Mirage Escorts

Rove Indictment in the Plame Case ?

Previous Thread Next Thread
V

Vietor

New member
Dec 21, 2004
138
0
0
TO, I see that you are back to your "cut & paste" nonsense. Quoting someone who has to make up words to express his.her opinion doesn't count for much in my book. In fact, are you aware that such activity is a sign of schizophrenia?

What you apparently can't understand in this thread is the difference between allegations and proof. Indictments are issued based upon allegations that meet each of the elements of proof. In our country, now please pay attention to this, proof of each of the elements of a crime must be beyond a reasonable doubt. As much as you and those you choose to cut & paste may like to think, your opinions (and those who may disagree with you) amount in a court of law to less than a pile of squat.

If an indictment is issued and if such indictment includes allegations that Plame was a covert officer as defined by the applicable section of the USC, such allegations will be tested in a court. We can then observe whether, or to what extent, any violation has occurred. Until that time all else is speculation.
 
T

tompeepin

Unbanned (for now) ;)
Mar 17, 2004
846
0
0
limbo
tv-celebs.com
Here let me be schizophrenic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Novak

"* 1980 and 1992 Karl Rove, Novak connections

Twice Novak was reportedly involved in situations leading to Karl Rove being fired from political campaigns: first in 1980 from George H.W. Bush's vice-presidential campaign, and second in 1992, while working for Bush's reelection campaign. Both times Rove was fired from the staff for leaking campaign information to Novak. Rove and Novak both deny that Rove was the source.[5]

* 2003-current Plame Affair

In 2003, he disclosed the identity of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame in his newspaper column. Novak reported the information was provided to him by "senior administration officials." The leak and allegations of a possible cover-up are currently being investigated. During 2005, there have been questions in the press regarding the apparent absence of focus on Novak by the special prosecutor Fitzgerald and the grand jury, specifically questions suggesting he may have already testified about his sources despite insisting publicly that he would not do so. Alternatively, it has been speculated, Fitzgerald is ultimately planning to target Novak for possibly colluding with his White House sources to tell the same story regarding the leak, which if true would constitute obstruction of justice."

Interesting. And yes speculating in all any of us can do. :p
 
T

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Vietor said:
TO, I see that you are back to your "cut & paste" nonsense. Quoting someone who has to make up words to express his.her opinion doesn't count for much in my book. In fact, are you aware that such activity is a sign of schizophrenia?

What you apparently can't understand in this thread is the difference between allegations and proof. Indictments are issued based upon allegations that meet each of the elements of proof. In our country, now please pay attention to this, proof of each of the elements of a crime must be beyond a reasonable doubt. As much as you and those you choose to cut & paste may like to think, your opinions (and those who may disagree with you) amount in a court of law to less than a pile of squat.

If an indictment is issued and if such indictment includes allegations that Plame was a covert officer as defined by the applicable section of the USC, such allegations will be tested in a court. We can then observe whether, or to what extent, any violation has occurred. Until that time all else is speculation.
Click to expand...

No Vietor what you seem to have trouble getting through that skull of yours is this:

1. The CIA wanted the Justice Department to investigate the leak because, yes, Plame was covert.

2. The Justice Department decided to investigate because, yes, Plame was covert.

3. The three judge panel (2 of whom are Republicans) put Judy Miller in jail and threatened Matt Cooper with jail because, yes, Plame was covert.

The question of whether or not she was covert ops has been decided to the satisfaction of the CIA, the Justice Department, and a three judge panel. Whether you think that they will have a hard time convincing a jury of that is wishful thinking on your part.

You see, Vietor, Fitzgerald is going after the top guys in this administration because they chose to put party above country. Something that you seem to have no problem doing as well.

If you read detailled articles about this case, as I do, you will find that there are new names on a wall in Langley, that symbolize CIA agents who have died while defending their country. Some of those names are rather new, coming only after the Plame outing.

Yes I do understand quite well the distinction between allegations and proof. I also understand that NO ONE would have let this investigation go on for so long and reach so high, without being very, very sure of the veracity and depth of the information uncovered.

So I will repeat the allegation directed at you: you display wanton dumbassitude in continuing to defend the thugs and traitors who blithely named Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, all in the name of protecting a lie -- a lie that has cost almost 2,000 lives.
 
T

The Mugger

Guest
Sep 27, 2005
592
0
0
tompeepin said:
I must have missed it somewhere but has Robert Novak had to reveal his sources? If not why not? If he refuses to reveal his sources he should have had to go to jail. This whole loop of "I did not know or mention the "name"" and "I did not break any laws" is bullshit.
Click to expand...
He coughed up the names as soon as the White house made the blanket statement that released reporters from obligations.

The other reporters wanted private assurances that this release was not done under duress and that's why one of them went to jail.

