The question to ask today is: Who got to Patrick Fitzgerald? Was he or his family threatened? Was he paid off? How in the world is it possible for Karl Rove to walk free?The ring-leader of the most corrupt administration in history will now be free to master mind yet another election fraud. The American people deserve better. We deserve a justice system that holds everyone accountable, regardless of their wealth or influence.
This is a sad day.
-----------------------
Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case
By DAVID JOHNSTON, The New York Times
WASHINGTON (June 13) -- The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.
The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove." (full story)
14 comments:
I am not the biggest fan of Karl Rove, but honestly, couldn't it be that there is just no evidence. Stuff like this:
"Who got to Patrick Fitzgerald? Was he or his family threatened? Was he paid off? How in the world is it possible for Karl Rove to walk free?"
goes against the time-honored basis of our judicial system, which is "innocent until PROVEN guilty." You can't throw out the basis of the judicial system in order to bring about justice. That just doesn't make sense.
And of course, if I don't have anything better to say I can just claim, "In your opinion" like you did on my site and assume it's a real argument.
I am constantly surprised at the lengths that liberals will go to believe conspiracy theories and yet deny the basic truths sitting right in front of them. Interesting...
The truth is that Karl Rove is guilty as hell.
What surprises me is all the time conservatives waste trying to get me to change my mind. *smile*
I am not trying to get you to change your mind -- just your rhetoric. You claim to speak the absolute truth, yet without any solid evidence. If Fitzgerald had the evidence, don't you think he wouldn't hesitate to indict the guy? Postulating that someone "got" to Fitzgerald is irresponsible and wildly speculative, as well as immature and tacky.
It's understandable that liberals were upset. So were conservatives when Clinton got off easy after lying in a deposition and then trying to lie to the public afterwards. But I didn't see any crack-pot theories about how someone "got" to Ken Star. And just like the Clinton thing, the Karl Rove thing will blow over in a couple of months.
You can't compare the Clinton and Rove incidents!!! At least when Clinton lied no one died!!
The founders included an impeachment process precisely for the kind of activity this administration has routinely engaged in. Bush and Cheney should be impeached, and Karl Rove should join Scooter Libby in jail.
BAC
Sounds like you are the one who is mixing apples with oranges. No one said anything about war. Where did that come from? Who died in the leak case? Certainly no CIA agents died! This is one more example of flawed liberal reasoning.
Let me spell it out for you just in case your are a bit slow.
1. You are saying Karl Rove lied to a grand jury.
2. Clinton lied under oath in a deposition.
Hmmm...sounds like similar cases to me. I think they are comparable. Your inclusion of the war into this discussion is a red herring (go look that up, it will come in handy some time).
Clearly you have not been paying attention to the discussion around Plamegate -- where Joe Wilson was targeted by the administration for telling the American public the truth, that Bush lied to take this country to war.
I suggest you subscribe to a newspaper, or read one online.
BAC
Oh, I am paying attention, but it seems you are a bit confused about what really went on with Plamegate and how the investigation into it has absolutely nothing to do with soldiers dying in the Iraq War. Let me give you an education because apparently you need one.
Here are the events leading up to "Plamegate":
1. Joe Wilson went to Africa in February 2002 to find out whether or not Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. He concluded that he found no evidence to coroborate the claim that Iraq was indeed trying to do so. However, his report suggested that in June 1999, there might have been discussion by the then Nigerian Prime Minister and Iraqi officials on future expansion of "commercial relations" which the CIA took as possible future uranium purchases.
2. The report was made and the CIA took it and used it in their official report regarding intelligence on Iraq, which the Congress had before they voted to go to war in MARCH 2003.
So far, none of this has to do with Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and nothing regarding the CIA report comes into play in an indictment of Karl Rove. No one -- I REPEAT NO ONE -- in the Justice Department is investigating ANYONE in the Administration for suppressing Joe Wilson's findings in Africa. That is NOT what Plamegate is about.
Here is what it IS about:
1. On July 6, 2003 (almost 4 months AFTER the war began), Joe Wilson wrote an Op-Ed column in the New York Times entitled, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", which he said was evidence that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material from Niger.
2. On July 11, 2003, the CIA released a statement regarding Joe Wilson's Op-Ed column admitting that a 16-word section of President Bush's State of the Union speech before the war regading Iraq's attempt to buy nuclear material, based on documents that the international intelligence community accepted (but later rejected as forgeries), should not have been inserted into the speech.
3. On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak "outed" Valerie Plame as an "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction".
4. In the aftermath of the outing, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald investigated whether Plame's name was leaked to Novak or Judith Miller in retaliation for JOE WILSON'S OP-ED COLUMN, which was again written 4 months AFTER THE WAR BEGAN!
5. In October 2005, Scooter Libby was charged with obstruction of justice, perjury, and making false statements.
Now, the most that Karl Rove or Scooter Libby could have been charged with in Plamegate is treason in outing a CIA agent by disclosing classified information to the public. That's it. It has nothing to do with the Iraq War, which began months earlier or anything to do with soldiers dying on the battlefield. No one died when Valerie Plame was outed. And to suggest otherwise is just plain stupid.
Now, I ask you again -- what does soldiers dying in the Iraq War have to do with the Justice Department's investigation? Just in case you still don't get it -- the answer is "NOTHING". Nothing would have changed in the Iraq war no matter whether Karl Rove was indicted or not. The events of Plamegate took place months after the war began. Your suggestion that people died as a result of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's alleged actions in Plamegate is absolutely ludicrous. So again I say,
Clinton lied and got off easy
Karl Rove supposed lied and now he is getting off easy.
The comparison holds up. Your crazy connection of people dying in Iraq to Plamegate however, does not. And you tried to suggest that I don't know what is going on?! You only showed yourself more ignorant of the fact than you accused me of being. Sheesh...liberals.
BTW, are you purposefully trying to get me to stick around and argue with you by being this dense? I mean apparently no one is reading your blog these days and no one has commented in over a month. Could it be you are just getting lonely? Does somebody need a hug?
No, I don't need a hug, but it's apparent you need a job. You have way too much time on your hands. LOL
Let me TRY and put this in the simplest terms possible, so that you might have a clue what this discussion is about.
You posted: So were conservatives when Clinton got off easy after lying in a deposition and then trying to lie to the public afterwards.
The comments Bush made in the State of the Union address were clearly a lie. The beating of the war drum by Bush and Cheney (about WMD) leading up to the start of the war was based on a lie. (Are you starting to see the connection yet?)
Bush lied, and people have now died.
Regarding Plamegate, again you have failed to connect the dots. Why do you think Rove (and Cheney/Bush) decided to target Plame?
What better way to shut someone up, than to threaten the life of someone they love. They wanted to silence Joe Wilson, so they went after his wife. Joe Wilson had the audacity to want to tell the American public the truth, something unheard of within this administration. Fortunately for all of us, Bush cannot run again -- not that he could win with his approval rating!
Now go wipe your nose and start looking for a job.
BAC
Again, you are confusing the issue with your other left-wing causes. You are acting as if we hadn't already gone to war when Joe Wilson made his comments and Valerie Plame was outed. And that is ridiculous! The war was already going on. Nothing Joe Wilson could have said would have stopped that. And his investigation into the potential purchase of yellowcake from Niger was long over. This isn't about the war -- if anything it's about retaliation. But nothing in this case is about soldiers dying. So quit trying to confuse the issue.
You even went so far as to propose that someone threatened the life of Valerie Plame, though nothing of the sort happened. At the time of her outing she had a desk job. She wasn't an operative. She wasn't undercover in any sort of life-threatening situation.
GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT AND QUIT TRYING TO DECIEVE PEOPLE!
And I wouldn't worry about me getting a job. Soon I will be teaching young impressional minds to actually think instead of regurgitate liberal talking points that don't make sense.
Is the air thin in Kentucky? Outing Valerie Plame was a threat to her life, and to the lives of the agents she worked with.
Plamegate is all about the war! If it's not about the war, what in the world do you THINK it is about?
Plamegate is all about Joe Wilson exposing the lies of the Bush administration -- lies they used to justify going to war -- and retaliation against Wilson for daring to tell the American public the truth.
Karl Rove is intimately involved with this, and therefore should be on his way to jail -- along with Scooter, Cheney and probably George W. Bush.
I find it fascinating that religious right conservatives are so upset that Bill Clinton lied about having sex, yet you seem to have NO PROBLEM with the fact that your president lied to take the country to war -- and as a result of those lies thousands of Americans and innocent civilians are now dead.
I have my facts straight ... what you have are COMPLETELY MISGUIDED PRIORITIES.
You would rather protect a president who has yet to deliver on any of the core religious right values -- or have you forgotten that abortion is still legal and same-sex couples are now getting legally married in MA? Just how big a sucker are you to continue to believe the Republican parties lies? For the past 30 years they have made promises to religious right conservatives and have failed to deliver on any of them.
It is refreshing to hear you admit that you don't have a job -- which explains your ability to spend all day online! LOL
BAC
BAC,
Again, believe what you will, but don't try to pass it off as the truth. Your connect-the-dots reasoning is still flawed since the war occurred before the events of Plamegate and I reject the notion outright that Valerie Plame's life was in danger. Even she hasn't said that!
And you are stereotyping me without asking my opinion first. And assuming your argument is true (that Bush outright lied about the facts he knew not to be true -- which I reject as well, but that is another issue and one more example of a red herring [you really should look that phrase up as you often commit that type of logical fallacy]).
As for misguided priorities, I don't think so. You again assume you know what I believe, without asking. We are talking about the issue of Karl Rove and Plamegate, not the entire political strata. Why do you immediately get into attack mode about a whole range of issues that weren't even being addressed. More red herrings.
As for my job, I am a substitute teacher. Thus, I am off for the summer. Right now, I deliever pizzas, study, and write. But I will be back to teaching in the fall, and after my wife gets her degree I will go back to school to get my 2nd Master's degree and pursue a career as a college professor. Your assumptions are getting quite tiring.
There were comments made at the time of the outing that her life, and the lives of those working with her, would be in danger.
It is clear to everyone, except maybe you, that Bush lied in his State of the Union address. He and Cheney continually lied in the build up to the war, to get the public on board.
You are the one who introduced Bill Clinton into the discussion. What Clinton did, and what the Rove/Bush machine did cannot be compared. One lied about having sex. The other lied to take a country to war, and to retaliate against a citizen trying to speak out and tell the truth.
Republicans, particularly conservatives, strongly condemned Bill Clinton over lying about sex. Where is the same level of anger over lying as a justification for going to war? No one died when Clinton lied? Where is the uproar over what is taking place now? Just where are conservative Republican priorities?
What is tiring is the fact that you don't seem to care that this administration is weakening the nation in so many ways.
BAC
Can you provide some documentation for those comments made about Plame's outing being a danger to her life? Maybe just a link to a credible source?
And again, you assume that I am supporting the war or the rationale for it. However, that is not what we are discussing, though you seem to miss that point. You said justice was denied by not indicting Rove, and that someone must have "gotten to" Patrick Fitzgerald, neither of which you have proven. And further you said Rove should be in jail, though you haven't proven why he should and you have violated the time-honored rule and foundation of our justice system in doing so -- "Innocent until PROVEN guilty."
You have tried to make this issue bigger than my original point, which was that your inital post was flawed. The Clinton comparison was made in effect to show that while he was CAUGHT lying and admitted such, he then was allowed to get off easy. You have not proven that anyone specifically lied, not Bush and certainly not Rove, which I might remind you is the focus of this post (not the war, not Bush, not anything else you have tried to throw in as red herrings -- which again you really should look up the definition of so as to avoid these silly, but constant logical fallacy that you make).
The comments you made in the original post were irresponsible and based on speculation, even as pretty much all your opinions seem to be.
I just arrived in CA on business, and will be in meetings for the next two days. As soon as I get back to DC I turn right around and head to NYC for three days on another work related trip.
I will be happy to respond to your comment as soon as I have a chance. I love my job, but the summers are particularly busy times. Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of being able to spend as much time on the computer as some.
BAC
Post a Comment