HomePoliticsSenate Dems: Rove is Innocent Senate Dems: Rove is Innocent Mary Katharine Ham July 14, 2005 Politics 28 Comments So, Democrats find it necessary to create a NEW LAW in order to make Karl Rove guilty. Is there any better evidence that he is innocent? Rehnquist Says He's Not Stepping Down Any Time Soon DC Graffiti Artist "Borf" Arrested Related Posts Impeachment Circus Officially Begins How *not* to get a spokesman for your cause "Bush Was Right" About The Author Mary Katharine Ham 28 Comments Brad Warbiany July 14, 2005 Someone needs to remind them that if they do this, they won’t be able to furnish the Chinese with classified military documents anymore. (That being said, I think stripping security clearance from someone who leaks classified information just makes plain sense (with an exception for whistleblower status, to be sure). You don’t give an alcoholic a ride to happy hour, do you?) frameone July 14, 2005 “Is there any better evidence that he is innocent?” Surely you jest. Cousin Dave July 14, 2005 Hmm. You’d think at least a few of these Democrats might have heard of the term “ex post facto” and what the Constitution has to say about it. Didn’t any of them take civics? Jim July 14, 2005 Please, please let these both pass. In a very short time, every Democrat on the hill would be without secruity status, which would throw them off all the important committees as well. SilverBubble July 14, 2005 I was thinking the same thing, Cousin Dave. But these are Congressmen we are talking about here. A little bit each of redundancy and must be accounted for in the equation. Bryan C July 14, 2005 Wouldn’t that be prosecuting Rove based on an ex-post-facto law? Isn’t that, like explicitly unconstitutional? Frist’s amendment is bloody genius though. Just Me July 14, 2005 Well shoot looks like Frist may have some balls after all. Phillep July 14, 2005 LOL Rove is so good at deranging D’himmis that they are going to save his butt just so they can shoot themselves in the foot again. This is going to be fun, considering the Dems do most of the leaking. Jill July 14, 2005 How about a law that no one can work on the President’s staff who doesn’t have security clearance. But wait, that would have eliminated most of Clinton’s people. nikita demosthenes July 14, 2005 Kevin: Two serious questions about the whole Valerie Plame Affair. 1. When Joe Wilson went to Niger on behalf of the CIA, wouldn’t he have signed a document saying he would not disclose or discuss the matter publicly? Wouldn’t this be standard procedure? If so, then why isn’t Wilson breaking the law – or at least CIA regulations – everytime he runs his mouth (and writes op-ed pieces and books) about his trip? 2. Doesn’t the CIA – and the Federal Government generally – have rules against nepotism? If so, why isn’t Valerie Plame and her supervisory chain at Langley in trouble for sending her house-husband, Joe Wilson, on the Niger “investigation.” And why isn’t the mainstream press asking the above simple questions? -nikita demosthenes P.S. Don’t you think the real explanation for the whole Plame story is the Left’s desire to discredit Rove? They did the same thing with Newt Gingrich. Any effective Republican – e.g., Newt Gingrich or Karl Rove – is targeted by the Left to try to diminish their future effectiveness. Rove may work for future Republican candidates. If he does, he’ll beat the Democrat candidate like he always does. The Left knows this. This is why one of their main agenda items for Bush’s second term is to tarnish Rove’s reputation. They hope this may discourage future Republican candidates from using Rove as their political strategist. This is the entire story behind these endless attacks on Rove based on the Joe Wilson non-story. Chris July 14, 2005 OK, now you’re just being idiots. The Democratic amendment is undoubtedly political, although it could be intended to also clear up the questions raised about the intent of the law Rove is accused of breaking. But there’s no indication that the Dems think the law can be applied to Rove. Some of the people on this board are pretty reasonable, but some of you are so deep into the Kool-Aid that I’m afraid you’ll drown. You start with some fallacious idea you pull out of your ass, then waste tons of electrons talking about how stupid the Dems are for having come up with it. Jeez. And since the Frist amendment is designed to serve the same political purpose as the Reid amendment, how is one stupid and one briliant? Aren’t you concerned that the misguided Republicans think they can apply the new law to Dick Durbin? Mrs. Davis July 14, 2005 The Democrats are stupid because they think this will pass or have some PR value. The Republicans are brilliant because they’re giving everyone a good laugh at the expense of the Democrats. Really, this is worthy of a Saturday Night Live skit. -S- July 14, 2005 Well, they’ve certainly got TNYTimes on it’s way to rewriting history! I can tell frameone and the Senate Demos have not read this: ‘PROSECUTOR: KARL ROVE NOT TARGET OF PROBE.’ Or, this: ‘JOE WILSON’S TOP TEN WORST INACCURACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS’ Too busy with non reality, I guess. -S- July 14, 2005 Someone please wake Nancy Pelosi up out of that trance she’s been in for a while now, and give Howard Dean a competency evaluation — if ever there was an individual who has singlehandedly set back the public respect and regard for physicians, it is Howard The Lunatic Dean. -S- July 14, 2005 And, what is up with Hillary Clinton’s head bopping? I expect her to start saying, “arrrghhhh” at any moment now. The Senate Democrats have set a new standard for Down. Or is it, “Low”? Somehow, it doesn’t matter at this moment that we distinguish between the two: both work well for the illustrious wreckage that are today’s Senate Democrats. Someone of concern July 14, 2005 What you just said made no sense. Even FOX News and your other loonies on the right side of the political spectrum admit he was guilty. Get out of the closet and wake up to reality. earth July 14, 2005 Joe Wilson wears a penis gourd. chad July 14, 2005 Who knows anything about Larry C. Johnston of Berg Associates? He was on the Dave Ross show on KIRO 710AM in Seattle today. I heard about halfo the interview he did, but basically he was challenging Victoria Tensinggton on her interpreation of the law Rove is accused of having broken among other things. In the course of what I heard he claimed: a. He was a Republican b. He had been a CIA agent who worked with “Vickie” c. Victoria Plame was still undercover while stationed at Langley. d. That Rove knew who she was and her undercover status e. That Plame was covered under the law in question because she had continued to travel overseas f. That Victoria Plame’s supervisor had approached her and asked her if her husband would travel to Niger. He stated that he couldn’t give that supervisors name because he was still undercover. In addition the Senate Republicans had never asked him if that were true. g. That Vice President Cheney had instituted this trip. h. That Wilson had unequically said tht Niger was never approached about Uraniam by Iraq. i. Thta he didnt know whether or not Wilson had lied but if he had at least it hadn’t killed anyone. George Bush had lied about WMD and that had killed 2000 Americans. I have never heard of this guy before but I google him and came up with his bio: http://www.berg-associates.com/larryc.htm basically he was a state dept. offical in the Clinton Era as well as 4 years as a CIA officer. Some of his writing / interviews are interesting as well: from an interview with Frontline “[Is it] … fair to say what you’re saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]? They’re grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn’t be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying “terrorism’s rising,” it’s not. “Terrorism is spreading,” it’s not. “More people are dying from terrorism,” not the case. But what they should be saying is, “There’s one individual out there that really doesn’t like us, and he’s made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we’ve gotta deal with him.” But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what’s taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.” from the berg associates website: http://www.berg-associates.com/newpage11.htm Yet, terrorism is not war. It is a form of political violence but we should not confuse it with the massive commitment of ground, sea, and air forces that typify a genuine war. More men died in one day on Omaha Beach in 1944 than died from terrorism in the last ten years. Terrorism can be used to provoke a war (e.g. World War I), but its value as a tactic for shifting political fortunes is limited. We have had some important successes capturing and deterring terrorists. Our experience over the past decade suggests instead that sound policies, aggressive law enforcement, and good intelligence yield important results in containing terrorism. Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that groups and individuals that advocate terrorism are losing support rather than winning adherents. For the United States and other nations the task is maintain pressure on states and groups that engage in terrorism by disrupting their capabilities and limiting their targets of opportunity. By doing so we will improve our chances that terrorism will become an isolated, rare phenomena. from cooperative research: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=larry_c._johnson Quote, early June 2003 “We’ve entered the world of George Orwell. I’m disgusted. The truth has to be told. We can’t allow our leaders to use bogus information to justify war.” [Sunday Herald, 6/8/03] and apparently he wrote something called “The War on Clarke” Now maybe this guy doesn’t have an axe to grind, but I would sure like to know more. Personally I will be e-mailing KIRO asking for a comment if I get one I will let you know. If anyone else knows anything that would be interesting too. BTW if you don’t know who Dave Ross is he is a tlak show host in Seattle who filed for Congress then refuse to give up his show. frameone July 14, 2005 Um, S, what are youtalking about? Rove is a subject of the investigation but that doesn’t mean he can’t become a target, a legal classification that’s one step away from being a defendant. I’m not sure why you think that’s good news. Indeed, did you see this: “Legal experts said the evidence that has emerged in recent days — including confirmation that Rove and Cooper spoke about Plame’s role at the CIA as a way of knocking down