Daily Kos

Rovegate: 2003 State Dept. Memo the Key?

Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 11:08:51 PM PDT

From the NYTimes:

Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.

About the memo:

The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.

The investigation clearly is looking hard at who had this memo:

Investigators have been looking at whether the State Department provided the information to the White House before July 6, 2003, when Mr. Wilson publicly criticized the way the administration used intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

But the memo is dated JUNE 10!:

The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times . . . The memorandum was written for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and it referred explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Mr. Wilson's wife, according to a government official who reread the document on Friday.

How was the memo recycled in July?

When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.

Who saw that memo? There's the focus. There are your suspects. Here's a question - did Rove see the memo? Did he lie about seeing it?

What spurred the memo? Maybe this:

On May 6, 2003, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, wrote of a "former U.S. ambassador to Africa" who had reported to the C.I.A. and the State Department that reports of Iraq seeking to acquire uranium in Niger were "unequivocally wrong."

Ari Fleischer in the crosshairs:

The special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has sought to determine how much Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman at the time of the leak, knew about the memorandum. Lawyers involved in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Fleischer's role. Mr. Fleischer was with Mr. Bush and much of the senior White House staff in Africa when Mr. Powell, who was also with them, received the memorandum.

Libby on the radar:

Mr. Fitzgerald has also looked into any role that I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, may have played. Lawyers in the case have said their clients have been asked about Mr. Libby's conversations in the days after Mr. Wilson's article - in part based on Mr. Libby's hand-written notes, which he turned over to the prosecutor.

Journalists in the middle of the story:

In addition, several journalists have been asked about their conversations with Mr. Libby. At least one, Tim Russert of NBC News, has suggested that prosecutors wanted to know whether he had told Mr. Libby of Ms. Wilson's identity. After Mr. Russert met with Mr. Fitzgerald, NBC said that he did not provide the information to Mr. Libby.

Why Plame not Wilson?

But it appears [the memo] differ[s] in at least one way [with Novak's article], raising questions about whether it was the original source of the material that ultimately made its way to Mr. Novak. In his July 14, 2003, column, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson as Valerie Plame. The State Department memorandum referred to her as Valerie Wilson, according to the government official who reread it on Friday.

To be frank, this is the most intriguing and enlightening article on the matter I have seen yet. I feel I know more about what is being investigated than I ever have before.

Update [2005-7-16 2:16:49 by Armando]: In WaPo, Luskin/Rove is quoted as saying categorically he never saw or heard of the memo. Those types of statements can often be the beginning of perjury charges. I am surprised he made it.
  • ::

Tags: Valerie Plame, Joseph Wilson, Robert Novak, 2003 (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 439 comments

  •  Rove & Luskin say no (none / 0)

    According to today's Washington Post article.

    Rove said of the memo that he "had never seen it, had never heard about it and had never heard anybody else talk about it," according to a lawyer familiar with his testimony. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said he can say "categorically" that Rove did not obtain any information about Plame from any confidential source, such as a classified document.

    'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

    by jorndorff on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:10:06 PM PDT

    •  Well (none / 1)

      He didn't know her name, he didn't leak her name.  Obviously.
      •  Agreed (4.00 / 4)

        Think about it. You're in the Bush administration and you want to smear someone's reputation. You're wondering how to do something like that. Who would be the first person that you'd want to consult? Hint: it rhymes with NerdPossum.

        'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

        by jorndorff on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:24:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Legalese (none / 0)

        Ah, but don't you see the legalese? He didn't know her name. Well, that was technically true of Joe Wilson at some point, at some point he didn't know Valerie Plame's name. Hell, even Valerie Plame's PARENTS didn't know her name at some point. The wording was intentional and dare I say Clintonesque. The phrasing, "I did not know her name" with NO qualifiers means Rove's admitting only that at some point in his past he didn't know her name.

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:03:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Scoop has it also... (4.00 / 3)

        Report Shows Rove May Have Lied to FBI, A Felony
        Friday, 15 July 2005, 3:24 pm
        Opinion: Jason Leopold  

        Report Shows Karl Rove May Have Lied to Federal Agents, a Federal Crime, During Oct 2003 Testimony Into CIA Agent Leak

        By Jason LeopoldLooks like Karl Rove did break the law, the same federal law that got Martha Stewart sentenced to six months in prison.

        It now appears that Rove, President Bush's chief of staff, may have lied to the FBI in October 2003--a federal crime--when he was questioned by federal agents investigating who was responsible for leaking information about a covert CIA operative to the media.

        During questioning by the FBI about his role in the Plame affair, Rove told federal agents that he only started sharing information about Plame with reporters and White House officials for the first time after conservative columnist Robert Novak identified her covert CIA status in his column on July 14, 2003.

        But Rove wasn't truthful with the FBI, what with the recent disclosure of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's emails, which reveal Rove as the source for Cooper's own July 2003 story identifying Plame as a CIA operative, and show that Rove spoke to Cooper nearly a week before Novak's column was published and, according to previously published news reports, spoke to a half-dozen other reporters about Plame as early as June 2003.

        In an exclusive interview with Time, Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, told TIME:

        "The Vice President heard about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger in February 2002. As part of his regular intelligence briefing, the Vice President asked a question about the implication of the report. During the course of a year, the Vice President asked many such questions and the agency responded within a day or two saying that they had reporting suggesting the possibility of such a transaction. But the agency noted that the reporting lacked detail."

        Most of the above piece is apologetic to Cheney for his main talking points, yet the timeline established contradict current accounts of Rove's talking points.

      •  remember (none / 0)

        they are trying to spin this as lower level operatives.

        These people had no authority to view the name. The only persons who did were atop each security body. The vertical integration of secuirty procedure would limit Condi and Cheney to this information and their direct assistant, who themselves are bound by Executive authority to clear with their superiors any disclosure.

