Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Rove Problem
Time ^ | 7/21/05 | Nancy Gibbs

Posted on 07/21/2005 8:24:53 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

Did Bush's top aide commit a crime talking to reporters about a spy? Here's what the case is really about--and why it grows more fascinating

Valerie Plame had no reason to welcome a reporter into her home last week. Reporters tell stories and trade secrets, and her life, once a state secret, had become one of the most widely told stories in years. As if anyone could resist it: beautiful blond mother of two whose identity as a CIA spy is compromised by a political vendetta against her husband.

She opens the door of her brick house on the leafy Washington side street, a few turns from the German embassy. A Jaguar convertible sits in the driveway, the toys and bikes in the garage. There are...

(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cialeak; news
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
To: Cyber Liberty

I rarely ad to the title any longer, too much bitching about it not being in the article


21 posted on 07/21/2005 10:17:18 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (I take the Ginsburg)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Yeah, I can see that. Take me for an example...lol.

Seeing "Time" as the source is usually enough for fair warning.

22 posted on 07/21/2005 10:23:04 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (© 2005, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I rarely ad to the title any longer, too much bitching about it not being in the article

Yeah, but this is in the projectile vomit category.
I move for a rules change: Barf Alerts should be mandatory for anything from Time, NYT, LAT, WP, AP, Reuters - okay, I get the point. Never mind...

23 posted on 07/21/2005 10:28:49 AM PDT by talleyman (Sharks, terrorists & criminals - if we'll just be nice to them, they'll leave us alone...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Zee2
name one "serious observer" has says that?

and by "serious" they have to have first hand knowledge of the case.

Those with first hand knowledge of the case are participants (witnesses, prosecutors, grand jury members, etc.) and the overwhelming majority of those with first hand knowledge are not speaking. Those who are not participants, but observe what the participants are doing, are observers. There are serious observers and partisan observers. Even many partisan observers (including Democratic Senators) have backed off the crime meme.

24 posted on 07/21/2005 10:33:38 AM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection


25 posted on 07/21/2005 10:33:41 AM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"As if anyone could resist it: beautiful blond mother of two whose identity as a CIA spy is compromised by a political vendetta against her husband."

I see the leftist moonbats are still flogging the "covert operative" meme.

26 posted on 07/21/2005 11:07:06 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

The Journalists who have read and witnessed some of the court proceedings, are very convinced of the seriousness of the crimes..in fact so are the judges.


27 posted on 07/21/2005 11:27:11 AM PDT by Zee2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Zee2
The Journalists who have read and witnessed some of the court proceedings, are very convinced of the seriousness of the crimes..in fact so are the judges.

I don't think there have been any journalists who have witnessed any of the grand jury proceedings (unless they were witnesses themselves, and Matt Cooper says he doesn't know where the prosecuter is doing). Who are the to which you refer?

There is very obviously a crime being investigated by the grand jury. Why else would Judith Miller be in jail? But serious observers (including 38 major media organizations through their lawyers) do not believe that Karl Rove committed a crime. I support Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald. He should prosecute anyone he believes committed a crime when the evidence warrants it. I just don't know who that is.

28 posted on 07/21/2005 11:49:22 AM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide
Who are the to which you refer?

Who are the jouralists to which you refer (the ones who have witnessed some of the grand jury proceedings)?

29 posted on 07/21/2005 11:50:23 AM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

I said "court proceedings", not "grand jury proceedings" there is a difference.

The Journalist who have witnessed court proceedings that I have heard talk on the matter are Michael Isikoff and Lawrence O'Donnell. Furthermore the phrase "the plot against Joe Wilson" was used by one of the Judges in open court in reference to the seriousness of the crime being investigated.


30 posted on 07/21/2005 12:02:58 PM PDT by Zee2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Zee2
I said "court proceedings", not "grand jury proceedings" there is a difference.

The Journalist who have witnessed court proceedings that I have heard talk on the matter are Michael Isikoff and Lawrence O'Donnell.

The media companies that employ these people have made a legal assertion that Rove committed no crime. I'm sure the attorneys of the media companies are much more serious in their analysis than a couple of individual reporters who may or may not have biases.

Furthermore the phrase "the plot against Joe Wilson" was used by one of the Judges in open court in reference to the seriousness of the crime being investigated.

As I have said, there is obviously a crime being investigated. What it is or who did it, I don't know. But serious observers don't think it is Rove. I support the prosecutor and hope he indicts whomever the evidence leads to.

Do you support the prosecutor? Or do you support a predetermined desired outcome?

31 posted on 07/21/2005 12:48:19 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
Every time I get one of their little pre-paid envelopes I mail it back empty - tape it to a brick
32 posted on 07/21/2005 1:32:42 PM PDT by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

First off, in what context did the media companys assert Rove didnt commit a crime???????? why would media companies file a brief. I dont know the context..but Im guessing they did it in an attempt to keep Judy Miller out of jail. And if my guess is right, well its obvious the judges dont agree with there assertion since they decided to jail Judy Miller.


33 posted on 07/21/2005 2:10:40 PM PDT by Zee2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Zee2
well its obvious the judges dont agree with there assertion since they decided to jail Judy Miller.

That is not obvious. The judges could agree wholeheartedly with the media's legal assertion. But what if the crime the prosecutor is investigating has nothing to do with Rove, so the amicus brief is irrelevant to Miller's contempt.

I support the prosecutor no matter where the evidence leads him. Do you support the prosecutor or do you support some predetermined outcome you find desirable?

34 posted on 07/21/2005 2:17:03 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

Of course I support the prosecutor following the evidence.

But I ask you..so what was the reason the media filed an amicus brief then? what was the medias goal for such a brief?


35 posted on 07/21/2005 2:19:42 PM PDT by Zee2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

Of course I support the prosecutor following the evidence.

But I ask you..so what was the reason the media filed an amicus brief then? what was the medias goal for such a brief?


36 posted on 07/21/2005 2:20:05 PM PDT by Zee2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Shouldn't this be the Joe Wilson/David Corn Problem?


37 posted on 07/21/2005 2:20:11 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zee2
But I ask you..so what was the reason the media filed an amicus brief then? what was the medias goal for such a brief?

The journalists in the media companies had encouraged the assignment of the special prosecutor to investigate wrongdoing by Rove. When Miller and Cooper were threatened with jail, the grown-ups took over and insisted Rove did nothing wrong. But after Fitzgerald got his assignment, he had uncovered evidence of a crime (what and committed by whom, I don't know). The media lawyers mistakenly thought it was Rove, so they submitted their accurate, but irrelevant, brief.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the prosecutor is going after Rove. I don't care. I want justice. If it is Rove, so be it. Would you support an indictment of Wilson, Plame or Miller if that's where the evidence leads?

38 posted on 07/21/2005 2:26:24 PM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide

Yeah if evidence shows they commited a crime that would normally be prosecuted of course, then of course it should be prosecuted.

By the way, you do know it was the CIA that asked the justice department to start the investigation. (Not the media, i dont know if u were suggesting it was the media)


39 posted on 07/21/2005 2:30:02 PM PDT by Zee2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zee2
But I ask you..so what was the reason the media filed an amicus brief then? what was the medias goal for such a brief?

Wow! You have quite a lot of catching up to do....
40 posted on 07/21/2005 2:34:58 PM PDT by NonLinear ("If not instantaneous, then extraordinarily fast" - Galileo re. speed of light. circa 1600)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson