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
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 106
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matterPage 5 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
ErickSFBay is a veritable disinformation factory.


"We know she worked for the CIA for 20 years. Her entire career was under unofficial cover, meaning she would not have diplomatic immunity from breaking foreign laws.
Administration officials I.D.'d her as a CIA agent."


The truth is that Ambassador Wilson admitted to the news media recently that at the time his wife's name was published SHE WAS NOT WORKING FOR THE CIA IN A COVERT CAPACITY.

Further, the nonsense that Valerie Plame Wilson did not enjoy Diplomatic immunity if she did not carry a Diplomatic passport is also erroneous. The UN Resolution known as the "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations" quite clearly states that the spouse and children of an accredited Diplomat, and also the Diplomat's chauffeur and even the Nanny that tends to the Diplomat's children ARE EACH AFFORDED WITH FULL DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY as members of the accredited Diplomat's household.

Further, Valeria Plame was a CIA Analyst, not a CIA "Agent." CIA spies are referred to as CIA Officers (they get a CIA W2); CIA Officers recruit non-CIA employees, many of whom are not citizens of the USA, and these CIA nonemployees are the CIA "Agents" (if CIA Agents filed a Federal Tax Return, their CIA income would be reported on a Form 1099 that employers issue to nonemployees . . but I mention that only for status, not to infer that people actually report CIA undercover payoffs) Then there are CIA clandestine Informants working in a covert capacity, much like the police have nonemployee paid informants; however not all CIA Informants are paid personnel, as some do their informing because of their personal character issues and values are in harmony with the USA and democracy, and not with tyrants and dictators.

The rank and file CIA clerical personnel, Analysts, and janitorial staff are not working in a covert capacity, openly tell their friends and neighbors that they work at the CIA, and there is no official attempts on the part of the CIA to conceal this class of CIA employee's association with the CIA. This is the kind of CIA employee that Valerie Plame was at the time that her identity was "outed" by reporters.

It is amazing what ErickSFBay does not know that he does not know. But he is willing to disseminate as fact, information that knowledgeable people regard much like the substance that we scrape off our shoes.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 107
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 8:28:34 AM
Well, it's great to know that a Grand Jury has just spent almost two years hearing testimony on something that is actually LEGAL , and a journalist is in jail for refusing to participate in it, by handing over notes.

Gotta love the American justice system.

"GRAND JURY - A group of citizens convened in a criminal case to consider the prosecutor's evidence and determine whether probable cause exists to prosecute a suspect for a felony. At common law, a group of persons consisting of not less than twelve nor more than twenty-four who listen to evidence and determine whether or not they should charge the accused with the commission of a crime by returning an indictment. The number of members on a grand jury varies in different states. "

". A felony charge that a Grand Jury issues that is based upon a proposed charge, witnesses' testimony and other evidence that the District Attorney (public prosecutor) presents. A Grand Jury's indictment does not find guilt, but only the probability that a crime was committed and that the accused should be tried. The District Attorney will often only introduce sufficient facts to show the probability of guilt in order to save time and avoid revealing all of the evidence. Under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment of a Grand Jury…." Many states will only use grand juries in moderation and use the criminal complaint followed by a preliminary hearing with the lower court judge or other magistrate to determine whether enough evidence has been presented to support the accused having committed a felony. If the judge determines that enough evidence exists, he/she will order the appropriate court to hear the case"

I guess you knew that legalwiz...right ?
 Frrosty
Joined: 3/21/2004
Msg: 108
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 8:31:29 AM

I think it is silly that that the libs are so worked up about this...I find it appalling that the Libs are not as adamantly vocal about the murders being committed by extremist jihadists bombers that kill innocent civilians. I think your angst may be better directed in fighting the attackers than attacking the defenders of our way of life and our constitution.

Reminder: we are at war...and it is bigger than you think.


Sir?

How dopes relate to the topic here? I think you may be on the wrong thread...k?

*shrugS*

It happens..no worries.
 LegalWizard
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 109
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 9:32:53 AM
Great posting by Monty; I like it when your mind turns to legal issues and when you quote authoritative sources such as law dictionaries, legal encyclopedias, statutes, and citators.

So here is the sincere answer to the lead part of your posting:


"Well, it's great to know that a Grand Jury has just spent almost two years hearing testimony on something that is actually LEGAL , and a journalist is in jail for refusing to participate in it, by handing over notes."


Whether a crime has been committed is for the Grand Jury to determine. However, after two years of investigation, we do know for a fact that KARL ROVE is not a TARGET of the Grand Jury investigation. This means that according to the facts and the testimony that has been discovered so far, Karl Rove is not even suspected of having committed a federal felony crime.

