

TomF wrote:

Here is a quote from Dick Morris' take.

"But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.

That will never happen. If Rove is dismissed from the administration if only for appearance's sake, there are secure phone lines and friends of friends that do conference calls. All the moves are 'totally political' and they are all nasty. The weiners stay in Washington!

Hobbes

"and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term."

I am amazed that people don't find this comment disturbing. They voted for Bush, not Karl Rove? Are they saying that Bush is incapable of making a decision without Karl? :rolleyes:

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

"and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term."

I am amazed that people don't find this comment disturbing. They voted for Bush, not Karl Rove? Are they saying that Bush is incapable of making a decision without Karl? :rolleyes:

From Americas finest news source

Bush Awaits Orders From Rove On Handling Of Rove Scandal

TomF

I think the whole really silly media pursuit of Karl Rove is just going to fizzle-out and go "poof" within a month.

jank

TomF wrote:

I think the whole really silly media pursuit of Karl Rove is just going to fizzle-out and go "poof" within a month.

Why I thought it was a Democratic party campaign against him, now its a media pursuit

The Corinthian

jank wrote:

Why I thought it was a Democratic party campaign against him, now its a media pursuit

I think we're already demonstrated Tom's consistancy issues:

Mark Felt (Deep Throat) = Bad Whistle Blower
Karl Rove = Good Whistle Blower

TomF

I don't think any reasonable person in the U.S.A. can honestly deny that the national media there are not a branch of the U.S. Democratic Party.

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

I don't think any reasonable person in the U.S.A. can honestly deny that the national media there are not a branch of the U.S. Democratic Party.

When you say 'reasonable person' what do you mean - other than someone who agrees with you, apparantly?

Also, since when did Fox News become part of the U.S. Democratic Party?

Lemming

The US media is most certainly not a left-wing entity. It's right-wing, just more right-of-centre than many republicans seem to be, therefore making them think it's a democratic tool.

jank

Lemming wrote:

The US media is most certainly not a left-wing entity. It's right-wing, just more right-of-centre than many republicans seem to be, therefore making them think it's a democratic tool.

Well said.

TomF

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to the library of information supplied by "Deep Throat" I'll have to agree that the world will end at 2:42 pm tomorrow as forecast by one of those strange men who walk the streets wrapped in big banners written "Repent now, the end is nigh!"

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to the library of information supplied by "Deep Throat" I'll have to agree that the world will end at 2:42 pm tomorrow as forecast by one of those strange men who walk the streets wrapped in big banners written "Repent now, the end is nigh!"

Your religious beliefs are not in question Tom, only your flexible and partisan approach to the question of 'whistle blowing'.

What you seem to be overlooking, seeing as it suits your purpose to do so, is that it makes little difference whether one gives away a little information or a lot as ultimately they have, for reasons that may or may not be justified, broken a trust and betrayed an ethic - not to mention the possibility that they may have also broken the law. In short, you can’t get a little bit pregnant, Tom.

Now, had you a consistent position on such practices your arguments would hold, but you don’t. And your attempts at dismissive humour don’t change that.

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to the library of information supplied by "Deep Throat" I'll have to agree that the world will end at 2:42 pm tomorrow as forecast by one of those strange men who walk the streets wrapped in big banners written "Repent now, the end is nigh!"

Well he blew the CIA operatives cover, which meant that everything she worked on is also considered damaged, add to that her cover being blown would probably put other Agents on the field in trouble.

Sounds like he did a lot if you ask me.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to ....

Which part of that does telling/confirming that someone who allegedly works for a private consultancy is actually a CIA employee (thus confirming both that they are CIA, and not admittedly so, which equates to confirming that they are in fact under-cover) falls under raising an eyebrow and recommending not to continue with an invetigation?

Which part of confirming to the Whitehouse Administration (who then publically announced it) that you had nothing to do with the affair under legal scrutiny, only for it to subsequently emerge that he did, in fact, not only have something to do with it but was central to it falls under raising an eyebrow and suggesting that the investigation not continue?

Or is the investigation that you are referring to the one which set out to find out who leaked the information and whether or not they had broken the law? In which case....what is not reprehensible about the person who leaked the information making such a suggestion?

Jeez...what next Tom? Will you join the ranks suggesting that it was David Corn who actually outed her because he was the first to ask if an agent had been outed?

jc