Posted on 07/17/2005 6:35:08 AM PDT by NathanBookman
Rove's lawyer says that there has been no wrongdoing, and that the prosecutor has told him that Rove is not a "target" of the probe. But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: that he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil. (snip) Under a 1982 law, it's a felony to intentionally disclose the name of a "covered" agent with the intent to harm national security. Under another, older statute, it could also be a felony to willfully disclose information from a classified document—which the State Department memo and, apparently, the Condi briefing book were. There is no indication that Rove saw the briefing book (Rumsfeld didn't get one) or that anyone disclosed classified information. (snip) And if Rove knew Plame's identity, as Novak says, how did Rove learn it? A source close to Rove has said Rove never saw the State memo. The same source told NEWSWEEK last week that Rove "doesn't remember" where he heard the crucial information about Wilson's wife. But, the source said, Rove is "pretty sure he heard it directly or indirectly from a media source." The source close to Rove later acknowledged that Rove had been questioned by investigators about conversations he may have had with Libby, Cheney's chief of staff. Rove couldn't recall any specific exchange with Libby about Wilson's wife, the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
It is a lib, either Wilson or one of the reporters, and the longer this drags on, the more likely one of them will go to jail. (goodie, goodie)
can you be more specific?
FWIW, for the last week or so I have been on a driving trip through the northeastern part of the country. As an experiment, when the opportunity presents itself, I have engaged people in conversation and eventually asked them their thoughts on this. Obviously, this is not scientific. But so far, exactly zero folks have any more than the slightest information about this. And those that have had knowledge has passed it off to "political games."
I visited Massachusetts, home to many liberals, where I played this game extra hard. Only around the suburbs of Boston did I find anyone that had more than a passing interest in this story.
Given this, I wonder what the RATS game is? Perhaps they are following the theory that if you throw enough darts eventually you'll hit the bullseye?
Personally, I'd prefer they stick to business. This country has plenty enough problems that need to be solved without coming up with these "amuse the public" schemes.
If I might digress a little, why do we need these games? It seems to me this phenomenon started with the O.J. trial. Scott Peterson, Robert Blake, Wacko Jacko (twice!), it just goes on and on. Do we need this "entertainment?" If so, why? We didn't need it 15 years ago. Why now?
Perhaps it has been brought on by the many 24/7 cable "news" outlets?
I'm not really that good at linking or I would link the article. It is the article after Newsweek's article on the prosecutor by Isakoff. I consider it's by Bush hater Isokoff but the tone of the article was disturbing. If you can't find it let me know and I'll try to do a link.
Oh, STFU, Howard.
I guess any time now, Dan Rather will show up with forged documents "proving" Rove is guilty.
Can you just repost the critical sentence and why you think it's disconcerting?
You are right. This is as much of a non story as was Abu Graib, no, more so.
The problem is...BY EVERYONES CONCLUSION...she was not an agent at the time. The beef really was...Cheney didn't appoint Wilson and it appears the WH didn't even know Wilson was going.
THERE WAS NEVER A WRITTEN REPORT BY WILSON. Why??
Tommorrow's MSM/lib/dem game? DEMS SAY BARNEY THE DOG MUST BE FIRED AND BUSH MUST DIVORCE LAURA BECAUSE NEITHER ONE IS TALKING.
I read it and don't think that last part is a big deal. In fact the article implies he hates reporters more so. I am sure he is used to calls from lawyers trying to get a read on his thoughts. He couldn't tell Luskin "No, don't need anything else", cause he he Luskin would go right to the press and say Rove is in the clear. In fact, Fitzgerald not saying anything is better then answering "Yes, get Rove in here now!!!"
I would be more concerned about how Cooper spun things in his testimony. I heard that on Meet the Press Cooper said this was a war on Wilson. Cooper was probably pissed that Luskin told National Review that Cooper burned Karl.
The best part of your Newsweek article "Associates say Fitzgerald is wary of reporters, dating back to his days trying terrorist cases...Fitzgerald had accused Miller of compromising a probe into Islamic charities by phoning one of the groups just before a government crackdown."
As I understood the "take the bait" phrase, it was ROVE's comment to the WH security on trying to be sucked into naming the source. We'd better confirm what this phrase means, because, I admit when I saw it I thought it exonerated Rove.
Thank you. I purchased a new laptop and haven't learned how to link on it like the old computer. thanks.
You're welcome. I am the most computer0inept person on the internet, so this is a huge ego boost for me. ;)
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.