So far, the capacity that Karl Rove has played with regard to the federal Grand Jury has been that of a witness.

According to the Grand Jury testimony, it was two reporters who told Karl Rove Valerie Plame's name as a CIA employee, and not the other way around. Even when Karl Rove spoke with Cooper, a third reporter, Rove only referred to CIA Analyst Plame indirectly as "Wilson's wife" rather than identifying her by name."

According to persons knowledgable with the process of drafting the statute, it was the legislative intent of Congress to prohibit the actual naming of a covert CIA officer, agent, or informant. When reporter Cooper initiated the question if Valerie Plame was with the CIA, Karl Rove's response was a vague "something like that" remark.

"Something like that" is not a confirmation of anything.

And Ambassador Wilson has admitted that at the time his wife's name was published and made public, she WAS NOT working in a CIA covert position.

So whatever CRIMES the Federal Grand Jury is investigating, perhaps the culpability of the reporters, it is clear that Karl Rove is not a target of the Grand Jury.

And the reporter who went to jail for not disclosing his sources had Karl Rove's permission to make all relevant disclosures, and still failed to do so.

Perhaps the reporters are wishing to shield the identity of whoever disclosed Valerie Plame's association with the CIA prior to the time that they spoke with Karl Rove? It would seem so.

And whoever that person who is still lurking in the shadows who is the real "whistle blower" with regard to "outing" Valerie Plame as a CIA Analyst may be the bona fide Target of the Federal Grand Jury. It is even conceivable that whoever the reporter's true source that still remains in the shadows, that he or she may have even desired to "set up" Karl Rove and thus embroil him in a political scandal or even a criminal investigation, because the first two reporters who spoke with Karl Rove, according to the Grand Jury testimony, had the Valerie Plame/CIA employment information already in hand.

So the Federal Grand Jury is investigating real crime; what they are not doing is targeting Karl Rove for federal prosecution.

Because the real targets of the Federal Grand Jury are the ones suspected of committing crimes.

So, that part, yes I did know all about that.


"I guess you knew that legalwiz...right ?"


So, now that the mainstream media is my source for the information relating to Karl Rove and the Grand Jury testimony, and given that it is public knowledge that Karl Rove is not a Target of the Grand Jury, will you publicly admit now, in plain language, that it appears from the facts, the evidence, and the law, that Karl Rove is NOT a criminal, is NOT a Traitor, and is cooperating with the Grand Jury's investigation?

Or are any elocutions touching upon, or related to, the plain truth not something that you wish to advocate or come public with at this time?
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 110
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 12:10:06 PM
Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame "Wilson" are traitors to this country and should be shot. No judge, no jury, just straight to execution. They should be tried by the media (like FOX news) and go from there.
 rwhprism
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 111
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 1:23:05 PM
eriksf:

I know I'm not "qualified" to participate because you assume I can't read 7 pages worth of postings. Obviously you are most qualified to both accuse, judge and convict everyone from the president on down. And your source continues to be........ newsweek? time? the internet? Vanity fair who quotes newsday who quotes an unnamed source? ??? Now there a panel of experts!

Well I'm sure somewhere between the cake recipes and the dress photoshoots you found some really reliable information on high level crimes. Have you ever even been in a courtroom? Your evidence against any of the people you accuse has no basis. Culpubility by press is rediculous. Hearsay is meaningless. And I repeat : keep saying this extreme stuff because Americans aren't buying it.

I don't know how much more you guys insist on losing but if extreme leftists are drowning, I say - relax and have a drink!
 rwhprism
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 112
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 3:22:18 PM
I apologize for my own misunderstanding. Thank you for your explanation.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 113
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 3:45:08 PM

The Rules of Criminal Procedure require that all testimony and evidence presented before a Grand Jury must be kept secret unless otherwise ordered by the Court. This admonition applies to the Commonwealth's Attorney or any of his/her assistants who may be present and all Grand Jurors. No one may examine a Grand Juror on what a witness said, what any other Grand Juror said, or how any Grand Juror voted. No person except the attorney or attorneys for the Commonwealth, the witness under examination, an interpreter if necessary, a parent, guardian or custodian or a minor witness, and the Grand Jurors shall be present while the Grand Jury is in session. Only the twelve (12) Grand Jurors shall be present while the Grand Jury is deliberating or voting. Violation of the secrecy admonition or the presence of persons other than Grand Jurors while the Grand Jury is deliberating or voting is punishable by the offender being found in contempt of court.

Secrecy of Proceedings

Except as otherwise provided by R. 3:13-3, the requirement as to secrecy of proceedings of the grand jury shall remain as heretofore, and all persons other than witnesses, permitted by R. 3:6-6 to be present while the grand jury is in session, shall be required to take an oath of secrecy before their admission thereto. Such oath shall also be taken by typists making transcripts of testimony given before the grand jury.
The tradition of secrecy continues as a vital part of the grand jury system for many reasons. It protects the grand jurors from being subjected to pressure by persons who may be involved in the actions of the grand jury. It prevents the escape of those against whom an indictment is being considered. It encourages witnesses before the grand jury to give full and truthful information as to the commission of a crime. It also prevents tampering with or intimidation of such witnesses before they testify at trial. Finally, it prevents the disclosure of investigations that result in no action by the grand jury and avoids any stigma the public might attach to one who is the subject of a mere investigation by the grand jury.



What if the prosecutor says the provider is not a target but is a "subject" of the investigation? The U.S. Attorney's Manual and other Justice Department statements draw a distinction which is mostly technical, between "targets" and "subjects". Whereas a "target" is someone the government expects to indict, a "subject" is a person the prosecutor thinks may be indicted, but against whom sufficient evidence may not exist at that time.

Since the decision to indict a "subject" has not been finally made, there is a greater chance that a "subject" will actually be called before the grand jury. In these situations where the provider is deemed to be a "subject", that provider must consider himself as if he is a "target" and conduct himself accordingly. If the only thing between the provider and an indictment is more evidence, the last thing the provider wants to do is to provide that evidence. A "subject" who testifies can rarely, if ever, do anything but harm himself, but creating a trail of testimony that may return to haunt him or her, possibly in the form of a perjury or obstruction of justice indictment.







So, Wiz ?

Since you seem to be intimately familiar with what is going on in the secrecy of the grand jury investigation, when were these rules of procedure changed ?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 114
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/20/2005 3:48:00 PM
Here is the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual's definition of target: “A ‘target’ is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.”

Getting an assurance that you are not a target is pretty easy until the prosecutor really has the goods on you -- “a putative defendant.”

Here’s the Manual’s definition of subject: “A ‘subject’ of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.” Subjects frequently have their status upgraded to target when prosecutors get new information, like this one did on Friday.

Subject is a scary status. Prosecutors have to attach an "Advice of Rights" form to all grand jury subpoenas served on any "target" or "subject" of an investigation. Here’s what the form says:

* You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. * Anything that you do say may be used against you by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding.

* If you have retained counsel, the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with counsel if you so desire.

Mere witnesses don’t get those forms attached to their subpoenas. Was it attached to any one of the three subpoenas Rove got from the grand jury? Three trips to the same grand jury is frequently an indicator of subject status.


 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 116
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 12:40:15 AM
Why did Plame recommend her husband go on a fact-finding mission to Africa? Is that not a conflict of interest? Why didn't Joe Wilson even write a report about what he found/didn't find? Why did Joe Wilson say Cheney sent him to Africa? Why didn't Plame tell her own husband that he was wrong?
 mycorosso
Joined: 1/11/2005
Msg: 117
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 11:53:37 AM
We do not have to cite anything but our opinion here. ALL sources are suspect. This topic is weak and of no consequence, regardless of the outcome. Panty waiste sissies star and worry about these things. Avoid the BIG issues and brush the knotts out of ones hair.
 mycorosso
Joined: 1/11/2005
Msg: 118
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 1:40:01 PM
It's not that it's un-important. It's that in comparison it's minutia [where's my spell checker]. Brush your hair...you look bad. Rather than bathe you stink! That type of comparison. It's just like a whiner to make big out of something insignificant when the tough issues are avoided.
 mycorosso
Joined: 1/11/2005
Msg: 119
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 2:21:39 PM
He was incompitent for the job or a liar. Nothing was revealed by Rove... that's a stretch. What Rove is accused of already was known and moot. Get over it! I'm not complaining or wasting my time. I'm just waiting for my responses from the more intelligent threads about "who want's to suck my unit." It's easy to come over here and feed the animals whilst I await a response from a honey.
 mycorosso
Joined: 1/11/2005
Msg: 120
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 3:07:49 PM
I feel as if that's what's been going on already e-bay dewd. Don't need any real women over here. That job is covered by most of ya'll.

Carl Rove did nothing wrong. It's just that half the people can put their hands around a throat but not an obvious threat.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 121
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 7:36:56 PM
Prosecutors in the C.I.A. leak case have shown intense interest in a 2003 State Department memorandum that explained how a former diplomat came to be dispatched on an intelligence-gathering mission and the role of his wife, a C.I.A. officer, in the trip, people who have been officially briefed on the case said.

Investigators in the case have been trying to learn whether officials at the White House and elsewhere in the administration learned of the C.I.A. officer's identity from the memorandum. They are seeking to determine if any officials then passed the name along to journalists and if officials were truthful in testifying about whether they had read the memo, the people who have been briefed said, asking not to be named because the special prosecutor heading the investigation had requested that no one discuss the case.

About the memo:

The memorandum was sent to Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, just before or as he traveled with President Bush and other senior officials to Africa starting on July 7, 2003, when the White House was scrambling to defend itself from a blast of criticism a few days earlier from the former diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson IV, current and former government officials said.

The investigation clearly is looking hard at who had this memo:

Investigators have been looking at whether the State Department provided the information to the White House before July 6, 2003, when Mr. Wilson publicly criticized the way the administration used intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

But the memo is dated JUNE 10!:

The memorandum was dated June 10, 2003, nearly four weeks before Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article for The New York Times . . . The memorandum was written for Marc Grossman, then the under secretary of state for political affairs, and it referred explicitly to Valerie Wilson as Mr. Wilson's wife, according to a government official who reread the document on Friday.

How was the memo recycled in July?

When Mr. Wilson's Op-Ed article appeared on July 6, 2003, a Sunday, Richard L. Armitage, then deputy secretary of state, called Carl W. Ford Jr., the assistant secretary for intelligence and research, at home, a former State Department official said. Mr. Armitage asked Mr. Ford to send a copy of the memorandum to Mr. Powell, who was preparing to leave for Africa with Mr. Bush, the former official said. Mr. Ford sent it to the White House for transmission to Mr. Powell.

Who saw that memo? There's the focus. There are your suspects. Here's a question - did Rove see the memo? Did he lie about seeing it?

What spurred the memo? Maybe this:

On May 6, 2003, Nicholas D. Kristof, a columnist for The Times, wrote of a "former U.S. ambassador to Africa" who had reported to the C.I.A. and the State Department that reports of Iraq seeking to acquire uranium in Niger were "unequivocally wrong."

Ari Fleischer in the crosshairs:

The special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has sought to determine how much Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman at the time of the leak, knew about the memorandum. Lawyers involved in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions about Mr. Fleischer's role. Mr. Fleischer was with Mr. Bush and much of the senior White House staff in Africa when Mr. Powell, who was also with them, received the memorandum.

Libby on the radar:

Mr. Fitzgerald has also looked into any role that I. Lewis Libby, Vice President****Cheney's chief of staff, may have played. Lawyers in the case have said their clients have been asked about Mr. Libby's conversations in the days after Mr. Wilson's article - in part based on Mr. Libby's hand-written notes, which he turned over to the prosecutor.

Journalists in the middle of the story:

In addition, several journalists have been asked about their conversations with Mr. Libby. At least one, Tim Russert of NBC News, has suggested that prosecutors wanted to know whether he had told Mr. Libby of Ms. Wilson's identity. After Mr. Russert met with Mr. Fitzgerald, NBC said that he did not provide the information to Mr. Libby.

Why Plame not Wilson?

But it appears [the memo] differ[s] in at least one way [with Novak's article], raising questions about whether it was the original source of the material that ultimately made its way to Mr. Novak. In his July 14, 2003, column, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson as Valerie Plame. The State Department memorandum referred to her as Valerie Wilson, according to the government official who reread it on Friday.

To be frank, this is the most intriguing and enlightening article on the matter I have seen yet. I feel I know more about what is being investigated than I ever have before.


I believe, if this is proved to be true, that what we are looking at here is the same as that piece of tape at the Watergate Hotel break-in.

The beginning of the end....


edit: "A classified State Department memo that may be pivotal to the CIA leak case made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared, according to a person familiar with the document.

The memo's details are significant because they will make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB112170178721288385-IRjgoNjlah4opyobXqHaq6Hm5,00.html


 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 122
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 9:03:27 PM
" Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not U.S. government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony."

"Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said."


"The law only criminalizes disclosures by a person who knows the operative is a "covert agent" and who "intentionally" reveals the information to someone unauthorized to receive it. It also requires that intelligence agencies be actively trying to hide the identity of the agent and that the person revealing the agent's identity be aware of those efforts."

We know that a possible proof exists that the CIA made it very clear that Plame was a covert operative.

We know that Rove ( and others) through their connections deep in the White House halls of power probably had access to this information.

We know that Rove, based on past experience, wanted to pay back someone that was not allowing the lie of the Nigerian link to continue.

We know that Rove had direct links to the journalists that leaked the story - by his own admission.

"“What Rove does,” says Joe Perkins, “is try to make something so bad for a family that the candidate will not subject the family to the hardship."

"I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble.
Karl Rove "


I guess he forgot all about that " moderation and constraint " thing when he decided to go for the throat of a political enemy. It's called target fixation - and sometimes you fly right into the ground if you are not careful.

I will be the first one to dance around that smoking hole in the ground if this is all proven to be true.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 123
view profile
History
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/21/2005 9:34:07 PM
Check out this great exchange from a Sept 2003 White House briefing.




MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, that's assuming a lot of things. First of all, that is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing. Secondly, there -- I've seen the anonymous media reports, and if I could find out who "anonymous" was, it would make my life a whole lot easier. But --

Q Does he think it didn't come from here?

MR. McCLELLAN: But we've made it very clear that anyone -- anyone -- who has information relating to this should report that information to the Department of Justice.

Q Does he doubt it came from the White House?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he doubt?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there's been no information that has been brought to our attention, beyond what we've seen in the media reports, to suggest White House involvement.

Q Will the President move aggressively to see if such a transgression has occurred in the White House? Will he ask top White House officials to sign statements saying that they did not give the information?

MR. McCLELLAN: Bill, if someone leaked classified information of this nature, the appropriate agency to look into it would be the Department of Justice. So the Department of Justice is the one that would look in matters like this.

Q You're saying the White House won't take a proactive role?

MR. McCLELLAN: Do you have any specific information to bring to my attention suggesting White House involvement?

Q If you would --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't seen any.

Q Would you not want to know whether someone had leaked information of this kind?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has been -- I spoke for him earlier today -- the President believes leaking classified information is a very serious matter. And it should be --

Q So why doesn't he want --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- pursued to the fullest extent --

Q Right, so why --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- by the appropriate agency. And the appropriate agency is the Department of Justice.



Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, "The President knows" that Karl Rove wasn't involved. How does he know that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove --

Q But how does --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to get into conversations that the President has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature; that's not my practice.

Q But the President has a factual basis for knowing that Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that --

Q But I'm not asking what you said, I'm asking if the President has a factual basis for saying -- for your statement that he knows Karl Rove --

MR. McCLELLAN: He's aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.

Q Does he know whether or not the Vice President's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby --

MR. McCLELLAN: If you have any specific information to bring to my attention -- like I said, there has been nothing that's been brought to our attention. You asked me earlier if we were looking into it, there is nothing that's been brought to our attention beyond the media reports. But if someone did something like this, it needs to be looked at by the Department of Justice, they're the appropriate agency charged with looking into matters like this --


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html#1

Now that it seems very clear that this leak came from within the White House - we still have no direct action from this President. The first thing I would expect is that Rove's security clearance be lifted until the investigation is complete and he is judged innocent of all charges.
 rwhprism
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 124
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/22/2005 10:03:05 AM
The first thing I would expect is that Rove's security clearance be lifted until the investigation is complete and he is judged innocent of all charges


In the US, citizens are not judged innocent! You are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We have not direct action from the president for the same reason. Unless he's proven guilty, he's not guilty.

This is determined by a judge and sometimes a jury, not by people who think they are judges or members of the jury. Your expectations or even desires are not relevant. And thank goodness for that. We can't have our government run by the will of the foreign press or the misinformation of their people. Let our courts and grand juries decide whether or not to indict. The press has no place in this. They don't know facts. Neither do you or I. Increasingly we see the press not involved with delivering facts either. That's why we dont' trust them . That's why we need juries to hear evidence. Untill then, he's innocent!

If you don't think president Bush is acting properly, you may vote for someone else in '08. Like Hillary for example. She's never been involved in anything controversial - has she? You guys are connecting the dots to get a straight line and you think you really have a trend but you don't realize that you are just following a tangent.
 NittanyLion
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 125
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/22/2005 10:11:08 AM

The first thing I would expect is that Rove's security clearance be lifted until the investigation is complete and he is judged innocent of all charges


In the US, citizens are not judged innocent! You are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. We have not direct action from the president for the same reason. Unless he's proven guilty, he's not guilty.
This has nothing to do with whether he maintains security clearance. Our gov't does NOT work under the framework of "once you have security clearance, it can not be altered without due process." That would be insane! It really would be interesting to know what Rove's security clearance is right now.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter