posted on July 9, 2005 07:45:29 PM new
What an SOB he is. Evil presence next to the president. Thinks he's God, right? And can do anything he wants. Vengeful jerk.
posted on July 9, 2005 11:22:43 PM new
If we know that it is Rove or if we find out that it definitely was Rove he needs to be prosecuted. Whoever is responsible for this needs to be prosecuted.
Wouldn't it be ironic if it was Rove, hiding behind the behind the principles of members of the liberal press that conservative leaders are so frequently attacking.
BTW - Anyone notice the conspicuous absence of this story on Fox?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
No, I'm saying -- I'm merely -- I'm saying what I'm saying. I don't know why I'm always having people say, are you trying to say -- you know what you can do if you want to know what I'm saying is listen to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is what I said ...
posted on July 10, 2005 05:39:35 AM new Some background to this story...Wilson criticized the president's case for war when he said that the Bush Administration's imminent war with Iraq was not about weapons of mass destruction, nor terrorism (since it would only result in more terrorism), not about liberating oppressed people. Rather, he argued, the true objective of the war was an effort to impose a Pax Americana on the region. He concluded that because we had no business building empires, we had no business going to war. (The Nation, March 3, 2003)
Then, On July 6, 2003 - in an OpEd column for The New York Times, and an extensive interview with The Washington Post - Wilson said that he had found no evidence that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger. (Wilson had been sent by the CIA to make such a determination seventeen months earlier, in February 2002.)
That put part of Bush's State of the Union in doubt (as I discussed in an earlier column) and forced the White House to retract at least sixteen words of it. The Administration said that the CIA was to blame. (Later, Bush also claimed that his sixteen words really were technically correct, because he said in his State of the Union that he was relying on British intelligence, not his own, but that point hardly quieted the scandal.).
Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense
against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any
agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of
such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy,
each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object
of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such
conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for
such misdemeanor.
Even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.
This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.
Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.
What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.
posted on July 10, 2005 06:12:28 AM new
Outing a CIA agent is treason. If it came from inside the White House which it did, Rove, then the administration is guilty of treason .But they will get away with it because the Republicans have control and none have any ethics or morals and will blindly and stupidly support this evil administration.
[ edited by mingotree on Jul 10, 2005 06:14 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2005 06:13:30 AM new
I hope to see Rove, tried and convicted for treason. Then I hope to see both Bush and Cheney impeached.
These three will do whatever it takes and steam roll whoever is their path in order to make their agenda work.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
President George Bush: "Over time the truth will come out."
President George Bush: "Our people are going to find out the truth, and the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence. There's no doubt in my mind."
Bush was right. The truth did come out and the facts are he misled Congress and the American people about the reasons we should go to war in Iraq.
posted on July 10, 2005 06:23:04 AM new
While Karl Rove may be quilty of many things (constipation of the brain; holding up a strawman Dumbo), the actual crime of Treason is extremely difficult, if not impossible to prosecute on anybody, as it is one of the few crimes actually expressed in the Constitution:
(from the Wikipedia)
"To avoid the abuses of the English law, treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution. Article Three defines treason as only levying war against the United States or "in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort," and requires the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction. This safeguard may not be foolproof since Congress could pass a statute creating treason-like offences with different names (such as sedition, bearing arms against the state, etc.) which do not require the testimony of two witnesses, and have a much wider definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have generally been convicted of espionage rather than treason. In the United States Code the penalty ranges from "shall suffer death" to "shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
In the history of the United States there have been fewer than forty federal prosecutions for treason and even fewer convictions."
"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me."—Guess Who? Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
posted on July 10, 2005 06:27:06 AM new
I 100% agree so far until the neocons like Linda_K start. Rove is just another example of how the neocons work. If you oppose or expose them they will do anything to distroy or discredit you even to the point of risking CIA agents lives.
We all remember Paul O'Neil and Richard Clark.
America need to break up this gang starting in 2006.
[ edited by bigpeepa on Jul 10, 2005 06:28 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2005 06:45:10 AM new
tOMWiii I see your point and know that it would be difficult, virtually impossible to prosecute Rove as he should be but I have heard repeatedly from different sources that disclosing a covert CIA agent is treason as well it should be.
But I could be wrong and will check around still hoping he's caught , charged and prosecuted.
But this administration has committed so many horrible acts against humanity and still rolls on unscathed that a mere act of treason means nothing to them or their supporters.
posted on July 10, 2005 09:29:20 AM new
LOL.....already deciding he should be tried for treason.
He has to be found guilty first.....and that hasn't happened.
This is just one more, in the long, long line of democratic mud throwing, that makes the left start salivating....but they haven't 'pinned' a thing they've blamed this administration for yet.
Imo, this will just be another one of those.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 10, 2005 10:05:15 AM new
"He has to be found guilty first.....and that hasn't happened."
Gee, I wonder why... Perhaps it has to do with who controls the government.
So, the real question will be whether Linda is willing to support trying Rove for treason if all roads point to guilty.
She was so quick to jump on punishing someone for eco-terrorism if they committed the crime, but is she willing to do the same for Rove? How about George Bush? If the Downing Street Memo plays out and there is proof he doctored information to go into Iraq, is she willing to promote impeachment? I mean, isn't is anti-American to support a treasonist, or a war profiteer?
posted on July 10, 2005 10:05:26 AM new
Linda, you know the "mindset" of the posters in here "guilty until proven innocent" Not the right way innocent until proven guilty. This is one reason we need the conservative judges that read and see the facts the right way.
Was Kerry tried for treason after the Vietnam war, no but he should have been.
**********
Kerry by his own words & actions violated the UCMJ and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer.
Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953.
That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed,
also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President
... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,
or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof
*************
_________________
posted on July 10, 2005 10:14:42 AM new
LOL foul-mouthed rusty......you start a thread bragging about an old friend of yours, telling us what a good person he is...while he's now going to be tried as an eco-terrorist....and you expect ME to listen to anything YOU have to say? how very funny.
--------------------
Oh...I know Libra, they're so two faced it's not even funny anymore. Look at all the criminals clinton pardoned. Look to the clinton administration for the ACTUAL 17 convictions of those who hung with b. clinton. Then look to the fact all the garbage they've thrown at this administration has produced ZILCH, NADA, ZERO results.
Won't keep them from continue to try though.....they have nothing else to focus on....no ideas, no solutions, no answer to current issue that need to be dealt with. So...this is what they do in the meantime.....whine...complain...and TRY once again to find some mud to throw at ANY righie then can.
They just can't ever prove anything.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 10, 2005 10:34:48 AM new
"you start a thread bragging about an old friend of yours, telling us what a good person he is..." I never said he was a friend. In fact, I used the word acquaintance. I never said he was a good person either. I knew some of his traits from 10 years ago. I also said that if he committed the crime he should be held accountable, but you won't point that out.
"while he's now going to be tried as an eco-terrorist...."
yes, he may be tried as an eco-terrorist. that was what the article was about. the debate was also what was deemed as terrorism. I never said I supported the actions, in fact I have done everything to distance myself from these behaviors. I don't condone destroying property, but somehow you have once again twisted it so you can lie to everyone else. i'm not the only one who sees it and knows it. your credibility is nill, zilch, zero, nada.
"and you expect ME to listen to anything YOU have to say? how very funny."
as usual, backed up against the wall, you won't answer the question. are you afraid that you'll show your true colors? we already know what they are, because you show it every day.
posted on July 10, 2005 10:40:22 AM new
I'm sure every single person participating here would like to know whether Linda could still actually support trying Rove for Treason if he was guilty. How about the President? If he committed a crime punishable by treason, or impeachment, will she still support those actions? Would that be anti-American in her views?
posted on July 10, 2005 10:43:36 AM new
Comprehension problem, foul-mouthed, rusty....or short term memory loss on your part....either one.....you did exactly as I stated and it's there for all to read....you 'sang' his praises. NO denying your own words....no matter how much you might like to.
From the eco-terrorist thread:
First, *****it was strange to see an old friend***** Mike as front page headlines. Second, my next reaction was to find him after things settled to catch up.
LOL you were saying?
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 10, 2005 10:58:39 AM new
Did you bother to pull the clarification I made immediately after I posted that??? No, you didn't. I clearly stated, "I would consider Tre an acquaintance, not a friend."
Linda, You are merely picking symantics, when you clearly know I clarified my statement.
And yes, I did want to catch up with him. Why shouldn't I? Someone I knew from the past, 7 years later making national news living in a city 3000 miles from where we first met. What is so bad about that? Perhaps a friendship would have evolved, but it didn't. I was not willing to be part of an organization of extremists. As I admitted in my post, which again you fail to mention here, I kept my distance.
Linda is so willing to continue this battle attempting to cast a shadow on my politics, but she won't come out and admit her true feelings about upholding the law whether it is for someone she admires, or not.
posted on July 10, 2005 11:05:58 AM new
Yes, foul-mouthed, rusty....you did BACKTRACK once someone else mentioned your FRIEND. You quickly backtracked.
But anyone can read your second post on that thread and see exactly what you did say. I don't have to post the whole thing for you do I?
And you also said, "my next reaction was to find him after things settled to catch up.
As far as the rove question goes....like I said...you lefties just continue salivating all you want....hoping that you will FINALLY find something you can make stick to this administration.
I'll comment on it when and IF there's ever any proof he's guilty. I don't believe there's going to be....and don't plan to spend my time discussing all the lies the left wishes to continue throwing without any proof to back anything up.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on July 10, 2005 11:21:19 AM new
my point exactly Linda. i clarified my statement in that thread immediately, because I realized i misspoke when I used the word "friend". So, exactly what does that prove? At least I have the ability to admit when I make a mistake.
the real issue is that you run from the questions when you know you are backed up against the wall.
by the way, I wear that "foul mouthed Rusty" label proudly because if you notice my foul mouth only applies to you, and boy do I love poking at you with a stick... a big stick. I have no problems admitting it, front and center. You are a neocon pig.
[ edited by rustygumbo on Jul 10, 2005 11:22 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2005 11:30:11 AM new
Yes, foul-mouthed rusty you prove with each post that you can't just argue/debate and issue without letting everyone else see how you must resort to name calling.
Someone doesn't agree with your ultra-far-left ideas/ideals....then call them a name. Makes you feel like a big man I guess. But many see having to resort to such measures only makes YOU look like the small, pathetic person you are.
So....hang with all the eco-terrorists you wish to...makes no difference to me. But when someone is so extreme to run in these radical environmental groups....it says a lot about how extreme they are.....heck you even complained that gore wasn't far left enough.....or that he wasn't as environmentally radical as you are.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Jul 10, 2005 11:33 AM ]
posted on July 10, 2005 12:09:43 PM new
"Yes, foul-mouthed rusty you prove with each post that you can't just argue/debate and issue without letting everyone else see how you must resort to name calling."
Such an oxymoron. LOL. Linda proves my point.
"Someone doesn't agree with your ultra-far-left ideas/ideals....then call them a name."
I don't call them names, I tell them the way it is. The truth can just be harsh sometimes.
By the way, its difficult to be ultra-far-left when I believe in gun ownership rights, when I don't promote abortion, when I promote strong national security, and equality for all Americans, and using a strong military for the proper reasons, not for war profiteering. I support the right of religion, not the religious right. I support accountability, not just saying it is so. Sorry to pull that rug out from under you. I'm a progressive that actually has values, unlike Linda's hypocritical ideologies.
"So....hang with all the eco-terrorists you wish to...makes no difference to me. But when someone is so extreme to run in these radical environmental groups. it says a lot about how extreme they are.....heck you even complained that gore wasn't far left enough.....or that he wasn't as environmentally radical as you are."
Another lie that Linda pulled from her butt. Just curious, but exactly how radical am I Linda? I educated Florida residents about water pollution from a paper mill. I lobbied state legislators in Tallahassee about properly funding a partisan land preservation bill that was supported by everyone, but simply couldn't agree on how to fund it. I held a sign up to get my point across when Gore came to town. In fact, we met with the Secret Service to discuss our plans prior to his speech, and they approved of us being there. Both the SS and our organization agreed to respect his speech by being quiet during, and we could protest before and after the ceremony. Boy, imagine a radical extremist accomplishing that... Do you even know what my argument was about Gore? No, you don't. I agreed with most every single thing he had written in his book, "Earth in the Balance", however I didn't think his environmental philosophy matched his political resume and he squandored a few opportunities. How extreme is that? Wow, Linda just knows my whole life. LOL. That is pretty hysterical.
posted on July 11, 2005 11:05:26 AM new
Below is a news article by Reuters posted on AOL News. This should shut-up Linda_K and her sister Libra63 with their denials but of course it won't. I hope the American tax payers don't have to pay for Rove's Lawyer.
Rove Spoke With Reporter About CIA Agent
No Indication Bush Aide Used Operative's Name or Knew Covert Status
Rove recently gave Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper permission to testify about the conversation, Rove's lawyer said.
WASHINGTON (July 10) - Top White House advisor Karl Rove was one of the secret sources that spoke to reporters about a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked to the media, Newsweek magazine reported in its latest edition.
The magazine said Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove talked to Time magazine about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Luskin said Rove recently gave Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper permission to testify about the conversation to a grand jury investigating the 2003 leak, according to Newsweek.
A U.S. federal judge ordered Cooper, along with New York Times reporter Judith Miller, to testify and reveal their confidential sources.
Last week Cooper avoided a jail sentence for contempt of court by agreeing to testify in the case. Miller refused to testify and was jailed.
The case has become an important test involving freedom of the press and has pitting the media's traditional use of anonymous sources against the efforts of a federal government prosecutor to investigate a possible crime.
It is illegal to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent.
Although Rove has made statements about the Plame leak, he has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about the CIA agent.
Rove has carefully chosen his words when questioned about the leak. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," he told CNN last year when asked if he had had anything to do with it.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has been leading a two-year investigation into the leak amid questions about whether it came from White House as part of an attempt to discredit Wilson after he contradicted President Bush's assertions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Wilson wrote an op-ed column in The New York Times saying he had been sent by the CIA in 2002 to investigate the Bush administration's claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa -- a claim that the administration used to justify going to war in Iraq. Wilson said he found no evidence to support the claim.
The Newsweek article said an e-mail Cooper sent his bureau chief after briefly talking with Rove stated that "it was, KR said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip."
The e-mail did not suggest that Rove used Plame's name or that he knew she was a covert agent, the article said.
"Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told Newsweek.
Below is a AOL straw poll about the Rove issue.
Question.
What's your take on what Karl Rove said to Time about the agent?
Answers.
He deliberately said too much 71%
It's unclear 13%
He didn't say too much at all 11%
He mistakenly said too much 6%
Total Votes: 67,721
posted on July 11, 2005 11:39:09 AM newIF Rove did this, he better be seeing the inside of a courtroom.
BTW bigpeepa, why do you think Santorum will not win reelection?
His opponent lost half his lead in one year with a year still to go, also Santorum just got backing from PETA.
edited to correct some spelling
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Jul 11, 2005 12:18 PM ]
posted on July 11, 2005 11:56:58 AM newLOL.....already deciding he should be tried for treason.
He has to be found guilty first.....and that hasn't happened.
Crap, all these years I've been teaching my students that in this country the trial comes first and then you're found guilty or innocent....boy do I feel foolish...*slinks off*
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 11, 2005 11:58:25 AM new
oh wait, maybe they changed the rules since Bush was re-elected..yeah, that must be it....
____________________________________________
Fue por lana y salió trasquilado...
posted on July 11, 2005 12:56:28 PM new
Yes, profe51, it's called the Patriot Act and it allows people to be picked up, no charges made, cut off from all outside sources including their families or attorneys, no trial, and held until someone somewhere decides to let them go or ship them off to another country to be tortured until they "confess"...it's now the law, or lack thereoff.
posted on July 11, 2005 02:36:16 PM new
Treason?? Does that include John Kerry?
Or how about Dan Rather who knowingly broadcast information that he knew was questionable and then untrue that he hoped would change the outcome of an election. Whatever happened to that "in depth" investigation, anyhow.?
Talk about front page news slipping away.
