Posted on 07/12/2005 5:53:00 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The phony controversy, which featured reporters asking 30 questions about this matter at the Monday White House press briefing, demonstrates how Republicans and conservatives come under fire for doing nothing wrong. No matter how many questions they ask, there is still no evidence that Rove broke the law.
The White House position-that Rove did not disclose classified information-remains intact. The only new development is that the White House will not say anything further on the case, which is somehow being interpreted by the liberal press as a contradiction of what the White House previously said. But there is no contradiction. It's wise to refrain from comment when New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who may have some critical testimony and might be able to exonerate Bush administration officials of deliberately leaking Plame's name, refuses to talk. It is possible that Miller could set the record straight about who told what to whom and where the information about Plame came from. It could have come from Miller, who has a waiver from her "source" to talk about the case to a grand jury but decided to go to jail instead. Rather than speculate on Miller's motives, the liberal press would rather hype the Rove story into something it is not, in an obvious effort to damage the Bush administration.
The Washington Post media reporter, Howard Kurtz, jumped on the bandwagon, saying that "politically, this is a bombshell. Rove, who has insisted he did not leak Plame's name, had something to do with this effort, even if he didn't 'name' her."
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
I don't like that line...sounds way too much like....
"No controlling legal authority"
LVM
ping
If Plame was undercover, how would Rove know about it?
It will be an interesting interview if Moran shows.
Just another rope-a-dope.
Just once, I'd like to see McClellan answer the reporters with a question. I would like to see him ask the reporters why the NYT called for an independent council investigation into an issue that they knew was not an issue? And, why the NYT called for Novak to reveal his sources but don't think that they need to obey the law and reveal their sources. Who are they protecting? Are they just covering their own collective asses by refusing to admit that they knew that Rove did not break the law or reveal the name of a CIA officer to get back at the lying husband?
O"reilly was totally uninformed about this story tonight. Newt was great; Oreilly was in the dark. I was surprised how little Mr. O knew about this topic. The invitation to Mr. Moron was regarding his comment at the presser today wherein he said that "fox is friendly to this administration".
Bill Press is now on Hannity basically saying that Karl Rove is worse than Ethel and Julius Rosenberg.
Rove " committed treason and put our national security at risk."
Roved broke no law. Ironically, he was trying to give good information to a Time bullslinger. Since when is the truth a crime, especially since it was common knowledge that Plame was a deskjocky at CIA, not covert, not out of the nation since 1993, on the DC cocktail circuit, outed in 1999 on her own husband's website...man, the list goes on and on...
>I don't like that line...sounds way too much like.... "No controlling legal authority" LVM
There's "no evidence" that LasVegasMac "broke the law" either. But that would sound too much like "No controlling legal authority" so we'll just have to assume you are guilty (of what I don't know, but we'll find something...).
You're right, O'Reilly didn't know the facts at all. I was stunned.
Right. He said, to take just one example of how unprepared he was on the issue, "...Wilson's wife who was an undercover CIA agent in a foreign country...." That's totally false. She hadn't been working abroad since 1994 - nearly 10 years before this silly kerfluffle. She was just doing an office job at CIA HQ at Langley, but O'Reilly didn't even know that much.
Thanks for pointing it out, Laverne.
Char :)
Bill was not very informed on this issue, Newt had to set him straight. Bill needs to spend some time reading FR threads he'd learn more.
It could have been said this way:
"All evidence indicates that Rove was well within the parameters of the duly established law in this case."
The two sentences mean the same thing.
I sent Mr. O an email about this; told him to bone up on his facts, and that I looked forward to his "real" report on this issue once he gained some insight! I truly was stunned how ignorant he was on it.
The Time magazine reporter went to Rove and Cheney's office to find out if that was true. Cheney said he never heard of Wilson.
We don't know if the Time reporter talked to Cheney or Rove first. In any event the Time reporter would not have told Rove what Cheney had told him. What the Reporter did to Rove was ask,"Is it true that Cheney hired Wilson to got to Niger to find out if Saddam was trying to buy WMD?" Rove told the reporter what Wilson claimed was not true. Rove told the reporter that Cheney did not get Wilson the job... that Wilson's wife had gotten him the job.
That is the story.
It is also true that the Special Prosecutor has said that Rove is not a target of the investigation. If Rove were not in the clear, the special prosecutor would not have said h was.
It is interesting how the New York Times handles the notes situation. Every news organization for whom I worked .. including my own stations asserted that all work product.. including reporters notes were the property of the station. News organizations do that so reporters can't cover a story while being paid by a news organization and then sell that same news product to another news out let.
But the New York times to avoid liability for not turning over notes and work product claims that all notes are the property of the reporter. That way the reporter goes to jail for not turning over notes and not the publisher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.