Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 224
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matterPage 11 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
They'll probably "find" proof that Rove is secretly a Democrat before they cut him loose.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 226
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/28/2005 11:40:09 PM
"The United States also endorsed a 1995 interim peace deal which grants PLO members immunity for violent acts committed before September 1993, when the two sides signed a mutual recognition agreement."


After researching the history of the Arab/Israeli dispute I can only state that peace is very seldom negotiated between two parties that hate each other and still remain armed to the teeth.

However, peace may in fact be achieved through absolute military victory where there is a clear and convicing victor whose war goals is the unconditional surrender of their foes.

The USA and Israel have forgiven enough terrorist outrages and bought enough peace with foreign aid money, or with the transfer of land, to no avail, so it is high time that American policy revert to simply selecting a winner and helping that winner be decisively victorius.

It is said that the definition of a moderate Arab is one that only holds a grudge for 500 years.

Prior to the American invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the arrest of Saddam for capital crimes against humanity, Iraq was a clear and present danger to world peace. George Bush was right in his Iraqi war policy.

Only human ostriches continue to prattle that the USA found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We did. It did exist.

But lying liars will lie, lie, lie. And one of the biggest liars is the mainstream news media.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 227
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 2:43:17 AM

A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.

It also appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its illegal weapons programmes if UN sanctions were lifted.

President George Bush now admits that stockpiles have not been found in Iraq but claimed as recently as Thursday that "Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the enemy".

The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times, finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.


source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1307529,00.html

Here is the ISG report :
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/


And one of the biggest liars is the mainstream news media.


Not to mention your own government, and your President, since they both also admit no WMD's were found.



Only human ostriches continue to prattle that the USA found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. We did. It did exist.

But lying liars will lie, lie, lie.


It would seem so.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 228
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 7:10:57 AM
The mainstream press reported in the first Monday in November, 2004, that a suitcase full of Sarin Gas vials had been recovered in Iraq.

Sarin Gas is a WMD.

We have not discovered the "stockpile" where the motherload is, but the USA did discover a supply of Iraqi Sarin Gas which is a WMD.

But the claque doesnt count the Sarin WMD because that would admit that Iraq had a chemical warfare capability.

You know it, I know it, and the key words in the admission that we have not found STOCKPILES of WMD in Iraq does not equate to the falsehood that we found NO WMD in Irag.

Lying liars do lie, lie, lie, indeed.

And the assertion that NO STOCKPILES of WMD means NO WMD ever existed, is a lie, lie, lie.

As "Master of the Obvious" the overwhelming conclusion is that an Iraqi WMD presence is affirmed.

And Intelligence states that much of the stockpile may have been transferred with the aid of the Russians to Syria.

And thats a fact.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 229
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 7:43:24 AM
SO is the fact that almost 200 billion dollars has been spent, and almost 2,000 fine American men and women are dead - and tens of thousands injured.

That was a pretty expensive briefcase....
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 230
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 10:34:10 AM
I remember when sarin gas was used in the Tokyo subway a few years ago by religious terrorists. A man I knew at the time was a long time veteran of the British Air Force and had an interesting take on it. He wasn't surprised that it had been used, but rather that it hadn't been used earlier. It seems that sarin gas is easier to make than crystal meth by a long shot. You or I could make sarin in our kitchen. If this is your proof of "Weapons Of Mass Destruction Program" it falls far short.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 231
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 10:58:12 AM
I don't know how to make sarin, but I do know someone who does. It is ridiculously easy apparently. Luckily it is also just about the most difficult nerve gas to use effectively. It's why it was used in the subway in Tokyo - you need to have an enclosed space and large quantities. While they used a coordinated attack and injured thousands, it only killed 12. While this is insignificant to those affected, it hardly makes it a "Weapon Of Mass Destruction."
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 232
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:06:36 AM
Are we going to start invading all the countries with large rocks in them next ?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 233
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 11:25:11 AM
OK, I am with you on that one too BD.

Stone Age genocide is just WRONG.
 toonsmith
Joined: 1/19/2005
Msg: 234
view profile
History
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 235
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/29/2005 3:05:55 PM
Unfortunately, we don't get involved unless there's something in it for us; we really can't pretend it's about the innocent civilians being killed.

Slightly off topic, but related... (I know, I'm starting from a TV show, but bear with me) Did anyone see that episode of Boston Legal where a man wanted to sue the United States (they were looking for a theory for a suit) for the US's lack of involvement in Sudan? Basically, the client's family was being tortured and killed... the theory that the firm eventually brought was parallel to good samaritan laws... you don't have to get involved to help someone, but once you do you have a certain duty to that person. Re: Sudan, the US doesn't HAVE to help, but it said it would, and therefore other countries took the word of the US and didn't do as much as they would have if the US had just said "thanks, but no thanks." Then, the US didn't do what we said we were going to do... consequently, the US didn't live up to its duty to at least try to stop the rape, torture, and murder of the client's family.

Putting aside the particular legal hurdles and the details of what our intervention in Sudan is or is not, it's an interesting perspective... came to mind with all of this talk of us "invading other countries" simply on the premise that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians are being killed. It's just not our style, for better or for worse.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 236
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/3/2005 11:04:34 AM
Just want to get this back on the list of threads that pop up. Love to see the conservatives try to justify the monstrous and inexcusable.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 237
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 12:33:04 PM
Having read the blogs and considered the content on the merits of the issues, the folowing findings and conclusions are hereby entered:

Findings of fact:

Good and sufficient exculpatory facts have been posted on this Forum to totally decriminalize Karl Rove who remains innocent until proven guilty.

The credibility of the Karl Rove antagonists has been shredded.

On the day that her name was disclosed in the newspapers, Valerie Plame did not serve in a covert capacity as a CIA employee.

Karl Rove is not a target of the federal Grand Jury, nor has he even so much as been identified as a "person of interest" by any law enforcement agency.

Conclusions of law:

That Karl Rove did not knowingly violate the public law criminalizing the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA Officer, Agent, or Informant.

There is no clear and convincing "mens rea" giving rise to sufficent criminal intent to permit any criminal prosecution to go forward.

Order and Decree

It is hereby held that Karl Rove be and is finally exculpated from any and all criminal liability with respect to the disclosure of the identity of a covert CIA Officer, Agent, or Informant.

Hearing no objection, it is so Ordered.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 238
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 1:46:57 PM
^^ Love this stuff. Reminds me of the old Communist Party of Canada (marxist - Leninist) whose mantra was "unconditional support of the Soviet Union." Exactly the same sort of thought process and bs.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 239
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:17:28 PM

The Randel Precedent -- If Followed -- Bodes Ill For Rove

Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

"In my view," he explained, "it is a very serious offense because of the risk that comes with it, and part of that risk is because of the position" that Randel held in the DEA. But the risk posed by the information Rove leaked is multiplied many times over; it occurred at a time when the nation was considering going to war over weapons of mass destruction. And Rove was risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Judge Story acknowledged that Randel's leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held." Is not the same true of Rove? Rove had no idea what the specific consequences of giving a reporter the name of a CIA agent (about whom he says he knew nothing) would be--he only knew that he wanted to discredit her (incorrectly) for dispatching her husband to determine if the rumors about Niger uranium were true or false.

Given the nature of Valerie Plame Wilson's work, it is unlikely the public will ever know if Rove's leak caused damage, or even loss of life of one of her contracts abroad, because of Rove's actions. Dose anyone know the dangers and risks that she and her family may face because of this leak?

It was just such a risk that convinced Judge Story that "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that's what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense." Cannot the same be said that Rove's leak? It dealt with matters related to national security; if the risk Randel was taking was a "tremendous" risk, surely Rove's leak was monumental.

While there are other potential violations of the law that may be involved with the Valerie Plame Wilson case, it would be speculation to consider them. But Karl Rove's leak to Matt Cooper is now an established fact. First, there is Matt Cooper's email record. And Cooper has now confirmed that he has told the grand jury he spoke with Rove. If Rove's leak fails to fall under the statute that was used to prosecute Randel, I do not understand why.

There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).


source: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html


Sounds good to me.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 240
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/4/2005 5:24:09 PM
They're trying to throw a lot of disinformation around such as Vaerie Wilson wasn't a covert agent at the time - based on her husband saying that the day her identity was revealed she was no longer a covert agent (duh), and thoroughly disproved repeatedly - or that Rove got the information from a journalist. It's just smoke, he shopped the information around to 6 journalists before he found one that would jeopardize national security. This is a REAL crime, and no amount of obfuscation can muddy the clear truth here.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 241
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/5/2005 2:41:15 PM
"this "Legalwizard" is stupid."


Well, actually Beetlejuice68, the truth is that I am just stupid enough to believe that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

And further since the Prosecutor has publicly stated that Karl Rove is not a target of the Grand Jury, it looks as if he will not even be indicted, let alone convicted.

No one in law enforcement has even referred to Karl Rove as a "person of interest" which is the step below the status of "target" in the criminal justice system.

And all of the exculpatory matters have created a "totality of the circumstances' situation where the only ones interested in Karl Rove being prosecuted are his political enemies. Everything I have read about Karl Rove is a traitor is basically conjecture and animosity based.

If Karl Rove were actuyally guilty of a felony, I believe that President Bush would have terminated his services as White House Deputy Chief of Staff.

But stupid LegalWizard must be a fool for thinking that someone who is not even a criminal suspect is actually innocent? Gee, if I only was one of President Bush's political enemies, or like Howard Dean, hated Republicans, I might be able to create a house of cards criminal case against Karl Rove by weaving together smoke and mirrors and a ton of hatred and resentment on the part of liberals for losing two Presidential elections and who knows, I might eventually gain enough liberal "intelligence" and loss of integrity to be willing to participate in a political witch hunt.

Not.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 242
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/5/2005 3:33:30 PM
Just an observation: I don't think your understanding of "innocent until proven guilty" was what he was talking about.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 243
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/5/2005 5:41:17 PM
This is the sum total of the so-called evidence against Karl Rove:


"There are stories circulating that Rove may have been . . . "


The rumor mill mentality and the propensity to leap to conclusions on the part of the Karl Rove antogonists is quite evident.

Don't you think that all this hate Karl Rove talk is merely substitute subject matter for the by now very lame laments that the US Supreme Court wrongfully installed George W. Bush as President after his brother and THAT WOMAN WHO WAS THE FLORIDA SECRETARY OF STATE pulled an electoral sleight of hand that nullified all the illegal votes cast by Democratic partisans who were rounding up Haitian blacks in Miami who were not even US Citizens and made sure that they voted on the butterfly ballot for . . . Buchannan, wasn't it?

Well, American Liberals and Canadian Copperheads alike, we're on to ya now; even the "Boobus Americanus" apolitical centerists are voting Republican now by the droves, having become wizened somewhat after seeing all the HATRED spewing forth from the extremists constituting the President's critics and detractors.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 244
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 12:24:42 AM
It appears other than innuendo and hoped for prosecution, there really isnt anything of substance in the public record yet with regard to Karl Rove that rises to the level of probable cause to warrant a criminal prosecution.

Those who disagree with George W. Bush and possess enmity for Karl Rove all scream for his scalp based upon insufficient evidence so far.

Those of us that require more substance prior to leveling felony charges are tagged by the anti-Bush claque as being brainwashed.

I have posted suffiecient exculpatory facts to sustain a legal conclusion of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, much to the distress of those who would indict Karl Rove on sheer political animus alone.

Like the Justice Dept. I am personally looking for new evidence yet to come forth, which of course may never occur, before I can agree that there is probable cause that a crime has been committed and concluding that Karl Rove is the legally culpable person.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 245
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 3:40:51 AM

I have posted suffiecient exculpatory facts to sustain a legal conclusion of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
Yes. You have. Except for one thing. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a "legal conclusion." Other than that, you're golden.
 Im listening
Joined: 7/17/2005
Msg: 246
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 5:21:09 AM
re:msg338 http://www.sixthform.info/law/01_modules/mod3/12_1crime_introduction/12_1_2mens_rea/12_1_1definition_of_mens_rea.htm

NICE TRY SLICK!
No seegar as this aspect is yet to be determind in a court of law and not by some wannabe



Mens Rea (the guilty mind or wrongful intention) differs from crime to crime.
The intention of a criminal committing a theft is different from that of a rapist.

To be criminally liable, a person must have intended to do wrong or have acted in a reckless and negligent manner knowing that his actions would cause the result complained of.

A terrorist, who puts a bomb on a plane and kills all the passengers, would have no defence by claiming that he did not intend to kill anyone, and he only intended to damage the plane. Such an act is so reckless, and the likelihood of death so foreseeable, that it is inferred that the criminal intention is present
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 247
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 8/8/2005 5:35:44 AM

Mens Rea (the guilty mind or wrongful intention) differs from crime to crime.
Yes. You've got to look at the specific elements of a crime to determine if there is even a mens rea element, and if so, what intent is specifically required to rise to the level of the particular crime.

As we've already seen, though, some of these posts are more about whipping out the legal dictionary, ignoring the definitions, and throwing in as many "words" as possible, seemingly to appear educated, but actually giving self away.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter