Daily Kos

Rove did it! AP reports Newsweek story

by Silence Do Good

Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:19:43 AM PDT

Agence France-Presse, The Associated Press

MONDAY, JULY 4, 2005

WASHINGTON

Agent's name leaked by Rove, magazine says

E-mails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA agent's identity show that a top White House aide, Karl Rove, was one of the sources, Newsweek magazine reported Sunday.

Rove, who is President George W. Bush's deputy chief of staff, was named as a source by two lawyers involved in the case who asked not to be identified, Newsweek said.

However, an attorney for Rove told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."

Time agreed on Thursday to hand over the internal e-mails, which were largely correspondence between their editors and a reporter, Matt Cooper, along with his notes on reporting related to the case. (AFP)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/03/news/notes.php

This is it people, brace yourselves!!!

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 143 comments

  •  There's a strange little caveat in there (4.00 / 14)

    by Rove's lawyer:  "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." but he bothers to qualify that Karl didn't KNOWINGLY reveal classified information.

    If he outed Wilson's wife, did he just not say her name, did he say was a spy for CHAOS and he got that information while in the Cone of Silence?

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heave anymore."--Prine
    Blue House Diaries

    by Cathy on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:29:55 AM PDT

    •  we now know (none / 0)

      at least we now know, he did reveal the information. The lawyer are trying to parse, the intention and circumstences around the time he did it.

      He is toast in my opinion.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:35:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the "knowingly" caveat (3.75 / 4)

        is a dead giveaway to me.  I was just being humorous with the other bit.

        "But your flag decal won't get you into heave anymore."--Prine
        Blue House Diaries

        by Cathy on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:40:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I guess it depends on your (none / 1)

          definition of "knowingly"....

          by elmo on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:23:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Besides... (4.00 / 2)

            It's not a criminal offense to lie to the press. And it doesn't hurt a lawyer's case before a jury to do so. The lawyer is getting good money to represent Rove. He'll say anything to exonerate him before the media as long as he can. Shoot -- he'll be considered a good advocate by his brother lawyers, and even the court, for lying in this way.

            Don't believe shit that he tells the press. Now, what he tells the court is different.  

            "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

            by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:11:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lying to the press (4.00 / 2)

              is certainly against a lawyer's code of professional responsibility. The key wiggle room, I believe, it to make sure your client never admits the truth to you. You make sure you tell that to them right off. It isn't against the code of professional responsibility to pass along your client's lies to the media, so long as you are not absolutely certain that they are lies.  See? Wink, wink?

              by elmo on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:19:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Caveats galore (4.00 / 4)

                Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA" - no, Rove told the reporter that Plame works for the CIA.

                by dr z on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:56:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not So! (none / 1)

                There is no ethical rule that prohibits a lawyer from out-and-out lying to the press, anymore than it being a breach of professional responsibility for a lawyer to lie to her husband. Different if you lie to the court, to a jury, or to the opposing side.

                Of course, a lawyer might be chagrined if he's caught in a public lie, like to the press. But he won't get hauled before an ethics commission. Anyway, in Rove's case the lawyer can always wiggle away from public rebuke by saying something like "that's what I understood at the time" (ie "my client wasn't fully forthcoming with me").

                Indeed, the opposite is true. Rove's lawyer would be in violation of ethical rules if he implicated his client by speaking to the press. He has a duty to help his client, if he does speak to the press, even if it means lying to reporters.

                "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

                by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:28:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong (none / 1)

                  Rule 8.4: It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation That would include lying to the press, lying to someone who wants to buy your lemon of a used car, secretly tape-recording someone even if your state allows you to do it, etc. etc. etc. Now perhaps the lawyer has gotten cute and convinced himself that what he's saying is true - he might get around it that way. He does NOT have a duty to lie to the press. If he can't say something to the press that is true (as he understands it) without hurting his client, he has an obligation to say, "no comment."

                  by bolgia7 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 04:55:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  not quite worth 2 cents (none / 0)

                    Way back when, when I hoped OJ was innocent, I would intently listen to Cochran hoping for a clue.  The most he would ever say is "My client maintains his innocence."

                    Help end world hunger by providing rice to hungry people for free.

                    by OLinda on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 05:50:21 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Ummm... (none / 1)

                    Where are you quoting that rule from #7? Of course, every state has its own rules of conduct governing lawyers. Is it from the state where the subject bar card was issued? Regardless, it's no more than a toothless rule. Lawyers lie all the time, including dumping their lemon cars, without ever being hauled before an ethics commission. Remember, Clinton lost his license for lying in a deposition, not for lying to the whole world when he said he didn't have sex with Lewinski. The rule you cite is used to keep lawyers from lying in official matters -- like making statements to law enforcement, to license bureaus, or to other government agencies, or to their clients. It's never used for matters such as this, at least that I know of. Do you know of such an instance?

                    Certainly a lawyer has no duty to lie to the press, but he can very well defend himself if he does lie by saying that he was just trying to support his client, which is indeed his duty. He does not have to say "no comment". Anyway, Rove's lawyer has no reason to fear that his statements to the press, if later found out to be innacurate, can lead to disciplinary action against him. The point is that very little stock should be put on his "exonorating" statements to the press. We'd be fools to believe that such a rule would prevent Rove's lawyer from being deceitful, or to misrepresent to the press, IMHO.

                    "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

                    by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:17:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Of course! (none / 0)

                Turd Blossom picked an attorney that has a high regard for the truth and "professional ethics."

                Sure he did.
                Wink, wink.

                How much is enough, Gordon?

                by SecondComing on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:03:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  The Cone of Silence? (4.00 / 2)

      "Speak up, Max. I can't hear you."

      by Zach in Phoenix on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:07:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What? (none / 0)

        n/t

        The Spirit of 75

        by Thomas Kalinowski on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 03:50:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Get Smart" (none / 0)

          The TV show. Maxwell Smart. I guess ya had to be there!

          John McCain - Fifty-four Forty or Fight!

          by kitebro on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:03:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What's that? (none / 0)

            Huh?

            The Spirit of 75

            by Thomas Kalinowski on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 07:08:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  A TV comedy that ran in the 60s (none / 0)

              although I didn't catch it until its second life in reruns during the 80s. It features secret agent Maxwell Smart (Don Adams), the gorgeous 99 (Barbara Feldon) and The Chief, an endearing by-the-book agency guy who plays Skipper to Don Adams' Gilligan, as he is constantly exasperated by Max's antics, to the point of being worn down to a small nub.

              As for the Cone of Silence, it's a spoof of all those 007 gadgets. The cone is a double-domed piece of plexiglass that suspends from the ceiling-it looks sort of like a what you would see at a hairdresser's. Its intent is to keep a two-party conversation "silent" from the rest of the people in a room, but in reality the acoustics make it so that the two people inside are the only ones who can't make out what is being said, but you and I can hear every word perfectly. Max would always call for the Cone of Silence for a sidebar with the Chief during a multiparty conversation, and the Chief would reluctantly comply.

              by Zach in Phoenix on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 11:16:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Easy enough to imagine (none / 0)

      Others have pointed this out, but Rove didn't have to tell Novak or Cooper or Miller or anyone else that "Valerie Plame" worked for the CIA. WOundln't it have been equally effective, and more to the point of discrediting to have ssaid, "Yeah, well, I wouldn't take Wilson's conclusions too seriously. His wife got him the assignment. She works at the CIA"?

      by HStewart on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:10:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How Many Links in the Chain? (4.00 / 5)

        Working at the CIA is most definitely not the same as working under cover for the CIA. SOMBODY along the chain of leaks had to know that she was undercover (an "agent" as Novak stated). Providing that information to someone else who was not authorized is a serious violation.

        Novak tried to duck this when the flap started right after he first published - he claimed that he frequently used the term "agent" in a generic sense and that he didn't realize that she was NOC.

        The other area where they have tried to get wiggle room is the idea that Ms. Plame's employment was "common knowledge" in Washington. Remember Jeff Gannon? He was involved early on, no doubt in an attempt to show that, well, if even Gannon knew then surely everyone knew. That one kinda backfired, so now they are scrambling for some place to retreat.

        The length of the chain will determine how many get taken down. Since this administration is well practised at placing blame on the other guy, the chain could get pretty long as the finger pointing stretches out. It will eb fascinating to watch....

        by Truth or Dare on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:07:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I see it. . . (4.00 / 9)

          Rove probably was not authorized to even have this information.

          So the actual "leaker" is whoever told Rove.

          This confirmation that Rove was one of the people who communicated that information to reporters simply means that they can now go after him for HIS source. And he doesn't have the "I'm a journalist, I can't reveal my sources" defense.

          So, if he won't testify to how he knew, he's obstructing justice, etc.

          "Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful." -William Morris

          by Robespierrette on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:34:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  'Operative' not 'agent' (none / 1)

          I believe that Novak used the term 'operative' in his original story, then tried to back-track later by asserting that this a widely used phrase that did not necessarily mean covert agent.  He was not believed.

          by sam3am on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 03:10:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No need to parse (none / 0)

      An attorney speaking in a public forum is under no obligation to be truthful. His job is to defend his client, even when the facts have not yet been fixed. Rove wouldn't even have to tell the truth. But his lawyer really doesn't. From JustWinBaby's diary (Lawrence O'Donnell Live Tonight):

      O'Donnell further stated that Rove's lawyer only decided to play defense once it was known that O'Donnell's remarks had gone out over the McLaughlin Group air. Rove's lawyer used very technical language in his denials. Further, it would be expected that if Rove is in danger of a perjury rap, the lawyer would be expected to defend the client (read: tell an untruth in a public non-legal statement for the purposes of representing his client to the press). What his lawyer said was not in front of a judge. It was simply a weekend pr effort. Of course he's going to say his client didn't break the law, etc.

      by t v d on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:47:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  there are codes of (none / 0)

        ethics that apply to attorneys regarding truthfulness, in general

        "They blamed it on the Islamic fanatics, at the time. [...] That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary."-Handmaid's Tale

        by JLFinch on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 03:20:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nit (none / 1)

        An attorney is under no obligation to volunteer the truth, or confirm the truth.  But there is a big difference between that and an "obligation to be truthful."  It's the distinction between an affirmative act by the attorney or a passive one, and it makes a big difference, ethics wise.

        ABA Rule 8.4 cited by someone else is not the correct citation, however (in part because many states, including California, do not follow the ABA rules).  The correct citation for Model Rule states is Rule 4.1, which provides that in representing a client, an attorney may not make a false statement of material fact or law to a third party.

        Model Rule 3.6 is also implicated in this case, because it is that rule which governs what a lawyer can, or cannot say, when there is a pending adjudicative proceedings.  And governs the scope of an attorney's ability to "correct the record" if he believes that unfairly prejudicial information has been disseminated in public that can harm his client's rights to a fair and unbiased tribunal, should it come to that.

        Rove's attorney's statement is consistent with that, to me.  And what everyone else says about the motive for many caveats in his statement is probably correct.

        Visit Political Sapphire and Maat's Feather

        by shanikka on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 05:34:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  CORRECTION: "Get Smart" reference (none / 0)

      Not "cone" but "dome"--the "Dome of Silence," where nothing is heard outside the dome OR inside the dome either.

      For people of deep faith like George W. Bush, beliefs are intoxicating, and facts are sobering. Sober up, America!

      by slip kid no more on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:25:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah... (none / 0)

      In the top diary right now, Redfed discusses all of this here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/4/35731/14823
      Chris

      My Blog: "Hard, Cutting"

      by CHFDigital on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:29:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  KAOS, not CHAOS (none / 1)

      Gawd I'm nitpicky!

      "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

      by fishhead on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:47:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So Rove is arguing (4.00 / 3)

      that he didn't necessarily "say" that Plame was a CIA agent, but it depends on what you say your definition of "say" is.

      Consider the end, and resist the beginning.

      by thalio on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:34:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  a "4/4" (none / 0)

      not only for the question posed but also for the get smart/CHAOS reference!

      "Those who had the chance for 4 years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance" - Nixon

      by dukeraoul on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:03:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It sounds like he may have said (none / 0)

      "Joe Wilson's wife."

      Intelligent Designer Laments Lapse in Intelligence

      by mrblifil on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 03:06:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Only This Administration... (none / 0)

      ...would Get Smart!

      Support the Netroots Candidates! A VETO-PROOF majority in 2008!!!

      by InquisitiveRaven on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 06:08:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He is going down (4.00 / 6)

    There is no way he can survive this one now. He gonna start parsing and spinning and makes things worst.

    The Bush administration starts to unravel.

    Impeachment ho!

    Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

    by fugue on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:30:13 AM PDT

    •  And frankly... (none / 0)

      ...it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.  This man's thought he's above the rules for entirely too long, and he's gotten away with too much and done too much damage.

      Now, will Bush take the heat and pardon Rove?

      by Jonathan on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:55:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I remember way back (4.00 / 2)

        when he ruined our wonderful governor, Ann Richards, by spreading the rumor that she was a lesbian.

                 

        Blood 4 Oil War 2

        by TXsharon on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:57:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  YES! (4.00 / 8)

          I don't usually mean it, but I mean it in this case. I HATE Rove and I will be so happy to watch him fizzle down the drain. Since he spread those rumors about Richards, our state has gone down the drain. If I could, I would pay for a front row seat to this. Hell, I would be happy to drive him from the WH to prison just so I could make fun of him. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving man.

          Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. Abraham Lincoln

          by melthewriter on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:10:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  He Also Spread The Rumor... (4.00 / 5)

          That she was a drunk. Shit, she's a reformed alcoholic. Now that takes courage. Rove's still hiding behind his bottle.

          "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

          by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:13:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sort of like saying Chimp is a drunk. (none / 0)

            by courtjester on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:50:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Speaking of "rumours" (none / 0)

            Why did you troll rate me for asking a serious question as to what would happen should the plane carrying the talk radio show folks happen to get shot down?

            I'm not asking for it to happen...I'm asking WTF would happen?

            Would ALL journalists or media folks be banned from going to warzones?

            Would the Republicans claim they are martyrs?

            Would they also blame the Dems?

            What would be the ramifications?

            And yet...you fucking troll rated me for asking a serious question.

            I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

            by jillian on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 04:52:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  jillian.. (none / 0)

              Well I must have misunderstood your comment. I read that you were hoping they would get their body parts blown to bits, which led to my 0, because that seems to me to be trollish. I'll accept your characterization without argument, and do apologize.

              Now, if I only knew how to take back the 0...

              "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

              by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:26:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Why the hell would someone wish that? (none / 0)

                I am sorry that you are so quick to think those horrendous thoughts....

                Thanks for the apology. Accepted. But might I suggest that before you rate someone a troll, they would prove to you without a doubt that they are trollworthy.

                Now...If I had actually SAID anything like I wish them ill, THEN you could have due cause. But simply asking the question "what would happen" does not a troll make.

                Just someone very concerned over the consequences that their, in my opinion, ill advised action may bring.

                I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

                by jillian on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:07:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I Hear You ... (none / 0)

                  But there were some comments that I rated a 1, as I did yours, as unproductive because they are purely mean spirited, IMHO, and of no discussion value. But I don't know whether they are trolls, or merely subject to excitement, and thus did not troll rate them.

                  Like this:

                  Here's The Truth (1.78 / 19)
                  May they all be killed in a road-side bombing.
                  Ooh, I'm sorry, I am a Christian.
                  May they all be maimed in a road-side bombing.
                     Clearly (1.80 / 10)
                     we are two minds with a common thought

                  And This:

                  Four (2.00 / 6)
                  These fucking blowhards have been cheerleading and pushing this war for years...A kidnapping and beheading might show some of the wingnut viewers what's really going on.

                  And This:

                  Not so stupid.. (2.50 / 4)
                  I don't think that it is entirely stupid to wish that one of these clowns get maimed or killed over there.

                  One big point, though. Although I'm not rescinding my apology, because I agree that your post was productive and did not deserve a 1, I did not not troll rate you. I gave your comment a 1 as unproductive, because I mistakenly misclassified your comment as one of the above. But where are you getting that I troll rated you? I actually fell for your deception. Indeed, perhaps you might look at your side in this issue for accusing me of troll rating you when I did not, and perhaps apologize as I did to you.

                  Thanks for accepting my apology, though. Sorry again.

                  "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

                  by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:41:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  1 to me is troll (none / 0)

                    n/t

                    I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

                    by jillian on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:13:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not So... (none / 0)

                      Check the ratings. A one is unproductive. States there in plain English. If you're a trusted user, the rating for troll ia a 0. At least that's what my computer shows.

                      Why are you so unwilling to apologize? You should give what you ask for and get. That's the mature way of being.

                      "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

                      by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:44:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Apologize for what? (none / 0)

                        asking a serious question?

                        I'm not going anywhere. I'm standing up, which is how one speaks in opposition in a civilized world. - Ainsley Hayes

                        by jillian on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:01:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No... (none / 0)

                          For accusing me of troll rating you when I clearly did not. I've already eaten crow when you pointed out the seriousness of your question. You willing to share the bird for misleading me into believing I troll rated you?

                          And don't give me the dribble that a 1 is a troll rating "to me". That's simply not so. No one will buy that. Be a mature adult, as I was, and admit you were wrong.

                          Simple.

                          "There's no housing bubble..." - Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, 10/27/2005

                          by chuco35 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:09:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  And let's not forget (none / 1)

          that he DESTROYED McCain's Presidential bid by by spreading rumors that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock.

          McCain DOES have a black child, BTW. He and his wife ADOPTED said child. Which means they not only slandered McCain, they took advantage of McCain's wonderful deed of adopting a needy child.

          SLIME! Absolute SLIME!

          No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

          by mlkisler on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:31:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Worse yet... (4.00 / 3)

            This was in Joshua Green's Atlantic article on Rove last fall, which I don't have handy and is, as far as I know, unavailable online except to Atlantic subscribers):

            A candidate in a state election (Alabama IIRC, for Supreme Court or governor) who was Rove's candidate's opponent did charity work with children.  Rove started a whisper campaign that the man was a child molester.   Rove's candidate won.

            Turd Blossom, indeed.  Hope he rots, and makes lots of nice "friends" in the joint.  "Here's my boy Karl, he ain't much to look at, but he's good with numbers."

            War is over if you want it. -- John Lennon

            by Theodoric of York Medieval Liberal on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:00:31 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  ROVE'S MOST SHAMEFUL MOVE (4.00 / 3)

            taking down Max Cleland.  

            We should be constructing the future success of our republic on the bedrock of the values displayed by the life of Senator Cleland.  Instead, our President's uneducated psychopath trounces Max in order for to pursue their poisonous and ruinous reign.

            Our country is being dismantled by ignorant people that cling to ideology as a substitute for maturity.

            Our hope is that America can be resurrected by the fundamentals of democracy that made and kept us great for generations, namely, that we can assert our intentions for citizens to define the future of the nation.  

            We have to take our country back from these thugs or we will become spectators as others go about the business of defining the world for our children.

            It is either the light at the end of the tunnel or a gorilla with a flashlight...

            by mccan on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:04:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's even worse... (4.00 / 2)

            she's not black...she's a Bangladeshi.  He adopted an East Asian orphan, which is the most selfless act I can imagine, and they turned it into a slander.

            by teenagedallasdeaniac on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:10:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well you know.... (4.00 / 2)

              to alot of unenlightened white people out there people are either white or not-white.  If your not white, then your black since racists can't be bothered with geography or culture.

              so you think I'm a troll? Well kiss my hairy troll nalgas then

              by MetaProphet on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 01:27:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Finally (none / 1)

    being picked up by MSM.  Who thinks this will make any difference?

    Congregamus ergo sumus.

    by biotecchie on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:30:35 AM PDT

  •  All the way, baby! (4.00 / 13)

    This story cannot be buried in a  newsdump. It cannot be spun.  It cannot be blamed on liberal media bias. It  cannot be softened with faux patriotic rhetoric. This is nothing less than a CRIMINAL INDICTMENT of Bush's very own Brain!

    This is such a gift to the country, it almost seems too good to be true.

    I'm willing to be patient and watch the inevitable unfolding, but I feel like a kid waiting for Christmas morning!

    by Hrubec on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:36:19 AM PDT

    •  BREAKING: BUSH'S BRAIN INDICTED (4.00 / 2)

      I like that headline.

      The grand jury today handed down a 7,000 page indictment of the president's brain, numerous charges of criminal mental behavior.  Faces 422 years.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heave anymore."--Prine
      Blue House Diaries

      by Cathy on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:43:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  BUSH'S BRAIN BUSTED (4.00 / 8)

        for alliteration.

        What's the difference between Vietnam and Iraq? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

        by strandedlad on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:00:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wish I could share the optimism here (none / 1)

          but bear in mind that Rush Limbaugh and Osama Bin Ladin are both still free....and Rove is a lot smarter and better connected than those two...

          Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

          by drewfromct on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:17:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  All true (none / 0)

            We'll have to wait and see how things turn out.  If nothing else, Bush could always pardon the traitor.

            On the other hand, if we tie this in with general GOP corruption, then Rove doesn't have to serve a day in prison for him to be a terrible liability to the party he's committed so many crimes to promote.

            And that might just be the sweetest justice of all.

            by Jonathan on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:24:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I Don't Think So (none / 1)

            Osama Bin Ladin is not a stupid man. A murderous zealot, ala John Brown, but stupid he ain't. His ability to build an organization like Al Quada shouldn't be underestimated and is far more impressive than getting the grandson of a US Senator and son of a president elected president. Honestly, not that big a hurdle to jump over (granted, the raw material did present some challenges). And Osama's pretty well connected to the Saudi royal clan as well.

            by pletzs on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:50:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely! (none / 0)

            Remember, this Pachyderm (pun intended) has been packing the courts with sympathetic judges for years. He'll get off scot-free, even if a jury CONVICTS him.  :o(

            No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices. ~Edward R. Murrow

            by mlkisler on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:35:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  BUSH'S BRAIN BUSTED BIGTIME n/t (none / 1)

          Reality - Humanity - Sustainability

          by Em on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:37:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  If only they could serve the subpoena (none / 0)

        Unfortunately, Bush's brain was last seen sneaking across the Mexican border, 17 years ago.


        "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin

        by Zackpunk on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:54:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bush's Brain.... (none / 0)

        "During a routine colonoscopy, a cancerous tumor was found on the Presidency"...Shit for brains indeed.

        by sooner on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 03:44:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This reminds me of... (none / 0)

        ...the old Star Treck episode where Spok's brain was taken out of his body.  Has medical science duplicated the body maintinence and locomotion device so Bush can use it?

        "Accepting the inevitable"

        by waztec on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 06:25:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  It's not it yet-- (none / 1)

    until it hits "Top Stories" on the AP wire (hosted.ap.org).  

    As of right now, the story hasn't even hit the "Politics," "Washington," or "U.S." sections.

    by corvo on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:38:17 AM PDT

  •  If/when it is proven (4.00 / 3)

    that Rove was the person who revealed Valerie Plame's CIA job, the question still remains: From whom did he get the information?

    My money's on Bolton and the NSA intercepts. And Bolton is Cheney's goon.

    The degree to which you resist injustice is the degree to which you are free. -- Utah Phillips

    by Mnemosyne on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 07:52:55 AM PDT

    •  Condi? (none / 1)

      She was the NSC gal afterall. She is also part of Iraq task force. (Did she appear in front of grand jury?)

      otherwise it's definitely Cheney's office probably via Tenet.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:37:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was wondering that also... (none / 0)

      He got the info from someone... and .. whoever it had to be something they actually had to dig up. Most likely the info was in a file somewhere...but not just out in the open. Lot's of undercover agents.. so they had to be looking for her in particular.Even with NSA intercepts... they had to target her.(or him) A new level of charges for them... not just divulging info but using the NSA to out a CIA operative...look at the stink over the FBI files when Clinton was in.. If they used the NSA to get around the CIA... well I am sure the CIA is going to have the last word.If there was a threat that there were deaths or exessive harm done against this country...caused by the leak... and that Novak would take the fall for it he would squeal bigtime...doubt he would take that one for the team. Frankly if we could associate TRaito with his name... that would be great. But if it were them... they would say terrorist sympathizer...she was working that area of investigation right? So outting her actually crumbled the front company and helped terrorists... they like to drag out 9-11 everychance they get... give it right back to them. The reporters are not just protecting their source... they are protecting terrorists...

      To give real service you must add something which cannot be bought or measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity. -Douglas Adams

      by jigsaw68 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:54:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this is going to be weird.... (none / 0)

      but how about Judith Miller?  She might have known since Mid east and WMD were her stomping grounds....

      Jon Powers has a primary on Sept. 9. Help out now.

      by NYBri on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:00:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  jumping to conclusions (none / 0)

    The Newsweek article is not clear about what Rove told Cooper. The specifics have not been released.

    Read this.

    by drsmith131 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

  •  OT (sorta) - A Happy Picture to Share (4.00 / 5)

    for your viewing pleasure on this VERY HAPPY 4th of July:

    First 100 days of the second term

    But, historians note that without any brewing scandals or long-term distractions, President Bush has something of an advantage over his predecessors as he pivots from the first 100 days to the rest of his second term.

    hehehe

    A ship adrift in a sea of rhetoric & recycled clichés.

    by Terre on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:15:50 AM PDT

  •  A few questions (none / 0)

    At this point, we're still swimming in a whirlpool of hypotheticals as far as what the future holds, but I'm interested to hear from some who are more in the know thoughts on the following questions:
    1) When the grand jury acts, will charges be brought against Rove for:
    a) perjury
    b) obstruction of justice
    c) treason
    some combination, none, or all?
    1. It is obviously very doubtful that Rove would have acted as highest and sole authority in this leak.  Will Congressional Dems demand hearings on the matter or will they allow the Grand Jury to handle all investigative aspects?
    2. If Rove is eventually convicted and sentenced, will Bush immediately pardon him?  Granted that doing so is likely political suicide.  Also granted that Bush does not have to run again, his brother claims to have no interest in a race, he is notoriously loyal to his inner circle, and damage from this scandal may well have already rendered him a lame duck at the point he must make this decision anyway.
    3. I understand that the NYT is not in the same position as Time in that it did not have access to all of Miller's notes.  Might the Times at some point be forced to release those notes it does have?
    4. Cannot federal investigators seize Miller's documentation (assuming she has any) without her consent?

    by tipsymcstagger on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:16:22 AM PDT

  •  bush (none / 0)

    bush and company should go down to for hiding this traitor.  They knew who leaked the name, and chose to hide this national security threat from the american people.

    This is THE MOST disgraceful adminstration in AMerican history!!!

    "GDI" baby

    by threecents on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:21:09 AM PDT

  •  Oh, move along, people. (4.00 / 3)

    Nothing to see here. Everybody knew it was Rove, this is not news. See, it's just like the Downing Street Memos.  

    by elmo on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:26:12 AM PDT

    •  This is already happening (4.00 / 7)

      We have to be vigilant that this isn't swept under the rug, which I think the MSM is trying to do.

      Example: Yesterday, CNN talks to Frank Sesno, former CNN employee and now professor. The brief lead into the interview briefly mentinoed how other news sources are reporting that the Time document dump apparently points to Karl Rove in the White House. Pretty big frigging news, right? You'd think Sesno would mention it, or the ancho bringing it up, right?

      But during the entire ten-minute or so interview they completely avoided mentioning Rove. The whole thing was about journalistic "independence" and confidentiality and how this will discourage reporters from doing their job (ha ha). The big friggin' elephant in the room was that, whatever the merits of Time's decisions, the documents point to the President's advisor Karl Rove. BUT THEY NEVER MENTIONED THIS. I sat yelling increasingly louder at the television, "Ask the question! Ask the frigging question!"

      It's hard not to conclude that the they just wanted to mention Rove in passing but not to emphasize his role or investigate the charges. Let Newsweek and DailyKos do the hard work, we'll just parrot other's news and the rest of the time keep our heads out of the line of fire. Cowards.

      To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkle, "Where have you gone Woodward and Bernstein, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you..." Well, my eyes might be just lonely, but my brain is mighty pissed. If some fucker, whatever his name, for political reasons outed a covert CIA agent and exposed her entire corporation to danger, as well as endanger our country because said corporation was monitoring WMDs in the world (like nuclear weapons in rogue nations), then I want the fucker to be hung. Or rot in fucking jail. I DO NOT want the media get into some big narcissistic circle-jerk about how the Supreme Court decision forcing Time to turn over the documents "will have a chilling affect on how newspeople do their job." AS IF THEY WERE DOING IT TO BEGIN WITH!

      Thank you, Howard Dean.

      by thinkdouble on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:21:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It depends on (4.00 / 15)

    what your definition of "disclose" is...IOW, it could be defined like this:
      "Karl Rove is disclose to going to jail..."

    --------
    Please don't bite the heads off the chocolate Elvises.

    by PBJ Diddy on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:34:49 AM PDT

  •  The record (4.00 / 2)

    We have Bush on record saying that he wants whoever is responsible brought to justice.

    We have on record who is responsible.

    It's like the distant sounds of gathering thunder. The storm is coming, there is no escape. At the very least, Rove's power will be broken. That alone is reason to celebrate. Anything else we get, jail time, scandal, additional indictments, will all be icing on the cake.

    The carefully constructed house of cards has been bumped, and the wobbling before the collapse will be fun to watch. Entropy has caught up with them, and there's no escaping it.

    OEF/OIF vet
    I've been called a left-wing extremist because I absolutely oppose torture. I can live with that.

    by jabbausaf on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 08:43:01 AM PDT

  •  Too much happening at once (4.00 / 7)

    I think that if this were an isolated scandal, the Bush-Rove-Cheney gang might just squeak it out through their control of the media and the Republican Congress.  The problem is that the war is going sour in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the fiscal chickens are beginning to roost.  Bush does not do the multi-task thing very well -- in fact, he doesn't even do the single-task thing well.  It is hard to see how they can make the mighty Wurlitzer roar again when the organ-grinder-in-chief is under indictment.

    Let's not forget there are people with very big scores to settle as well, the chief of whom would be the core of the CIA and the higher officers in the Army and the Marine Corps, who have to deal with the consequences of Bush's misguided war on a daily basis. If things on the ground are as bad as they seem to be (of course, none of us really know for sure) the defense and intelligence establishment might well be prepared to see both Bush and Cheney jettisoned to save what's left of our military capability.

    Knut

    by Knut Wicksell on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:00:50 AM PDT

  •  Rove arrives at CNN on-line . . . (4.00 / 3)

    CNN is actually carrying the Newsweek report as one of it's on-line headline articles.  Just amazing.

    CNN notes that "Rove's attorney told CNN his client did not disclose any confidential information."  

    I guess it all depends on what you mean by the word "confidential."

    by grace v on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:11:51 AM PDT

    •  Spin will be... (none / 0)

      That everyone knew Plame was a CIA agent and outing her was not leaking confidential info.  Question is what Rove said to Fitzgerald that may turn this into a perjury rap.

      Sometimes, out of the most ordinary looking vessel can flow the most extraordinary wine.

      by normcash on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:53:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Linking all the stories (3.60 / 5)

    The links are beginning to form between these "old news" stories revealing an elaborate conspiracy to defraud the American people on a whole host of issues.

    There are the war profitting allegations, very real election irregularities, the Energy policy at the start of his administration. There is the propaganda "war" that has been funded with taxpayer dollars to benefit this Administration's position and the BIG DADDY of all intrigues-9/11.

    Fraud is not just lying, it's leaving out important information with the intention of misleading.

    Obstructing Congress, misleading the American people, election rigging, conspiracy to defraud, human rights abuse, illegal attack and occupation of a sovereign nation, deaths of thousands of innocents, war profiteering, outing a covert agent, and treason.

    Just because the MSM doesn't have story doesn't mean there isn't one. They have not been doing the independent investigation that it takes to understand these issues.

    by hmbnancy on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:18:18 AM PDT

    •  Down boy (none / 1)

      There is no evidence the 9/11 was anything other than an attack on our country by al Quaeda, which the Bush Administration failed to stop due to their stunning incompetance.

      Certainly not the "BIG DADDY of all intrigues" -- the only intriguing thing is that their incompetance didn't lead to them being being kicked out of office.

      Please don't try to link your conspiracy theories to  the actual events to demonstrate that it is all part of a Giant Tapestry of Evil. There are enough real crimes with solid evidence in this administration to bring them down without making shit up.

      (Same goes with the election: there is no evidence of election rigging. There was vote suppression in Ohio, but nothing suggests that it was the margin of difference, and it hasn't been shown to go higher than the Ohio Sec. of State -- and many people would doubt that this has been shown. The belief that Bush lost the election is just Magical Wishful Thinking -- the sad truth is the American people just wanted to bomb some brown people.)

      (-7.38,-2.51) 76% of dKos readers think I'm a secret wing-nut operative!

      by Gustavo on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 11:22:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Olson and Estrada (none / 0)

    So Rove was "named as a source by two lawyers involved in the case who asked not to be identified."  I assume the two lawyers are Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada.  THAT makes me a little nervous.    

    Donate to ePluribus Media

    by lilnubber on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:30:28 AM PDT

  •  Going Down Down Down... (4.00 / 5)

    I hate the Bushies more and more every day...

    This is the diary I worked on the least, and this one makes the most recommended list.
    Hmmmmmmm...

    Rove and Bush and company are going Down Down Down
    in a burning ring of Fire!

    by Silence Do Good on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 09:38:19 AM PDT

  •  Nothing more needs to be said... (4.00 / 3)

    about the motives of Karl Rove.

    和平

    by aitoaster on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:08:02 AM PDT

  •  am i a pessimist? (none / 1)

    I've recommended this diary, and I've freeped up the yahoo story.. but I'm getting weary.. I've heard a lot of people here say "This is it!" over one thing or another: election fraud, DSM, and now Rove/Plame.. So far a few scratches, maybe some small dents, but I'm still waiting for the windshield to be smashed. Ah, well... keep trying..

    by young voter on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:16:50 AM PDT

    •  I'm afraid I agree with you. (none / 0)

      This roller coaster of hope and dispair has been going on nearly 5 years now.  A BJ nearly brought down Clinton but the most blatent f--kups don't blemish this administration.  

      We are good and they are bad but noone notices or cares.  My new mantra...No apologies ever!  Speak the truth and speak it strongly.  (More power to Howard.)  We owe them NOTHING!  They are a bunch of f--kups.

      </rant>

      Can I have my country back yet?

      by JulieIde on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 02:37:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fitzgerald (none / 0)

    What is the story on him? His history? I'm having a hard time believing that the Bush D.O.J. is going to bring Rove, Cheney, Bolton, etc. to their knees.

    by diana04 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:36:48 AM PDT

  •  Novak isn't a reporter (none / 0)

    he's a columnist.
    QED

    Give us back the America we trust and respect!!!

    by icerat on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:40:34 AM PDT

  •  So does this mean that Rove was also (none / 0)

    sleeping with Gannon?

    by lilorphant on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 10:52:12 AM PDT

  •  possibly but... (none / 0)

    Timing is too suspicious... And Novak would rat het out... she can offer him nothing. The Admin can offer him plenty.ANd if Plame was so careless that a reporter would have known who she was and that the company she worked for was false... well then Plame was not much of a CIA op.

    At the time this came out I thought there were stories that included the CIA talking to these reporters before it was printed and warning them not to. I have to go back and look at that... maybe they did not get involved until it was leaked... But you would think that the reporters would be rounded up and held until they taled... National Security thing. The fact they were not seems to imply bigger fish at work here.

    To give real service you must add something which cannot be bought or measured with money, and that is sincerity and integrity. -Douglas Adams

    by jigsaw68 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 12:07:46 PM PDT

  •  MSNBC's LINK TO THE ROVE STORY (none / 0)

    HE DID, HE DID, HE DID!!!!

    This little piggy goes bye-bye~!!! Please, please!!!!

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

    by Annalize5 on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 02:26:10 PM PDT

  •  jabberwocky (none / 1)

    since valerie plame was mrs. wilson's work name, as she was known to her friends and neighbors as mrs. valerie wilson (thereby prviding her some cover as a operative), is it not possible that rove simply said "valerie wilson?"  i know it may be spliting a hair, but this is the bush administration...

    _______________

    it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

    -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

    by dadanation on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 05:04:14 PM PDT

  •  The noose is tightening (none / 0)

    Rove about to be indicted
    Downing Street Memos, confirmed tru by Blair
    UK to withdraw from Iraq in 18 months..
    Bush approval in the toilet
    .
    .
    .

    Watergate blew open during a summer, didn't it ?

    Let the sun shine in!

    The Permanent Republican Majority lasted about as long as The Thousand Year Reich

    by lawnorder on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 05:17:50 PM PDT

  •  Apt timing, too. (none / 1)

    Independence. Perhaps this marks America's independence from the clutches of tyranny, once again. Given, it was a long road the first time, and it will undoubtedly be long this time. However, there's momentum now. More than ever before. This is the rumbling before the shitstorm for them, and it can mean nothing but good tidings for we who have held out for freedom.

    Nebraska Progressive: Red only on Saturdays.

    by BullitNutz on Mon Jul 04, 2005 at 05:22:21 PM PDT

Permalink | 143 comments