Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jul 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    A slap on the wrist would be something, at least an offical gesture that says this was wrong and recognized as such.
    It's not like I really expect him to fire anyone like he suggested (if not outright stated) he would.
  2. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Except that doesn't really answer the question about how proportional the response would be compared to other similar disclosures to the press.

    For example, what was the last sanctions against a congresscritter or staffer who was negligent and released some minor bit of classified data (which is really what this amounted to)? Honestly, even among my friends who are staffers on the Hill, I haven't heard of any such sanctions, even though congressional leaks are really quite commonplace. Not even at the level of a slap on the wrist.

    Kimball Kinnison
  3. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    Your point is unsatisfying, but well taken.
  4. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I realize it's unsatisfying, but part of that is because of all of the publicity that the case has received. It it weren't for the publicity, and it were just another DC leak to the press, would it still feel so unsatisfying?

    In fact, if it weren't for the publicity, the topic would have never been referred to an independent counsel, and it would have been dead by the end of 2003. Barring that, it would have been dead when Fitzgerald declined to indict anyone for any release (negligent or not) of classified data. It's only the publicity that makes it unsatisfying, and a good part of that is because the early reports were far more rumor than fact (creating a skewed perception of the case).

    Kimball Kinnison
  5. Neo-Paladin Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 10, 2004
    star 4
    Assuming there was a lack of publicity, but I was aware of the case?

    I'd say yes, I'd still feel dissatisfied by the outcome.

    At best, in a rush to discredit Wilson, they were careless. Considering our time of conflict that is almost less forgivable than if they had knowledge of Plame's classified status. Considering what the CIA does and what information they were loosing on the rumor mill, it might have been considered prudent to check that sort of thing out first. Had she been connected to something truly sensitive good people could have died for a few political points.
    If some reports are to believed, all the White House had to do was cite Wilson's original report, which would have been more effective and could not have put anyone at risk.

    That said, you'll forgive me if I do not think the best of Rove and others.
  6. Lily_Skywalker Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 22, 2002
    star 2
    Absolutely... NOT. Her status as CIA agent was known.
  7. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    up in light of recent events
  8. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Scooter found guilty. Interesting judgment. I'm sure there's going to be a pardon coming soon. Either that or when GWB is leaving office.
  9. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    GWB can't afford to pardon him, even now. MAybe someone will once he leaves office, but pardoning Libby would assure more independants would vote Democrat in the next election.
  10. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Bush has already publically stated that he respects the jury's finding. While that isn't a direct "no pardon" statement, it's close.

    Most likely, Libby isn't going to need a pardon, as I can easily see him getting hit with a fine and some sort of probation, just like Sandy Berger received.
  11. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Plus the jury were wondering why Libby was the only one on the stand, whilst Dick Armitige and Karl Rove were absent.

    I love how Libby reckoned he "misremembered" because he was "swamped" with national security affairs. Yeah. Sure. You didn't play dirty politics to discredit your ideological opponents; you made an innocent mistake with a matter of national security... o_O

    I don't mind that he made politics; I mind that a) he's a neocon and thus evil and b) (and more seriously) that he keeps lying about it.

    E_S
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Plus the jury were wondering why Libby was the only one on the stand, whilst Dick Armitige and Karl Rove were absent.

    Yeah, but this would have happened only if the political concerns (which weren't illegal, or rather which were found not to be illegal) were combined with the actual legal issues.

    Libby was "on the stand" because the only criminal charges that were pursued were related to Libby's lying to the grand jury. That's Libby's fault, and for which he had to pay the piper.

    This is what keeps coming up again and again, and why I have nothing but distain for the "special prosecutor" type set-up no matter who the target is.
  13. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Dirty politics to discredit an opponent? Isn't that what was revealed to have been happening to the Republicans by the Plame revolation?
  14. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    No, J-Rod, the GOP were actually naughty. I know, I'm shocked too, given their close links with God himself and all... ;)

    E_S
  15. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    From the article...The investigation eventually identified Richard Armitage, then the deputy secretary of state, as the source of the leak. Mr Armitage said that it was an accident, and no one was charged with the leak.

    Don't get me wrong E_S, I believe that Libby lied under oath. I think he should get the same sentence that Clinton got for the same offence...or the one that Sandy Burgler received. Oh...:oops:

    Actually that's not true. I believe that all three of the aforementioned criminals should be in jail. I don't have a problem with Libby's conviction.

    But keep in mind that Libby lied to cover up something that apparently wasn't a crime...or at least wasn't charged as such.

    My point is that the dirty politics in this case was that Wilson was telling everyone that Cheney sent him to Niger knowing that if the truth came out about who really sent him someone would have to go to jail.

    It succeeded.
  16. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Lying about oral sex is a criminal act? Lying about oral sex is the same as outing a CIA agent? I'm not saying what Clinton did wasn't scummy, but it's in no way in the same league as what Libby did.
  17. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Lying about oral sex is a criminal act?

    No, lying to a Federal Grand Jury is.

    Lying about oral sex is the same as outing a CIA agent?

    Libby didn't out a CIA agent. Both Libby and Clinton lied under oath. Both should be in jail.

    I'm not saying what Clinton did wasn't scummy, but it's in no way in the same league as what Libby did.

    What do you think Libby did?
  18. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Perjury is perjury. I think its a can of worms to start deciding what lies are ok and what lies aren't.
  19. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I think perjury in that case should be allowed. Simply because it's a natural human response to lie about it. It's an affair. Get over it.
  20. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Wait... if its the natural human response, its ok?
  21. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Lying about that, yes. ;) Everyone purgers themselves as witnesses any way. It's kind of an impossible thing to enforce.
  22. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    So then, why even bother with having Libby charged with perjury?
  23. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    I can't stand the irony of Dems and the GOP switching sides on this. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or to cry that Dems think it was OK for Clinton to lie about sex, but it was wrong for Scooter to lie about where he first learned of Plame's identity, and visa-versa for Republicans.
    It was wrong for Clinton to lie under oath, even if it was for something as unimportant about sex, and it was equally wrong for Libby to lie to the grand jury. I do think the Libby case is more important. If someone talks to a Grand Jury, that information doesn't become public unless a case is brought against them. It is throwing dirt in the eyes of those meant to uncover the truth.

    Libby should not be pardoned, he should pay for what he did. He is not innocent, but in a sense he was the "fall guy" for Cheney because what he did was try to hide Cheney's involvement in whatever happened.

    There is no clear evidence that Cheney or Rove orchestrated the outing of Plame, but because people like Libby lied under oath we will never know the full truth. I think it is plausible that Armitage did uncover her identity on accident, and the tape makes it sounds like that is what happened.

    But again both parties are blatant hypocrites. The Republicans for defending Libby under the exact same pretenses that Dems used to defend Clinton, and the Democrats for continuing to defend Clinton's violations of the law. What Clinton did was definitely illegal, but I am not sure it was a "high crime" that warrented his removal from office. He violated the public trust, but I would rather have a president that lied about his sex life than that lied about why we went to war.

  24. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    I can't stand the irony of Dems and the GOP switching sides on this. I honestly don't know whether to laugh or to cry that Dems think it was OK for Clinton to lie about sex, but it was wrong for Scooter to lie about where he first learned of Plame's identity, and visa-versa for Republicans.

    Huh? I haven't heard of any conservatives "switching sides". While I've heard the situation being compared to Clinton's, I have yet to hear anyone defend Libby. They only point to the hypocrisy of the left.

    I wonder, however, why so many people seem to think that Libby was convicted of being the source of the leak. They seem to be falling victim to the leftist media.
  25. Noelie Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 11, 2005
    star 4
    I don't mind admitting frustration and confusion on this case right from the beginning. There shouldn't have been one. Plame was not an undercover CIA agent and as front door employee of that agency she got her hubby a job he shouldn't have had and did very poorly at that. Yet here we are.

    All I know is now perjury is important to the left. It wasn't a few years ago. Then it was just "sex" and that should all "be private".

    I also don't get why even this with Libby is so HUGE and the guy stealing important documents.. well . .nothing. not so much. Cricket's chirping.....

    I don't get any of it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.