So will Karl Rove go to jail?

TomF

Whew! I once tried to read James Joyce's "Ulysses" and gave up in despair. Ditto some Russian novels. Also I once borrowed Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and gave up on that after about 10 pages of arcane symbols they used trying to prove that 1 +1 make two. This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

Whew! I once tried to read James Joyce's "Ulysses" and gave up in despair. Ditto some Russian novels. Also I once borrowed Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and gave up on that after about 10 pages of arcane symbols they used trying to prove that 1 +1 make two. This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

That's lovely, but when you're happy to rejoin the rest of us on planet Earth, feel free to address what's been posed of you.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

Could you maybe supply some references to where ppl are claiming that he's done any such ridiculously melodramatic thing, Tom?

Sounds to me like your overblowing the allegations made against him having originally understated the actions themselves to an equally farcical extent. Doesn't sound to me like its those after Rove who are trying to obscure the truth in the name of an agenda at all, but rather those trying to defend him.

supersheep

He won't get jail. The right-wing commentator who revealed it in the first place wasn't touched - did he break the law? I'm not sure. The journalist who didn't reveal it, but refused to reveal a source did get a prison sentence...
And Karl Rove is one of Bush's right-hand men. He needs him.

TomF

I just read an interesting article about this case that makes me think the media might be on the verge of blacking-out the whole story. Here's a small quote:

"In retrospect, it's clear [that] Plame and Wilson pulled off a monumental deception, with the help of the media. The facts suggest that Plame and her husband were determined to undermine the [Bush] Administration's Iraq policy and were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish that. Together with their media allies, they created such a firestorm over the naming of Plame that the White House panicked into seeking a special prosecutor.

When Bush official Karl Rove warned Matt Cooper of Time [magazine] away from the story, on the ground that Plame had arranged the trip by her husband, he was on to the hard truth about this case. But the media were not really interested and the White House did not pursue this line of inquiry to its logical conclusion-a full-fledged investigation into the Plame-Wilson plot and who else in the CIA was behind it. Perhaps the White House was fearful of starting a war with the CIA."

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/3879_0_2_0_C/

The Corinthian

Is AIM another example of how you 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"? If so, I wonder why they're advertising for a new PR head here?

Meanwhile in the Real World the controversy has not yet abated. Feel free to rejoin the debate when you rejoin said Real World.

Oh, and feel free to respond to any of the numerous points that have been made to you too here. When you rejoin us that is.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I just read an interesting article about this case

What makes this article interesting? I would hazard that its interesting to you only because it - yet again - insists that someone else is to blame.

Strangely, if someone were to propose an "inversion" of this type of story, where the Repubalicans were allegedly pulling off a mass deception of the public with the assistance of the media purely with the intention of damaging Democrats (who we'll say are in power for this hypothetical situation), I'd be willing to lay money that not only would you not find it interesting, but you'd decry it as a typical Democratic Tinfoil-Hat Loony-Left Conspiracy-Theory piece of rubbish which only proved how pathetic the US media is.

In short - I believe that you find this story interesting - and worth "sharing" - for no other reason than because it backs up your pre-formed belief that the Republicans did nothing wrong here (because they're Republicans) , not because it has any merit in and of itself.

that makes me think the media might be on the verge of blacking-out the whole story.

Makes you think? Don't you mean it makes you hope, Tom? Personally - I don't care about media focus on the story. They can go completely schtum and it still won't stop Fitzgerald's investigation, which is what ultimately will decide what happened.

Together with their media allies, they created such a firestorm over the naming of Plame that the White House panicked into seeking a special prosecutor.

What a load of absolute toss. Anyone who can suggest that a special prosecutor is not merited when an agent's cover is blown (and there is no question that Plame was an agent, nor that her cover was blown by someone) is showing nothing but contempt for the law in my opinion. Why is it panicing when one takes steps to determine if the law has been broken, and if so by whom?

Is the confidentiality of US operatives under any form of cover not supposed to be sacrosanct? Doesn't the US administration owe these people the basic demonstration of respect that shows they take any breach of this standard seriously? After all the crapola spouted by Republicans about not supporting <insert Republican policy here> being unpatriotic, its amazing how many of them have no issue with ppl outing agents....although I'm guessing if a Democrat could be blamed, it would be about as unpatriotic an action as could possibly exist.

It is pathetic, diversionary, and I would go so far as to say unpatriotic to suggest that it is anything less than due dilligence to appoint a special prosecutor - effectively to determine if a law had been broken, and if so by whom and why.

When Bush official Karl Rove warned Matt Cooper of Time [magazine] away from the story, on the ground that Plame had arranged the trip by her husband, he was on to the hard truth about this case.

Correct. He warned him away from the case by disclosing confidential information. Now...why did he warn him away from the case if not because there was the danger that confidential information would get leaked.

Even if it was a Democrat plot, involving Wilson, Plame, the Democratic party, the US media, and god-knows-who-else, Rove still has no excuse for confirming the identity of an operative under cover. None. It doesn't matter if that cover would be blown the following day anyway, nor if it was only some "not really that top-secret" type of cover.

But the media were not really interested and the White House did not pursue this line of inquiry to its logical conclusion-a full-fledged investigation into the Plame-Wilson plot and who else in the CIA was behind it.

I think the author of this piece doesn't actually understand the powers of investigation granted to the special prosecutor. Either that, or the author does understand, but is being deliberately disingenuous about it.

The prosecutor was not limited to investigating just the White House Administration, but rather what happened, and who did what. This means that the prosecutor - the appointment the author claims was a mistake, remember - had the freedom to follow this (crazy) line of reasoning as much as any other. What the author seems to be suggesting, therefore, is that it was wrong not to direct the SP onto a specific path, and that it was wrong to give the SP the freedom to figure out what happened.

In short...the author is effectively saying that it was a mistake not to decide who was guilty before assigning a prosecutor to find this out.

Interesting? Sure its interesting. Its interesting to see what bull**** is being thought up to deflect the focus from Rove.

jc

The Fish

bonkey wrote:

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.



jc

i know

gregos

It'll never happen. How could they put Bush's Brain in jail?

gregos

TomF wrote:

Whew! I once tried to read James Joyce's "Ulysses" and gave up in despair. Ditto some Russian novels. Also I once borrowed Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and gave up on that after about 10 pages of arcane symbols they used trying to prove that 1 +1 make two. This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

Hi TomF.

Am I correct in thinking that you couldn't understand Ulysses, certain Russian novels, and "Principia Mathematica" by Russell and Whitehead? That's some qualifications, Tom. Did you consider reading "Principia Mathematica" by Newton?

Hobbes

What was that line from a fish called wanda?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand

TomF

I looked into some of Newton's Principia, but the geometrical reasoning was so complex and meandering that I also gave-up on that. Wasn't it in Latin, too? I only did 3 years of Latin. I tried the longest to read Gibbs' Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, but gave up on it, too, also on Onsager's paper on reciprocal relations. I also wanted desperately to understand the principle behind Lagrange's Multipliers. I could go on and on listing what I tried to read and understand but couldn't.

mycroft

TomF wrote:

I looked into some of Newton's Principia, but the geometrical reasoning was so complex and meandering that I also gave-up on that. Wasn't it in Latin, too? I only did 3 years of Latin. I tried the longest to read Gibbs' Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, but gave up on it, too, also on Onsager's paper on reciprocal relations. I also wanted desperately to understand the principle behind Lagrange's Multipliers. I could go on and on listing what I tried to read and understand but couldn't.

Most off topic post ever.

magick

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

I looked into some of Newton's Principia, but the geometrical reasoning was so complex and meandering that I also gave-up on that. Wasn't it in Latin, too? I only did 3 years of Latin. I tried the longest to read Gibbs' Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, but gave up on it, too, also on Onsager's paper on reciprocal relations. I also wanted desperately to understand the principle behind Lagrange's Multipliers. I could go on and on listing what I tried to read and understand but couldn't.

Ahhh Tom... the other poster boy for intelligent design.

sceptre

I'm having trouble reading Harry Potter 6 as I keep falling asleep.

I suspect I may be closer to understanding Kaptain Redeye's comments on oneupmanship. If I am, please knock it off (everybody), though especially TomF in this localised thread as I couldn't give an organgrinder's nut what you've failed to read. Having read most of the irrelevant stuff mentioned for what appears to be no relevant reason here (and limiting "Russian novels" largely to Pasternak and Tolstoy, read translated as my Russian is limited to greetings and insults) and being willing to discuss elsewhere, I'd suggest the literature, mathematics and physics boards.

I'm not closing the thread. There may be someone who wants to discuss Karl Rove's doings and it might be a little convenient if I close that avenue.

Next off-topic post gets a ban at my personal whim though.

TomF

I just read that the CIA leak story is hotting-up again (think Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame of the CIA, New York Times, Karl Rove, Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury special prosecutor, Judith Miller, Bush-hating). This article is very interesting and it makes you wonder about the U.S. "newspaper of record" and whether it is on the skids.

"...Surprisingly, most people are unaware that Miller is involved in a controversy over a leak that is far more serious than the relatively trivial Plame matter. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Miller learned from a leaker in the federal government that the FBI intended to raid the offices of an Islamic 'charity' that was suspected of being a terrorist front. According to a court decision in February 2005, which can be accessed here, Miller responded by telephoning the charity and asking for comment... ."

***

"If the facts are as alleged by the prosecutor, Miller may have committed a crime by communicating information to the Islamic group that could have tipped them off to an impending raid. Note, too, that the prosecutor who has been pursuing this matter is none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame matter.

It is hard to see why Miller would go to jail rather than identify Scooter Libby as one of her sources for the Plame report, given that Libby and his lawyer waived any privilege in writing; that the privilege belongs to the source, not the reporter; and that Libby himself testified freely about his conversation with Miller, and urged her to do the same. On the other hand, it is entirely plausible that Miller was willing to go to considerable lengths to protect not only her source, but also herself, in a situation where she not only received information about an imminent FBI raid, but allegedly passed the information on to the organization that was under investigation.

Given what we know now, the most plausible explanation of Miller's conduct is that she went to jail because she feared that if she agreed to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury, she could be asked about the FBI leak, and she wanted to protect both her source and herself. In that case, perhaps what really got her out of prison was the agreement that her lawyer made with the prosecutor to limit questioning before the grand jury to the Plame matter. This would have the effect of barring any inquiry into the more significant FBI leak. Why would Fitzgerald agree to forgo any questioning about the FBI leak, which until recently he pursued aggressively? Based on publicly available information, there is no way to know. Maybe Fitzgerald is so concerned with securing an indictment of an administration official that he is willing to sacrifice the FBI investigation in order to achieve that goal. Another possibility--one hopes, a more likely one--is that Fitzgerald has agreed not to ask for the name of the source of the FBI leak because Miller, through her lawyer, has already given it to him, perhaps in exchange for an assurance that she will not be criminally prosecuted.

This is speculation, of course. What is not speculation, however, is that Miller and Bennett have cynically wronged Scooter Libby by pretending that he is somehow to blame for Miller's 87-day stay in a federal prison."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/165xdjkg.asp?pg=2

ISAW

So will Rove go to gaol?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3420495&postcount=1

Expect a proclamation from George:

... in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.

Hobbes

Mentioned in another thread but it is looking like Bush and Cheny may be connected to the leak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/index_np.html

Hobbes

Rather then create a new thread...

New material has surfaced over Cheny. Newspaper clipping with Chenys comments about Plame. Here is one of such items.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/cheney-notes/

There is also rumours that Karl Rove has been indicted last Friday for Perjury in the Plame affair, although I can find the rumours and one news report only, so not sure it is actually true or not.

solas

More on Cheney's connections http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/13/cia.leak/index.html

<waits patiently for news conference>

Hobbes

It appears that the Karl Rove story was false.

What is interesting is it has the hallmarks being Rovian. Take for example the fake reports of Bushes military records. Same MO.

First they release a story he is going to be indicted, then declare it false. This way until the actual result comes out they can go on about how Karl is innocent and how its all a liberal media smear campaign.

So still no official response yet if he has been cleared or not.

solas

can't express how disappointed I am with the whole charade.
Truthout has a generally decent reporting record, I was really hoping other news agencies would follow the break.

Hobbes

Actually its still not over yet as there is no answer either way yet.

Truthout claimed Sunday that it would be 24 hours starting from Monday.

Also Rove cancelled a recent dinner function over the weekend he was supposed to appear at.

solas

Hobbes wrote:

Actually its still not over yet as there is no answer either way yet.

I don't know if your still following the story, but truthout aren't backing down on the claims they've made.
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/099

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

Hobbes

Yea saw this as well..

http://www.progressiveu.org/094318-holy-smokes-is-it-real-this-time-karl-rove-was-indicted

lostexpectation

Hobbes wrote:

Actually its still not over yet as there is no answer either way yet.

Truthout claimed Sunday that it would be 24 hours starting from Monday.

Also Rove cancelled a recent dinner function over the weekend he was supposed to appear at.

what ya think of this, do you believe truthout/rawstory story hobbes

i think Jason leopold and lara are really quite wrong about how they keep saying we have sources, we develop these sources over years, thats as much as you need from a journalist, well not anymore we can't trust sources judith miller had sources didn't she?

they are trying to reinstate the pedestal of journalism which is was even more destroyed in 2006.

they have to name the facts, and stop crying wolf so many times(evening if it is last minute blocks by lawyers), but now truthout is saying other journos won't speak about it cos they are getting orers from the superiors not to?

solas

I cleared out my cache earlier and went to type truthout into my address bar when I recieved a security message : you have attempted to establish a connection with www.truthout.org. however the security certificate presented belongs to "stop.truthout.org.
It is possible though unlikely that someone may be trying to intercept your communication with this website
lol

In all fairness, truthout has taken a bit of slack for the story but if Rove has been indicted it's only a matter of time before it is confirmed, either way it will make or break Leopold (who has taken on superhuman status of late )

Hobbes

lostexpectation wrote:

what ya think of this, do you believe truthout/rawstory story hobbes

Do you mean Karl Rove is indicted? or should be? Should be, answer is yes. Is? I don't know yet however you don't get called back to an investigation four times to clarify what you have spoken about for no reason.

He is either on his way to being indicted or hes cutting a deal and seeing someone else hang (which is more of Roves style).

they have to name the facts, and stop crying wolf so many times(evening if it is last minute blocks by lawyers), but now truthout is saying other journos won't speak about it cos they are getting orers from the superiors not to?

Actually Truthout have said if they were stitched up they will out the two contacts. Also others are pointing out that what was mentioned before was a lie. There is certainly something up.

Also appears the media are fishing to get information as well..
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060517-4.html

lostexpectation

http://www.wpr.org/webcasting/ideas_audioarchives.cfm?Code=bme Tuesday
5/23/2006
5:00 PM

good long interview he is sticking by his story that rove was indicted last week

fixed link sorry