a damaging story about the administration’s Iraq policy — does not by itself necessarily indicate a crime was committed. Even so, White House officials acknowledged privately that they are concerned that the investigation will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year.” Rove may not be a target but he sure is sweating. Which can be the only reason the GOP feels it necessary to slime Wilson also over again with their gagging points. The bottom line is that not a single one of those talking points (and good lord how could I miss them, Republicans have been regurgitating them all over the airwaves) has anything do with Fitzgerald’s investigation. Not one iota. But of those ten talking points half out outright lies and most of the other half are massive distortions. So good luck with that smear campaign boys. Oh and by the way, did you read this: “Wilson’s Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a8dab8rni_Do&refer=us# voodoo charlie July 14, 2005 don’t matter if Rove is innocent; he was caught red handed leaking information. he should quit. he is putting this all on GW. have some decency, Rove, step down, you got caught. it happens. he can still work for Bush on the down low, but no more white house; he can’t be trusted. what info does he use next? vc frameone July 14, 2005 the link to the first quote above: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302343.html John July 14, 2005 don’t matter if Rove is innocent; he was caught red handed leaking information. he should quit. he is putting this all on GW. have some decency, Rove, step down, you got caught. it happens. he can still work for Bush on the down low, but no more white house; he can’t be trusted. what info does he use next? Joe Wilson leaked information. I guess if leaking information helps Democrats its whistleblowing and if leaking information hurts Democrats its a crime. chad July 14, 2005 Well as long as we are throwing out dueling newspaper articles: http://nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?ei=5094&en=15d2c0ff1133350b&hp=&ex=1121400000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print “Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.” “The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove’s conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson’s identity.” “Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. Mr. Novak said he knew that in contrast to Mr. Wilson’s suggestion in his Op-Ed article that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney’s interest in the matter, Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of his wife.” “Mr. Rove’s allies have stressed that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife’s career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.” So that’s two reporters who called Rove to ask him about the story instead of the accepted hypothsis that he was shopping the story. Any bets that the famous Chris Matthews “Fair Game” quote came in a call instituted by Matthews? Mary Katharine July 15, 2005 I was offline last night. Sorry I missed the discussion. A couple quick items for Chris, who said there is nothing to suggest the law could apply to Rove. The text of the amendment refers to any federal employee who “discloses or has disclosed.” That makes it pretty clear it’s not just a good-faith law looking to solve a security problem in the future. McGehee July 15, 2005 Even FOX News and your other loonies on the right side of the political spectrum admit he was guilty. Guilty of what? HIGH TREASON!!!, as some of your ilk have been insisting for the last few days? <snicker> Red Five July 15, 2005 I haven’t heard any of the “right wing loonies” state that Rove was guilty. In fact, quite the opposite. Rove can’t be guilty of disclosing confidential information if: 1. That information was no longer confidential 2. He had no knowledge of the confidential information All Rove appears to have been told was that Wilson’s wife, Plame, sent Wilson on the nuclear wild goose chase, which Wilson attempted to blame on Cheney and then turn against the Bush Administration. Rove does not appear to have been told that Plame was under cover, so he had no way of knowing that. Then, when the Time reporter called, Rove warned him about publishing the story (which was probably negative to the Administration) when the facts weren’t correct. He proceeded to indicate that Wilson’s wife (left unnamed here) sent him off to Niger, not the White House. Besides, I don’t trust WaPo or Bloomberg to be completely honest in their reports. WaPo is most likely grabbing at straws in order to keep the heat on Rove, now that the available proof acquits him. DUNUT July 15, 2005 Rover is gilte and wil go to Adu gravy an get pist on with a Koran TKO July 16, 2005 I agree that anyone in government committing a crime should resign immediately. If they don’t, it proves that they are only acting in their self-interest; not of the country. So, why didn’t Slick Willie resign when he committed perjury? And by the way, here’s something to think about: London was bombed, yet the American media couldn’t have cared less. They wanted Rove’s head on a stick at any cost. Now that it’s been proven that Rove has done nothing wrong, where is the coverage reporting it? Tell me the media doesn’t skew Left.