Novak proved what what most journalist thought of him - a slime ball. His temper tantrum on CNN and this incident has dried up all his sources and his bread and butter column is facing falling readership. Thank God - this fool should have retired years ago.
 
T

tompeepin

Unbanned (for now) ;)
Mar 17, 2004
846
0
0
limbo
tv-celebs.com
The Mugger said:
... Novak proved what what most journalist thought of him - a slime ball. ...
Click to expand...
You see, we agree more than it would seem. :)
 
T

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Lawrence O'Donnell was the first to cite Karl Rove as Matt Cooper's source in the Plame outing.

He has just completed an interview, with the following prediction:

"At least three high level Bush Administration personnel indicted and possibly one or more very high level unindicted co-conspirators."

My reading of "very high" is Rove, Cheney, and/or Bush.

As I have said before, Nixon resigned after being charged as an unindicted co-conspirator.

Add to this criminal mischief is the fact that Joe Wiilson and his wife will be filing a civil suit against members of the Bush adminstration. Think that a civil suit is no big deal? Remember that while OJ beat the criminal rap, he was found guilty in the following civil suit. It's easier to prove guilt in a civil suit than a criminal one. Troubles for Bushco are far from over.
 
T

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
And meanwhile ... Rove sucker punches Libby

Sharks in the waters! Throw him overboard!

Rove Told Jury Libby May Have Been His Source In Leak Case
Top Aides Talked Before Plame's Name Was Public
By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 20, 2005; A01

White House adviser Karl Rove told the grand jury in the CIA leak case that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, may have told him that CIA operative Valerie Plame worked for the intelligence agency before her identity was revealed, a source familiar with Rove's account said yesterday.

In a talk that took place in the days before Plame's CIA employment was revealed in 2003, Rove and Libby discussed conversations they had had with reporters in which Plame and her marriage to Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson IV were raised, the source said. Rove told the grand jury the talk was confined to information the two men heard from reporters, the source said.

Rove has also testified that he also heard about Plame from someone else outside the White House, but could not recall who.

The account is the first time a person familiar with Rove's testimony has provided clues about where the deputy chief of staff learned about Plame, and confirmed that Rove and Libby were involved in a conversation about her before her identity became public. The disclosure seemed to further undermine the White House's contention early in the case that neither man was in any way involved in unmasking Plame.
Click to expand...
 
T

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
Ooops ... looks like it's gonna be bad.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/p...&en=0304bde7ed94ce48&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Cover-Up Issue Is Seen as Focus in Leak Inquiry
By DAVID JOHNSTON
Published: October 21, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 - As he weighs whether to bring criminal charges in the C.I.A. leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special counsel, is focusing on whether Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, sought to conceal their actions and mislead prosecutors, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

Among the charges that Mr. Fitzgerald is considering are perjury, obstruction of justice and false statement - counts that suggest the prosecutor may believe the evidence presented in a 22-month grand jury inquiry shows that the two White House aides sought to cover up their actions, the lawyers said.

Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby have been advised that they may be in serious legal jeopardy, the lawyers said, but only this week has Mr. Fitzgerald begun to narrow the possible charges. The prosecutor has said he will not make up his mind about any charges until next week, government officials say.

With the term of the grand jury expiring in one week, though, some lawyers in the case said they were persuaded that Mr. Fitzgerald had all but made up his mind to seek indictments. None of the lawyers would speak on the record, citing the prosecutor's requests not to talk about the case.
Click to expand...
Cover up? You mean like Nixon? You mean like "it's not the sex, it's the lies?"
 
W

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
47,044
6,058
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
langeweile said:
I am taking orders for "Humble Pie"..LOL

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051021/D8DCNVGO0.html
Click to expand...
Maybe you will be eating 'Crow' instead....LOL

Legal Problems Dog Bush's Inner Circle

WASHINGTON - It's a nightmare prospect that Republicans have trouble fathoming: legal problems that could drive some of the president's most powerful aides from office.

A special prosecutor and grand jury are closing in on a deadline to decide whether to lodge criminal complaints against presidential adviser Karl Rove and White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of
Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051022/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_replacements
 
L

lonely guy

New member
Jul 10, 2005
82
0
0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far, it's been all one-sided. In a grand jury, you go in without an attourny and an indictment can be as easy as a "ham sandwich". Get this in the hands of a good defense lawyer and observe.

They guy could had pleaded the fifth (he didn't). Heck, he even turned in his notes.

He wasn't charged for the original purpose of "outing" a CIA agent (don't think it was possible considering how the 1982 law was written) , it's now secondary charges after the investigation has started. Some people call that a "perjury trap" or a "shotgun indictment".

If he's proven innocent in court, how does he get his reputation back???
 
T

The Mugger

Guest
Sep 27, 2005
592
0
0
lonely guy said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If he's proven innocent in court, how does he get his reputation back???
Click to expand...
You can never be found innocent in court, you can only be found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom