Comments on: Rove Facing Charges in Plame Case

By: Roger

Roger — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 20:17:18 +0000

I'll take the lesser of two evils every time, and accept that as a win.

By: SgtFluffy

SgtFluffy — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 01:06:51 +0000

Its a no win situation huh Roger....

By: Roger

Roger — Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:25:37 +0000

Interesting, though, SgtFluffy, how Bush pardons tend to help cover up serious admin crimes while Clinton's pardons did not. The two don't seem comparable. Of course, no one in the Clinton admin was culpable in serious crimes, so I guess that undermines my point a bit.

By: SgtFluffy

SgtFluffy — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:02:12 +0000

Alan,
Lets not forget The Pardon Frenzy of 2000. As long as you had the money to play.

By: Roger

Roger — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 17:25:43 +0000

Steven, unless Scott McClellan lied, both told him they weren't involved in the leak. That's one lie. Libby told Fitz he learned of Plame from a reporter. We now know he was involved in a concerted effort initiated from the admin. That's another lie. Rove told Fitz the Plame case was mentioned "in passing" in a conversation with Cooper. Cooper says that the Plame topic was what the entire conversation was about. Cooper's version has been confirmed by his notes and another reporter--name escapes me currently. Rove lied again here. Rove now claims that in his early testimony to the Grand Jury he forgot about talking with Cooper and so didn't tell Fitz. Problem is, 7 months before the testimony in question, he and his lawyer had located the e-mail they now claim "refreshed" Rove's memory. The timeline doesn't work and this is another lie. This is the one that will get Rove indicted as the duplicity is hard to deny and easily understandable by the Grand Jury.

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:52:01 +0000

Rove testifies again before CIA leak grand jury...

Top White House aide Karl Rove prepared to testify today for a fifth time before the federal grand j...

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:48:09 +0000

Sgt. Fluffy - don't worry, because they are Republican, they will be pardoned.

By: SgtFluffy

SgtFluffy — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:09:30 +0000

Steal top secret documents from the National Archives- Fine $50,000 ?

Leak sensitive material crucial to the war on terror to the press- Fired from Job, Whistleblower status

Leak information to the Press about a secret sattelite program ultimately killing it- No investigation, keep seats in Senate

Leak Info to the Washington Times about foreign spy program, possibly causing the death of a few-lose seat in comittee, get another one.

Charged with a crime not pertaining to the investigation of the crime that apparently isn't a crime, but since you are a Republican or associated with a Republican- Gas Chamber.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 16:01:44 +0000

Tano: That can certainly happen. But one's recollection changes over time as exposed to other information. I just don't understand why anyone would cooperate knowing they could potentially be the victim of a witch hunt. That's especially true in cases like this, where the prosecutor "has" to get someone after so much investment.

By: Tano

Tano — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:43:06 +0000

"one could stumble into criminal charges by giving conflicting statements years apart."

Ahem....

What an elegant way of saying "one can face criminal charges for lying, and then trying to squirm out it".

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:20:34 +0000

Michael: I had misgivings about the whole Ken Starr thing but, at the end of the day, he was supposed to investigate perjury charges that predated the investigation into the perjury charges.

That he was initially tasked to handle Whitewater and then had his portfolio expanded is an argument against Special Prosecutors--which I happen to think rightfully ended as a practice.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:13:16 +0000

Not that I'm suggesting tit for tat, but I have two words:

Ken. Starr.

By: MrGone

MrGone — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:12:55 +0000

Facts, or "alleged" facts may be found at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 15:04:22 +0000

Could the first poster please provide facts that Libby and Rove lied?

By: Alan

Alan — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 14:53:27 +0000

Libby and Rove could have taken the 5th, and then suffered the political consequences of doing so. Instead, they lied to investigators and the Grand Jury. Now they'll pay the criminal consequences of that.