|
Armitage admits he was Novak's source
|
But, but, but, but, but, but, we still don't have real proof that Rove was involved... rotfl
|
Originally Posted by bfrank
Well, perhaps first he should be tried in a court of law. not public opinion. Its not clear whether it was common knowledge she worked at the CIA or whether this constitutes an illegal leak under the law. Oh wait, he's conservative, we don't need no stinking trials, lawyers, juries. String him up. Isn't that the cry? |
Originally Posted by bfrank
-- George W. Bush on the Plame Investigation University of Chicago September 30, 2003 " |
Originally Posted by OldDude
Well, perhaps first he should be tried in a court of law. not public opinion. Its not clear whether it was common knowledge she worked at the CIA or whether this constitutes an illegal leak under the law.
Oh wait, he's conservative, we don't need no stinking trials, lawyers, juries. String him up. Isn't that the cry? Valerie Plume was leading an investigation into black-marked WMDs when Rove spilled her name. He risked the lives of not only Plame, but everyone who ever associated with her. If this is true, he commited treason... and worse, he did it in the name of shutting up a whistleblower, someone trying to speak the truth about the Administration. That's a double whammy. Oh, and by the way... when Bill Clinton lied about getting a hummer in the White House... were you one of the ones leading the lynch mob? |
1. If he did it - there should be legal consequences.
2. A bj was not all that WJC lied about (under oath), but let's not digress. |
Originally Posted by DVD Polizei
But, but, but, but, but, but, we still don't have real proof that Rove was involved... rotfl
|
How did he risk her life?
Here is the Newsweek article. In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... " |
If she was a 'protected operative' under the law, does it make it any difference whether he risked her life? Wouldn't he, by merely disclosing her name, violate the law?
|
Originally Posted by JasonF
I think you mean "But, but, but, but, but, but, but if Time had the goods on Rove, they would have sold him out immediately because the liberal media hates Republicans."
|
Originally Posted by classicman2
If she was a 'protected operative' under the law, does it make it any difference whether he risked her life? Wouldn't he, by merely disclosing her name, violate the law?
No. And I will stand by my statement. If he, or any official, violated the law, the should pay the price. I still haven't seen whether or not any law was broken here. |
Originally Posted by classicman2
If she was a 'protected operative' under the law, does it make it any difference whether he risked her life? Wouldn't he, by merely disclosing her name, violate the law?
EDIT: BTW, does anyone have a link to Cooper's original article. The NW peice says he mentioned the Plame connection in passing. I looked for it last week, but came up empty. |
Originally Posted by NCMojo
Surely you're kidding.
|
The Newsweek email doesn't show that he named her at all. I don't see "Valerie Plame" anywhere in there. What does this take to be illegal?
|
Originally Posted by wmansir
Quite possibly. I was just calling out what I see as overblown rhetoric.
EDIT: BTW, does anyone have a link to Cooper's original article. The NW peice says he mentioned the Plame connection in passing. I looked for it last week, but came up empty. |
Originally Posted by natesfortune
The Newsweek email doesn't show that he named her at all. I don't see "Valerie Plame" anywhere in there. What does this take to be illegal?
Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) If Rove -- purposefully or inadvertantly -- revealed the identity of a CIA agent or operative, it is treason, and a violation of US law. |
Originally Posted by Pharoh
No.
And I will stand by my statement. If he, or any official, violated the law, the should pay the price. I still haven't seen whether or not any law was broken here. I've heard arguments on both sides - she was & she wasn't. Regardless - Rove was somewhat releckless if he disclosed her name. |
Originally Posted by OldDude
Ahh, so he shouldn't be tried first. That's what I thought. :lol:
But that won't happen. Bush will step in and issue a pardon for his "pit bull". At that point, how would you feel about your President? Would you still support him? If you don't mind, I'd like to quote your response for posterity, so think carefully about your response. |
Originally Posted by NCMojo
And remember -- Cooper is essentially background confirmation for Novack.
If Rove -- purposefully or inadvertantly -- revealed the identity of a CIA agent or operative, it is treason, and a violation of US law. Treason? I don't believe it rises to the level of treason. |
Originally Posted by classicman2
I said 'if' she was a protected operative under the statute....
I've heard arguments on both sides - she was & she wasn't. Regardless - Rove was somewhat releckless if he disclosed her name. Please list a credible source that suggests that Plame was not a protected operative. |
Legal definition of Treason
Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution. |
Originally Posted by classicman2
We exaggerate a little, don't we?
Treason? I don't believe it rises to the level of treason. |
Originally Posted by classicman2
Legal definition of Treason
Treason. A breach of allegiance to one's government, usually committed through levying war against such government or by giving aid or comfort to the enemy. The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power. Treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy, and rendering him aid and comfort. Cramer v. U. S., U.S.N.Y., 325 U.S. l, 65 S.Ct. 918, 9327 89 L.Ed. 1441. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 2381. A person can be convicted of treason only on the testimony of two witnesses, or confession in open court. Art. III, Sec. 3, U.S. Constitution. |
Read the legal definiton.
Assuming the worse, you can't seriously believe what Rove did rises to level of treason. |
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 AM. |
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.