      •  There is way (none / 0)

        much more to this story than we know right now.  Watch for lots of new information to come out soon.
    •  His greasy little mitts may never have touched it. (4.00 / 2)

      His beady little eyes may never have seen it; but that wouldn't have stopped his greedy little ears from listening as someone who had told him about Plame.
      •  bingo (none / 0)

        Too many people here seem to be suggesting that this memo was put in everybody's mail slot at reception. Ok, he says he didn't see the memo. I'm willing to give him that one. I want to know When did he discover her identity viz. the CIA and whom did he get that from. And i want quotes.

        I'm still on the fence as to Rove's part in all of this. I'm pretty sure he knew something he shouldn't have (hello, conspiracy!) but i'm not so sure he's the source. I think this involves OSP and Miller.

        "They're telling us something we don't understand"
        General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

        by subtropolis on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:00:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  bingo? OSP? (none / 1)

          One question is what level of security access would the OSP have had?  Supposedly, if I heard the quote from Rumsfeld right "it was only a little policy shop" (yea right).  Was there any limitations on what these guys and gals would have seen in the Lie Factory?  I can't imagine Feith, Luti, Shulsky, etc being denied anything to create the propaganda that led us to war.  The kind of manipulation suggested would be right up the OSP's alley.  I'm also beginning to wonder if Fitzgerald could also have something about the big question relating to Iran.  By that, I mean who told Chalabi that we were reading the Iranian secret codes?  If that source is ever tracked--alot of folks would be demanding capital punishment for that leaker as he/she would be subject to the same charges as the Rosenberg's.
          •  no one will get the firing squad (none / 0)

            The situation here – even including Chalabi/Iran – is a lot less serious than what the Rosenbergs were accused of. I think it would be counter-productive for anyone to demand a capital sentence. Although it'd be funny seeing the admin spinning that considering how much they've been going on about the dire threat Iran poses to the US.

            "They're telling us something we don't understand"
            General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

            by subtropolis on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 03:38:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  When Rove said I didn't KNOW her name... (none / 1)

        did he exclude the biblical sense of "to know"?
    •  Requirements for perjury (4.00 / 2)

      If Rove told the grand jury that he had never seen the memo, and if the special prosecutor can prove that he did, then he could be convicted of perjury.

      Nothing that Luskin tells the WaPo is perjury.

      Politically, the issue is telling the president that he had nothing to do with the matter.

      All those reassurances that Rove was uninvolved are puzzling.
      He was involved, and they couldn't have hoped that this would be kept secret.
      The "ongoing investigation" line was already available.


      Are these guys so used to lying that they tell lies that are sure to unravel?

      "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

      by Frank Palmer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:10:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well... (none / 0)

        there's already a case for perjury. We now know that Rove lied to the FBI during his testimony in October of 2003. He told investigators that he didn't know Plame's name nor did he leak it. Cooper's e-mail and Novak's call to Rove contradict both of those claims.

        'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

        by jorndorff on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 05:45:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Al Franken speculated that perhaps John Bolton.... (none / 0)

      ...was the primary source to Rove's confirmation to Robert Novak's article. There is good reason to question this, if Bolton's recess appointment is about to be made.

      AF has his reasons for this:
      http://shows.airamericaradio.com/alfrankenshow/archive

      Bush hides behind a criminal investigation of a crime, using it as a substitute for his judgment as a boss.

      I hope that everyone understands these are questions for a court of law, and that Sun Tzu says that when driven into the salt marshes, your highest priority is to get out of there ASAP. Well my friends, these "talking points" pointedly talked by the a-little-bit-of-treason-can-be-good-for-you squad only have power if anyone listens. If in everyday conversation, you hear people who want to try garden variety treason cases at the bar, in the context of a political discussion, by all means feel free to shut them down. I can have a political discussion about matters of politics, but I won't listen to people advocate or try to explain away garden variety treason.

      New York's Rep. King said that Karl Rove "should be given a medal."
      Remember Nathan Hale? He made history in New York. Let's meet by his statue.

      Let's get out of the salt marshes and into the land of intersecting highways. The thing to do in that kind of place is to join hands with allies. Don't indulge these "talking points" with an audience. Call things like you see them. Say treason is treason and walk away.

      •  Would Bolton... (none / 1)

        have had access to that State Dept. memo?

        He and Armitage were at odds but ...

        •  Yup (none / 0)

          According to Sy Hersh, Bolton demanded that he and his staff be given "direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign agent reports and electronic intercepts," because he didn't like the reports that the INR was giving him. He eventually cut Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with State's INR, out of morning discussions about intelligence altogether because, as Thielmann was told, "The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family."

          Hat tip to coffee cup for rounding up the link and relevant information downthread.

          Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

          by Kimberley on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 07:44:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I am willing to believe this (none / 0)

        Because more and more I am beginning to think the payback was intended for Plame not Wilson.

        Let me repeat:

        THE PAYBACK WAS FOR PLAME NOT WILSON.

        If Plame's department was not giving the Office of Special Plans the answers they OSP wanted, why not make sure these people, who were not playing ball, got a payback?

        Wilson has said that the administration began a workup on him and his FAMILY in March long before he wrote his report in July.  Why?  Why would the administration want a workup on him in March?

        Not much reason.  But to payback Plame they would want a workup.

        Wilson's report gave them the opportunity.  Maybe he was induced into writing it or maybe he just decided it was the thing to do, but either way if Wilson is right and they had a workup done on his family in March, they had to have other motives than to get back at Wilson.

        And of course Bolton's modus operandi is to try to ruin people's careers.

    •  Maybe I'm dense.. (none / 0)

      But doesn't Rove's own careful word parsing, show that he possibily had access to the memo?

      The NYT, on the memo:

      "But it appears [the memo] differ[s] in at least one way [with Novak's article], raising questions about whether it was the original source of the material that ultimately made its way to Mr. Novak. In his July 14, 2003, column, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson as Valerie Plame. The State Department memorandum referred to her as Valerie Wilson, according to the government official who reread it on Friday."

      Rove's statement:

      "I didn't know her name, I didn't leak her name."

      Well, we've heard that he had referred to her as "Wilson's Wife", just as he would have, had he read the memo. Then in Novak's column he outs her as "Valerie Plame." Maybe Novak got her first name and maiden name, after getting the tip from Rove. Either way, it implicates Rove as the source.

      Help me clear this up, I'm thouroughly confused now.  lol.

      You can lead a conservative to logic, but you can't make them think!

      by mrCurmudgeon on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 07:58:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agree (none / 0)

    As I posted in a diary by terre on the article earlier tonight this Times article really starts to lay it out.  Too bad it'll be in Saturday's paper

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." - Joseph Goebbels

    by gerbbils on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:15:50 PM PDT

    •  Just in time for the Sunday talk shows (none / 0)

      Be a Liberal. People are more likely to run to you if you stand still and not run from yourself.

      by Sunqueen212 on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:22:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  1-and-10! (none / 1)

        New set of downs, boys. The ball is advancing down the field. The NYTimes makes up for yesterday's Luskinapalooza...

        Wars not make one great. - Yoda

        by Volvo Liberal on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:18:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we got a touchdown here (4.00 / 2)

          Congressman Waxman throws deep, IT'S COMPLETE to a criminally chargeable fact ...

          there are no repuglican lies or liars to contevene or tackle this fact ...

          the relevant information is breaking free into indictment land ...

          Karl Rove's Defense Has Collapsed

          A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures *to reporters are *grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.

          TOUCHDOWN !!!

          •  Yes & no (none / 1)

            The non-disclosure agreement is a contract. And its based upon an executive order. I don't think you can prosecute someone for disobeying an executive order. What you have is breach of contract and the penalities under the contract include loss of security clearance and loss of job.

            Politically it should be quite damaging.  But it won't be unless the Dems learn to sing together in the choir and go out on the road to the news shows (I'm looking at you Biden and you Lieberman) and sing this little song.  

            "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

            by molly bloom on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:37:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Saving the big one for Sunday? (none / 0)

      Well if this is the story for Saturday's paper perhaps we can look forward to the big one on Sunday? It sure looks like they're rationing these stories and putting them out on their timetable as opposed to whenever they get them.

      it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

      by Addison on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:45:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Cooper's going to discuss his testimony (none / 1)

        on Meet the Press on Sunday (via email).

        MEET THE PRESS WITH TIM RUSSERT
        WEEKEND LISTINGS 7/17/05

        MATT COOPER
        White House Correspondent, Time Magazine

        JOHN PODESTA
        President and CEO, "Center for American Progress"
        Former Chief of Staff, President Bill Clinton

        KEN MEHLMAN
        Chairman, Republican National Committee

        BOB WOODWARD
        Washington Post
        Author, "The Secret Man: The Story of Watergate's Deep Throat"

        CARL BERNSTEIN
        Former Washington Post Watergate Reporter

        As the investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA officer heats up, we will have an exclusive network interview with one of the men at the center of the investigation -- Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper.  He avoided going to jail just days ago by testifying to the grand jury after his source released him from his pledge of confidentiality.  What did Matt Cooper tell the grand jury?   He will discuss his testimony for the first time this Sunday on "Meet the Press with Tim Russert."

        Then, what will be the political fallout of the leak investigation and the new reports that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove did indeed speak to a reporter about CIA Officer Valerie Plame?  We will ask Rove's former Deputy, now the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, and the former Clinton Chief of Staff who now heads the liberal policy research group "The Center for American Progress," John Podesta.

    •  Agree (none / 0)

      I agree with you that the Times piece on Saturday gives the story context and a better understanding of the dynamic, but man are there a million unanswered questions, starting with Rove's story.  What is his deal?  

      Rove talks to Novak on July 9, 2003 (the story is not specific on this) and confirms for Novak that he had also heard that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent, and then reconfirms the story for Cooper on July 11, 2003.  This guy can't keep his trap shut.  

      It seems to me that Rove's point for these two conversations - presumably there were others - was to get out that Wilson's wife hired Wilson to do the job, thereby  discrediting what Wilson reported.  Isn't this kind of what the State Department memo says, as reported by the Times, and in fact the article eludes to this argument.  "(T)he State Department memorandum genearlly tracked the information Mr. Novak laid out for Mr. Rove in their conversation, according to the account of their exchange..." but for the State Deparment memo refers to Joe Wilson's wife as Valeria Wilson and Novak says Valerie Plame.  

      It seems to me that Mr. Rove saw the memo and opened up as did others in the propaganda room.  He simply confirmed the same story others in the Iraq Group were leaking.

  •  Did Fitzgerald... (none / 0)

    interview Colin Powell for the investigation? It seems Powell might at least know who on Air Force 1 might have seen the document during the trip.

    It's possible, I suppose, that the memo is just one of the avenues of investigation Fitzgerald pursued that ultimately didn't lead anywhere.

    Or it could be just a piece of the puzzle. Or it could be the cornerstone. I don't think we know enough yet to be sure.

    "[Republicans] swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." --Alan Greenspan

    by lanshark on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:19:23 PM PDT

    •  Yes (none / 0)

      Powell was interviewed regarding the INR memo during his testimony.

      'Everybody's born-again these days; if you're not born-again you're dead, you're out of touch, yours is a minority view, you lose.' Barthelme 'Nat.Sel.'

      by jorndorff on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:23:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  thanks! (4.00 / 2)

        Back in July 2004, I traveled to visit with my folks. The whole way down in the car, I'm thinking that this could be huge, bigger than Watergate, and could bring down this presidency. I had loaded a couple of articles on my desktop for my Dad to read (like me he's a big news junkie, and he was pretty shocked by the story-- at this point it hadn't really hit TV news, just print news). Then for the next couple of years, nada! I kept hoping the investigation would come to a head before the election, but no such luck.

        Now I'm back to thinking maybe I was right all along and that this thing is going to be big, bigger than Rove, and way worse than Watergate. We have a lot of pieces of the puzzle, but the final picture is still eluding us.

        At this point I'm afraid to hope that this criminal administration will finally see something resembling justice meted out to them.

        "[Republicans] swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." --Alan Greenspan

        by lanshark on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:52:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  oops! (none / 0)

          I meant July 2003, not 2004. D'oh!

          "[Republicans] swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." --Alan Greenspan

          by lanshark on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:53:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uh huh (4.00 / 3)

          This IS bigger than Watergate.  Shit, this is going to be bigger than O.J.  

          the ratprick: the most envied sexual instrument in the animal kingdom

          by the ratprick on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:12:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Beltway chase... (4.00 / 5)

            It will not be bigger than OJ until we have the presidential motorcade involved in a chase round and round and round the DC beltway broadcast on live TV.

            Ooh. Stop there Addison. You're getting your hopes up again...

            it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

            by Addison on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:47:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  And it's not going away (none / 1)

            And it's not going away.

            If these guys had the brains of the average stalk of celery, they'd hurry the thing along.

            Well, I'm in no hurry. I'm perfectly willing to read about this case from now to October '06. Let's remind everybody that:
            Rove (and how many others?) outed a CIA officer because her husband dared to tell the US people the truth about one claim re: WMD.
            Rove lied about his involvement.
            Bush and his press spokesman said Rove wasn't involved.
            When we found out that Rove was involved, they didn't do anything to Rove.

            "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

            by Frank Palmer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:42:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  WMD link is key (none / 0)

              If we can't get Joe American to see this link then this scandal will be confined to Rove and those directly involved in the leak. However, if the leak is seen for what it is, retribution for attempting to legitimately discredit a key BushCo WMD claim, then everyone is going down.

              It's our job to hammer on this point in the simplest terms possible until it becomes part of the mainstream consciousness, "BushCo outed a CIA operative because her husband dared to tell the truth about WMDs."

              -6.38/-6.26 Bush is studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. - Richard Cohen

              by mofus on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 04:43:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Office of Special Plans (4.00 / 2)

          It has such a creepy name. I really hope the general public starts paying attention to this. Once they find out about OSP i think they'll really begin to reconsider they're support for these psychopaths.

          "They're telling us something we don't understand"
          General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

          by subtropolis on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:07:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What ever happened with (none / 0)

            the Dept. of Misinformation that was "not" being developed post-9/11? Is this the same animal under a different name?

            "Its a grave digger's song, Praising God and State. So the Nation can live, So we all can remain as cattle. They demand a sacrifice..." -Flipper

            by Skid on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 04:57:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This memo ain't everything (none / 0)

      This memo might be very important. It might not be the source of any of the leak.

      It is definitely not the whole leak, it doesn't mention "Plame." So Novak got the information from somebody else.


      And that's definitely important.

      Even their ostensible motive, which isn't what you would call "noble," was to imply that Wilson's trip wasn't significant 'cause it had been suggested as a boondoggle by his wife.

      So why call his wife "Valerie Plame"?

      "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

      by Frank Palmer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:25:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  According to today's NYT (none / 0)

      it may be Powell, himself: "Mr. Powell was seen walking around Air Force One during the trip with the memorandum in hand, said a person involved in the case who also requested anonymity because of the prosecutor's admonitions about talking about the investigation."
  •  It always involves a memo (none / 1)

    You had the DSM and the "OBL determined to attack US..." memo. Are these biggest incompetents ever or the most ruthless? Anyway, the more I read about this case the more confused I get. So many twists and turns... One would think we were playing a game of dodgeball, except the ball is the truth crashing upon Bush and his cronies.

    Be a Liberal. People are more likely to run to you if you stand still and not run from yourself.

    by Sunqueen212 on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:21:24 PM PDT

  •  Friday the puglicans were shouting vindication, (4.00 / 3)

    Saturday morning, they weep in their Fruit Loops!
  •  bottom line, statedept. memo not reporters leak. (none / 0)

  •  Maybe the WH knew this piece was coming, (4.00 / 2)

    hence the Friday "leak fest" by "people that were briefed" (Luskin)
    •  I thought they were setting (none / 0)

      somebody up to take the fall for Rove. Novak said he got the info from two sources. Friday's articles boiled down to thier essence is Rove wasn't the main source, just the confirming source.

      The WH will then say that Rove's confirmation was done in such an off hand innocent way, that he shouldn't be punished. An oinnocent mistake. The next question should be, who was the main source, which may or may not be discovered, but if it is, s/he takes the fall.

      "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"

      by molly bloom on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:44:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Scooter all the way (4.00 / 2)

    I wonder if there's some conflict between Buzz/Scooter and Rove/Bush. And now the B/S team is trying to push this Plamegate off on Rove who seems to the have the slimmest hair of deniability. (Or so he wishes anyway.)

    I think Scooter is the man everyone really wants to take down. I think he's the source of the disinformation that Judith Miller wrote leading up to the war, and the primal source of the Valerie Wilson leak. Scooter
    thinks Rove is better protected since he's the President's reach around man. But I think Rove will go down on the way to Scooter.

    Time to shine the light a little brighter.

    •  More on Scooter (4.00 / 2)

      I wrote more about Scooter Libby here with some references and reminders that Scooter has been a suspect for years.
    •  the chalabi factor (none / 0)

      Libby might be the main leak, but I have a hunch Chalabi is Miller's main source. He was hated by the CIA and the feeling may have been mutual. He was peddling the WMD story to Miller, hoping the resulting war would see hime place on the throne in Iraq. He was tight with the Pentagon, so may have had contacts that would have made it possible for him to learn Plame's covert status. Since the Wilson trip to Niger was a direct threat to his project of using the US military to seize power in Iraq, I think he had means and motive to feed this information to Miller.

      Not that he acted alone. I am confident that Rove was either privvy to the whole thing or engineered it, exploiting Chalabi's ambitions to serve his own.

  •  For Rove's sake, I hope Luskin (none / 0)

    will give a better legal accounting than he has so far. For our sake, I hope he continues to make sloppy mistakes. Rove's attorney reminds me of the prosecutor from the OJ Simpson cases. My law professor at the time said that the prosecutor would lose the case because they have the wrong priorities. In trying to win the political spin, he maybe hurting his client with the legal situation. But, one can only hope because we still don't know enough about the legal situation.
    •  It's different because (none / 1)

      Luskin is on defense, so confusion is to his advantage.  Introducing extra issues is to his advantage.

      A similar strategy was used by the defense in the OJ trial and the prosecution played right into their hands by trying to explain every little issue.  It's been an awfully long time, but you might remember there was this obsession in the media with all these stupid side issues, like what time the ice cream was melting and stuff.  And the prosecution totally blew it by trying to come up with a timeline that included each and every little detail.  The problem being that all the defense has to do is poke a couple little holes and the jury starts to think, hmm, maybe these prosecutors don't really have it together.

      I am not especially worried that Fitzgerald will know better.  I suspect that when he lays out the case for everyone, it will very much go in a straight line.

      •  Dunno (none / 0)

        If Rove made that categorical statement seems to me he should be trying to give himself some wiggle room.

        Everybody dies alone.

        by Armando on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:42:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (none / 0)

          I was just trying to explain why Luskin is in a different situation.  I think his client is much more skilled than he is at working over the media.
          •  and my point is that (4.00 / 5)

            Luskin maybe hurting his client legally regardless of the politics. At the end of the day, this is a two front battle from them- and his strategy seems extraordinarily short term in its thinking. I mean it is certainly put dints into my belief that somehow these guys are politically brilliant. What I have seen isn't brilliance. It's just groping for anything that will stick in the hopes that another story will over take it. that as a strategy may work in the short term- but as a legal matter, they are sticking things, as armando points out in the the public record that can come back to bite them severely in the ass
      •  This prosecutor isn't the OJ (4.00 / 4)

        prosecutor. What Luskin is making a mistake at is playing the the court of political opinion, and apparently doing it moment to moment. I saw an excellent article somewhere yesterday about it. I thought  it was extremely well done because right now I am not seeing any long term legal strategy coming out of Luskin. I see a long term political one. But to keep saying things that are nailing down facts, are at the very least offering theories to the prosecution seems beyond stupid to me. As attorney, if he can't say something that will make his client not go to jail or bring it to a risk that he could, then I think he should shut it. But, like I said, as someone into political side of this- I want him to continue. They may win the battle, the political side of this, at the expense of the war, the legal battle.
        •  Totally agree (none / 0)

          Because the nuke in this case POLITICALLY is an indictment.

          And his layer makes indictments seem MORE likely than less to me, if for no other reason than pissing off the prosecutor.

          He should shut the fuck up really.

          What it means? Here's what I think, Rove was in serious jeopardy with Bush maybe.

          Just a thought.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 06:55:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It seems to me (none / 0)

            You would think the client would be the one deciding who says what and when, particularly when the client is someone like Rove.  But you find that certain lawyers fancy themselves masters of the media and just can't keep their mouth shut.  I think this is one of those cases.

            Luskin has just gone way, way overboard in offering up specifics.  He would do far better to keep quiet and let the politicos handle this in the political arena, since the prosecutor is going to do what he does anyway.

            •  But (none / 0)

              What if Rove felt in danger of being cut loose by Bush? And ths felt he needed a counter blitz NOW to avoid that?

              Remember on Monday, McClellan said NOTHING in support of Rove.

              Everybody dies alone.

              by Armando on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:09:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  For what its worth (none / 1)

                I havent heard any indication that Rove has this fear. Bush is EXTREMELY loyal. He doesn't cut people lose. All the media outlets have been reporting that the theory is that they, the Republcans, are planning to wait the storm out until another story overtakes this one. It's a valid strategy, politically, in this era of a media that can only really focus on one thing at a time. But, Luskin's actions don't fit this. Ithink they are makng strictly political calcultuation. It makes me wonder if they have some assurances from Fitzgerald that Rove is not a target or subject. But, then that makes no sense either because the last assurance on record from Fitz to Luskin was back in 0ct 2004. I think it maybe the case that this is just bad lawyering and we are getting politically lucky. We like to think these men are brilliant- but frankly they may not be. And, they did make a crucial mistake this time- they pissed off the press. We may have the press secretary to thank when all is said and done
                •  Then it is just plain stupid (none / 0)

                  The story dies down over time, maybe a week or 2, but it does.

                  But an indictment is ballgame.

                  Everybody dies alone.

                  by Armando on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:19:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There is blood in the water (4.00 / 3)

                    the media sharks smell it, competition to unravel this is enourmous.

                    And then there is one of there own sitting in jail.

                    fasten the seatbelts, there is no getting off of this ride untill the story is concluded.  

                  •  Looking for a USSC nomination (none / 0)

                    Bushites have said that he would send in a Supreme Court nomination about September 1. Just when Congress gets back from the August recess.

                    Why leave a nominee twisting in the wind for a month?

                    I'm starting to guess he'll do it sooner, changing the subject. Better to have a nominee twisting in the wind than Rove and Scotty.

                    But previous posters were inaccurate. The press can handle two issues at once. TV can't.

                    And with voter confidence below 40%, they can't kiss off print coverage. And a Supreme Court nominee will either piss off the people who want to keep Roe or his social-conservative base.

                    It looks like an interesting year.

                    "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

                    by Frank Palmer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 02:21:59 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly (none / 0)

                    Remember that the Yahoos who support Bush and listen to Rush deeply believe that when a person is accused of something by the Government, he is ipso facto guilty.

                    No smoke without fire etc. etc. etc.

                    If official accusations (i.e. indictments) come out, there will no longer be a 35% floor to Bush's approval rating - it'll be look out below, just like it was for Tricky.

                    The Perfect is the Enemy of the Better

                    by dabize on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 02:46:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  his core will not (none / 0)

                      go below his base. He will stay at 42 to 45 percent, and this will kill the REpublicans in 2006.  I meant that he will be in a freefall politically. I think y'all need to take a step back something.
                •  Bush in middle (none / 0)

                  of Rove and Cheney?  Now that's a tough place to be, poor lil Shrub...

                  "Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America."

                  by lizah on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:46:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  He'll choose Rove over Cheney (none / 1)

                    Rove got him to Governor, then President ...
                    Cheney got him into the 'bag of snakes' he has to deal with day in and day out ...
                    If you were Bush who would you throw overboard?

                    "The question isn't 'Is America ready for Barack Obama;' the question is, 'Is America ready for a smart President." John Lovitz

                    by Kdoug on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:01:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  I gave you a 4 (none / 0)

                  for recognition that Rove does't have this fear.

                  By the way, isn't a lack of fear a hallmark of sociopathy?

                  Although I much prefer the old fashioned, but now somehow politically incorrct term "psychopathy".

                  You know, PSYCHO!

                •  Bush is EXTREMELY loyal (none / 0)

                  Yes, that's true, but Bush is and should be nervous himself . . . Rove knows everything about W . . . .everything . . . if Rove goes down, I wouldn't put it past Rove to take others with him.

                  The guy is a vindictive fuck, and they all know that up there in the White House. Bush CAN'T let go of Rove . . . he's been the political keystone to their deceptive house of bricks. Pull Rove and it all tumbles.

                  THE BUCK STOPS AT BUSH!

                  by jhewett on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:00:57 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  No one is always brilliant (none / 0)

                  Everyone makes mistakes.  Let's hope that's what we're seeing.  I'm afraid to hope because the despair I'll feel if this slips through our hands will be immense.
                  •  Yes, but this time.. (none / 0)

                    instead of just being something bantered about on liberal websites, this has hit the mainstream news..this has more legs than the National Guard thing, and I dont think it will go away.
                    All those other scandals that Bush has slipped away from seem to be coming back to haunt him as they connect to one another and the Rovapalooza....

                    change is the only constant in life...so eventually Bushler's luck must run out...

                    Politics is like driving...if you want to go backwards, choose R. If you want to move forward, choose D.

                    by fireflynw on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 03:26:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  What counts is the grand jury (none / 0)

              What I saw coming from Luskin is "this is what Rove told the grand jury." If it is, he's not causing any legal problems. Fitzgerald and the grand jury already heard it.

              If it's not, he's not causing any legal problems. What does Fitzgerald care it the NYT is misled?

              Tinfoil alert
              And the story in the NYT lets any co-conspirators who might be currently in jail know what the agreed story is.


              What is fun is comparing the GOP spin, "Rove deserves a medal for telling about the Wilsons," with the legal spin, "Rove wasn't the source; everything he knew he [del read in the newspapers del] heard from reporters."

              Can't both be right, but when did these guys ever worry about consistency?

              "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

              by Frank Palmer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 02:08:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your analysis is wrong (none / 0)

                a) It not merely an issue of grand jury testimony, but does whether there is any other documentation, which we don't know yet, that contradicts Rove's statements. No attorney worth his salt would say these things unles he is 100 percent certain that someone somewhere did not say this in a email or suggested or implicate someone who could suggest it or so on and so forth. It just leaves an avenue of attack legally. That's how cases are built. By being so emphatic about it, he leaves himself open to attack later. He is placing things into the public domain that he can still claim was not what he meant later, but makes it seem like he's a liar which would be a big factor in his case, if it ever came that.

                b) On the Fitzgerald front, it's clear that you have not been following, and are simply talking from strictly opinion. He's already used what people have been saying in the papers. He used it in his brief on Miller appeal to not be put in federal prison. He wil use whatever relevant evidence that can be authenticated to prove the elements of whatever case he's bringing, whether that's obstruction of justice, perjury, or some bigger crime. This is exactly how cases pieced together.

                •  BUT, (none / 0)

                  It may turn out that Luskin is merely the political lawyer.

                  Rove could easily retain another trial lawyer later, to defend an indictment, and all the Luskin comments become compartmentalized.  And irrelevant.

                  To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."

                  by XOVER on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 05:53:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  huh? (none / 0)

                    that's not the way it works. look i am all for everyone having a say, and I often say things that are mere opinion here too, but you are wrong. there is no such distinction as you just made it. luskin making these comments as rove's lawyer, is luskin making these comments as rove's lawyer. period. it doesn't matter the purpose for which he's been retained
                    •  Allow me to be more specific. (none / 0)

                      Right now I have little doubt Luskin is throwing out theories he believes helps Rove in order to persuade the court of public opinion.  As such, Luskin is Rove's mouthpiece, clearly.

                      Let's now assume that Luskin is saying some things today that he wishes later he hadn't said if Rove gets indicted.  Comments that are believed to be sufficiently harmful and which are thought might somehow come back to haunt Rove in an actual trial context.

                      What I could see Rove doing if Rove (or Luskin) deemed the comments damaging enough within a trial context would be to (a) relieve Luskin as attorney of record, or (b) retain other counsel as lead counsel.  In either case, the effect would be to compartmentalize Luskin's current comments to pretrial posturing, and, within the trial itself, making them essentially irrelevant.

                      Now, having said that, I doubt Luskin withdraws, or is fired, or is scooted to second chair, BUT, any of these options are available to Rove if Luskin gets to stupid.  Which, again, I doubt happens.

                      As a final matter, this is not some theoretical BS on my part.  I've tried a lot of criminal jury trials in my 27 years, and will be defending in another criminal jury trial beginning Tuesday.  I have a little experience in the machinations of the courthouse.

                      To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."

                      by XOVER on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 12:07:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  legal side of things (none / 0)

                        I would find it hard to believe that those machinations would work on this level. Maybe with, and pardon me for saying this, a know nothing county judge, but with a federal prosecutor who is as on the ball as this and with the judges that he, Rove, would face, he would be hard pressed to claim that he didn't have adequate enough assistance of counsel (which I think is your point- a 6th amendment argument of some kind) because if he doesn't argue this, he can't claim that he was advised improperly. Certainly, he can try it. but he is taking on a big risk- I maybe wrong, but it does seem like a very big risk.
                  •  serial representation? (none / 0)

                    I assume what you mean is that Luskin, while representing Rove as legal counsel, is being directed to act in ways that serve Rove's political goals. Down the road, Rove may dump Luskin and get another lawyer who will be directed to represent Rove's legal interests. I wonder if anyone with legal expertise has considered this possibility.

                    Homeland: as in Bantustan, or as in home of the brave and land of the free?

                    by homeland observer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 12:25:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Look at the client here (none / 0)

              The client is always in charge.  The client always has the option of telling the attorney to STFU.

              I'm sure that Rove is telling his lawyer exactly what to say.  Rove probably thinks that he knows exactly what to have his lawyer say in order to come out smelling like roses politically.  And he's probably right.

              His problem is that he may end up smelling a lot worse if he pisses Fitz off.

              "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

              by gsbadj on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 06:11:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (4.00 / 3)

            Republicans, and a few Democrats/progressives are deluding themselves by saying that Rove could survive this if he is indicted for anything less than the intelligence violation. This isn't Oliver North, and this isn't the 1980s. The one thing Bush had remaining for him was his credibility. That has slowly been slipping away from him. If Rove is indcited it will hurt him immensely because the trusthworthiness has been his defense against attack before. It has been the defense of the national leadership in general. If it were simply Rove or this issue, they could weather it, But in context, I think an indictment would place this presidency into a tailspin. I don't see how they survive their chief political arm being knocked into utter disarray- and mean the old Republican tricks aren't available to them. War isn't an option- they've  go the quagmire of Iraq. Terrorism is increasingly not as effective. I am not at all convinced that an attack here would produce the results of 09/11 because Bush's argument has been he is protecting us from attacks here. What would he be left with? How could he distract the public to trust him?
            •  And you're right, too. (none / 1)

              But consider that when you fold in what Fitz will probably come out with:  An attempt by the Admin. to punish and smear the very guy (and his CIA NOC wife) who reported the truth about WMD and how Bush Inc twisted the facts a la DSM, and then cover it all up -- that's in-the-toilet time for Bush's credibility on BOTH the war in Iraq AND the Wilson smear/Plame outing.  Bush's poll numbers are going to go not just south, but Antarctica on him , for sure, but the deep public resentment will be mainly about rushing to war and casualties taken as a result of it.  Just my opinion.

              The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

              by MoronMike on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:33:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think that rush to war prhase is primarily (none / 0)

                a left thing. Look, I know y'all want to conflate all your feelings into one incident, but that's a big mistake. How you take someone like this down is bit by bit over the long term. The someone I am referring to is the Republican leadership of which Bush is part of the mix. THe rush to war as you call it is irrelevant except to the extent that it helps. I don't think most Americans REALLY think he rushed to war. They are saying that now because they are playing revisionist history not with the facts of which they had at the time, but because they don't like the outcome. In other words, we need to be focused on now rather than 2003. I am simply voicing avenues of attack that differ from yours. In order to solve the real problem, getting rid of the REpublican majority at the national govt, progressive/Democrats have to id what's going on outside of our sentiment. I dont have any power to do anything, as we are both just on a blog, but I hope that the national democrats stop what you are doing which is to conflate different things. I believe this is why people are extolling WIlson for example as a hero in this Plamegate matter when in fact, our argument, should be that Wilson is irrelevant to whether or not Rove outted a CIA agent. Now, we can bring him up as motive, but to get into the particulars about the yellow cake misdirection by the Republicans is just desires for emotional gratification by the left rather than trying to score an actual political win by eliminating the trust factor for Republicans.
              •  PS (none / 0)

                just to be clear- some of the factors you mention do matter such as DSM,Iraq as it presently is, terrorism as it presently is, Shiavo,SS, etc and others are less on the mindset of the public in general and more of a liberal concern. We need to know which of our arguments actual work on a public at large audience. Luckily we have more than just one.
                •  This whole mess began with WMD (none / 0)

                  and intelligence/facts fixed around the policy of going to war with Iraq.  PlameGate/RoveGate was, is, and will always be about truthful dealings by the Bush Admin, and the general public doesn't give a crap about Karl Rove or who Wilson/Plame is or SS or anything else.  This is not about conflating disparate issues.  This is about the voting public pissed off that our blood and treasure have been squandered, and they will vote accordingly.  

                  The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

                  by MoronMike on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 05:59:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  would Luskin's behavior make sense if... (4.00 / 2)

            (1) Rove has been given immunity or (2) Rove is counting on a presidential pardon? In both cases, giving Rove political cover would be more important than giving him legal cover.

            Homeland: as in Bantustan, or as in home of the brave and land of the free?

            by homeland observer on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:28:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope (none / 0)

              Because if he had immunity he would not be saying a word by agreemen with the prosecutor.

              Witness Novak, who I beleive very well may have a deal.

              Everybody dies alone.

              by Armando on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 07:31:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Was (none / 0)

                just wondering why Novak didn't put up a First Amendment fight. A deal would explain that, but you're assuming Novak comitted a criminal act?
              •  Rove doesn't need immunity ... (none / 0)

                if he's going to get a pardon!

                Then Luskin's offering of short term confuse the issue Chewbacka defenses for political cover is brilliant strategy.

                Those elbow to elbow stroll to the Marine helicopter on the White House lawn are to work out when the pardon will be issued.

                let's not forget who is really giving the orders here.

                •  pardoned felon can't plead 5th amendment (none / 0)

                  that would hand Bush's Brain wide open to the first prosecutor who subpeonaed Rove
                •  look its nice to go off into fantasy ville (none / 0)

                  but if rove got indicted he wouldn't get a pardon. Y'all here tend to act on this believe that thse people are God like in their abilities to act. The only thing that makes them like that is your willingness to see them that way. They make mistakes. They fuck up. A pardon here would be something we could only wish for because it would destroy the Republican party as much as Nixon did in  the 1970s. I know, I know, BUsh is evil and has been evil, but you know, just because you think that, and that hte American people should have figured that out by now, doesn't mean that is how these things turn out in the mainstream press or the American mind. But, a pardon to a case that at least tangentially involves outting a CIA agent would be a serious mistake on their part. I also know Rove has the goods on Bush, but such an approach would be a lose lose for Bush.
            •  A pardon (none / 0)

              would seem to be a tall order politically for Bush.   In order to need the pardon, Rove would have to be convicted, yes? I don't think you can pre-emptively pardon(?). I guess the equivalent would be immunity, which isn't Bush's to give.  In any case, I'd think that a pardon would serve to absolutely seal the deal on public resentment about the whole fiasco.

              <snark>
              Then again, I'm one of those strange individuals who deals in facts using logic.
              </snark>

              Still, I can't imagine him not losing just about everyone but the most hardcore dyed-in-the-wool (or should I say "head-in-the-sand"?) constituency.

              Take the party back for the people!
              -----
              Most. Annoying. Emphasis. Technique. Ever.

              by spurdy on Fri Jul 15, 2005 at 08:48:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  A conviction isn't necessary (none / 0)

                for a preznidential pardon. A trial isn't necessary, either. Remember the nice, shiny gift Gerald Ford handed Richard Nixon, who never came to trial, was never convicted, and like the thuggish Undead he was, tried to rise from his political grave yet again in the guise of Elder Statesman.

                And remember what he told David Frost.

                "If the president does it, it can't be wrong."

                Advice that Chimpy has obviously taken to heart.

                John McCain--Anti-choice and anti-woman!

                by Sharoney on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 02:21:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I agree with the person above (none / 0)

                  some of y'all are maybe too far gone to realize that you have to look at everything in context. Please stop going off the deep end about pardons or impeachment or whatever else. In context- Bush pardoning Rove would end his Presidency not officially, but certainly in terms of its moral persuasion. That's all Bush has been running on since 9/11. The american people are always paying attention politically, but once you lose their trust, you lose them. and this, along with the trust they already losing would most certainly destroy their trust in this president
        •  Rove is playing chicken (none / 0)

          with the chickenhawks. Rove is the king snake. He will threaten anyone if he is in jeopardy. Notice how the Chimpster is keeping him close in the photo ops? Rove will take anyone down to save himself. Last night it was Hadley he was threatening with an email. Who knows who's next on the fall guy parade?

          The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

          by semiot on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:40:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You treat Rove like he's some kind of God (none / 0)

            like force. He's not. If anything, this shows you just how human and prone to mistakes he is. I hope he truly thinks as you say though because people like that, a la Martha Stewart, always fuck up
            •  No, I don't think Rove is a god (none / 0)

              or a devil. He's a clever and ruthless human snake. He'll do what he always does: threaten people, smear people, blackmail people - including his "boss." My opinion.

              Is he capable of making mistakes? You bet he is. Anybody that has to rely on lies to get ahead like he has done has made lots and lots of mistakes.

              The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. -- Julius Caesar, I.ii.

              by semiot on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 07:27:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Straight line prosecution (none / 0)

        You have to remember that Fitzgerald can't present a straight-line prosecution.

        The prosecution has to follow the crime. And the criminals wiggle all over the place.

        I'm expecting prosecutions on the agent-identification law, the secret documents law, perjury, and obstruction of justice.

        Maybe I'm hoping for too much.

        "I'm not opposed to all wars; I'm opposed to dumb wars." -- Obama in 2002

        by Frank Palmer on Sat Jul 16, 2005 at 01:52:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think you're missing something BIG (4.00 / 6)

    Carl Ford is the guy who absolutely TRASHED John Bolton at the hearings.  I don't think the importance of the memo is that whoever-saw-it-leaked the contents.  The importance is that the MEMO WAS WRITTEN BEFORE WILSON WROTE ANYTHING.  They were PLANNING this whole thing and doing oppo research.  It was a freakin' conspiracy.  It's not who got to see it, it's why it was done in the first place, and who wrote it, and who asked that it be written - and I'm willing to bet that the name "Bolton" appears as an answer to one or more.    

    Why the heck did Armitage call Ford AT HOME to make sure Powell saw it aft