No charges for Karl Rove

Actually Karl Rove is quite brilliant, I see no one on the other side that could even be a pimple on his grey matter. Or actually all of them put together.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 13 2006, 08:37 PM) [snapback]270969[/snapback]</div>

Frank et al:

I'm on vacation with limited use of friends' computer (and good will), so will not reprint or provide links to today's Novak/Rove news. Assume you can find same.

Do you believe Novak? Or Rove's attorneys?

Are you any closer to acknowledging that the President of the United States not only KNEW about all this, but ORDERED it (while he told us that anyone in his administration involved would be fired)?

Dr. Berman, you really think this "is politics on both sides" and not worth pursuing?

So Jason Leopold lied? I think there is yet another shoe to drop.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(imntacrook @ Jun 23 2006, 01:53 PM) [snapback]275984[/snapback]</div>

I agree.

 

Novak comfirms Rove was Plame leak.

Apparently Bush is correcting his earlier comments in hindsight.

"As Rove's legal problems grew a year ago, the president qualified his earlier pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak, saying it would apply to "someone who committed a crime.""

Well, glad he cleared that up. Now what I'd like to know is...if it was so legal...why didn't all of this come out in the first place? Why keep it a secret for so long? Waste all of that taxpayer money?

Oh, here it is:

"Keeping quiet had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign, because the White House had denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity."

You mean...they lied? To get re-elected?

I'm so proud of my elected officials I could just vomit.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 12 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]285213[/snapback]</div>

If even 10% of what Greg Palast has to say about the last two elections is true, lying is the least of your elected officials' sins.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 12 2006, 02:41 PM) [snapback]285213[/snapback]</div>

Uh, there was a grand jury inquest going on. They weren't supposed to say what their testimony in front of the grand jury was. That would be a ... get ready ... illegal leak of "secret" information.

From what I understand, Rove did not release the information to Novak, but confirmed it when Novak said he already had it. Novak isn't telling who his original source was, and I think he should be forced to testify as to the original leaker's identity. The press doesn't get a pass on revealing state secrets; there is no Federal "shield" law.

Evidently Rove did not break any laws, and so far as we know, the special prosecutor hasn't found any evidence as to who the original leak was. The indictment of Scooter Libby was for another reason entirely, and not even related to the Plame leak. We should find out who did release the name, even if it means we jail the two NY Times reporters who know who the leaker was, as well as Novak.