Reply #51 July 24, 2005 2:33 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Hillary Clinton is not a ranking member of the Senate Intelligience Committe and would not be privy to any classified information about CIA agents. Karl Rove would have access through the White House for all this information. No other names other than Rove and Libby have been mentioned as identifying this CIA agent. Rove is by
public information on th edge of indictment. The Special Prosecutor is however not going after a Democrat (clinton) but after Bush's most trusted advisor. There will
be no indictment because of politics not because of law.

Reply #52 July 24, 2005 2:33 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Hillary Clinton is not a ranking member of the Senate Intelligience Committe and would not be privy to any classified information about CIA agents. Karl Rove would have access through the White House for all this information. No other names other than Rove and Libby have been mentioned as identifying this CIA agent. Rove is by
public information on th edge of indictment. The Special Prosecutor is however not going after a Democrat (clinton) but after Bush's most trusted advisor. There will
be no indictment because of politics not because of law.

Reply #53 July 24, 2005 2:33 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Hillary Clinton is not a ranking member of the Senate Intelligience Committe and would not be privy to any classified information about CIA agents. Karl Rove would have access through the White House for all this information. No other names other than Rove and Libby have been mentioned as identifying this CIA agent. Rove is by
public information on th edge of indictment. The Special Prosecutor is however not going after a Democrat (clinton) but after Bush's most trusted advisor. There will
be no indictment because of politics not because of law.

Reply #54 July 25, 2005 7:01 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Daiwa

If as you claim the press has a reason to play this up, explain why the CIA, FBI and Dept of Justice is doing the very same thing?

Reply #55 July 25, 2005 8:41 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

If as you claim the press has a reason to play this up, explain why the CIA, FBI and Dept of Justice is doing the very same thing?

Are you aware there are constantly investigations about "leaks" in Washington? These investigations are common and the only people who are making a big deal about this is the liberal media and the democrats. Why didn't the media go into this kind of frenzy about Berger? Because he's a democrat.

You have constantly ignored any challenge to your arguement. You have already convicted Rove without knowing the facts. Nothing matters to you but, "it's Bush's fault". You are a pathetic individual.

Reply #56 July 25, 2005 8:49 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

“Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in C.I.A. Story” is the headline the Associated Press chose for its article on now-famous journalist Matthew Cooper’s first-hand account of his testimony before the grand jury investing the leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. But the real story is that Karl Rove has been further vindicated. Though the ultimate arbiter of any legal issues will be special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and the aforementioned grand jury, the political case against Bush’s right-hand man is quickly crumbling. Cooper’s story—on Time’s new cover—confirms that Rove was not “shopping” for an outlet to “out” Plame, but that he was merely warning Cooper not to “get too far out on Wilson.” Much of what was in the account was covered in Mike Isikoff’s Newsweek scoop on the contents of the e-mail Cooper wrote to his editor almost immediately after his 2-minute phone conversation with Rove. From the Newsweek article, it was established that Cooper called Rove—not the other way around—and that it was the Time reporter, not the supposed evil genius, who brought up the topic of Joe Wilson. Perhaps the most significant “news” item in Cooper’s piece is that he also counted Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, as a “source” on Plame—which explains the AP’s headline selection. But rather than implicating Libby, Cooper’s article is yet more evidence that there was no “story shopping” by the White House. Here’s what Cooper wrote: In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversations with Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a specific waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recounted an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated. No matter what the AP headline—or others—may suggest, Libby appears to have been a “source” only in the loosest possible sense. Not only was it Cooper who initiated the call, but Libby merely told the reporter that he had “heard that too.” It would seem nothing more than an off-handed response to Cooper’s question, and the Cheney aide too, did not appear to know Plame’s name or covert status. The other significant “news” item in the Time cover story was what Cooper wrote regarding what Rove told him at the end of the very brief conversation: Although it’s not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years. Could it mean something? Possibly. Cooper seems to have spent two years pondering just that. Leftist bloggers have already started doing so—albeit in a much more conspiratorial fashion. But in and of itself, Rove’s comment is cryptic, and, as Cooper noted, it could have meant any one of a number of things. In other words, there is no smoke, let alone a gun. Though the Left has largely been dismissive of the distinction that Rove was not telling Cooper to write a story but rather to be careful so as not to publish an incorrect one, at least one key Clintonite disagrees. Former Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry recently wrote in the Huffington Post, “A two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red. Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and he needed to be cautious.” As it turns out, Cooper did have reason to be cautious. Wilson’s credibity was later eviscerated by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee. Not only did Wilson lie when claiming that his wife had nothing to do with him going to Niger, but his report back to the CIA was interpreted by analysts as being somewhat supportive of the Saddam-yellowcake intelligence. None of this changes the legal questions. No one outside of Fitzgerald’s team and the grand jury know exactly what evidence the prosecutor has gathered. Not that that will stop the Left and their calls for “frog-marching” Rove to the penitentary. Yet as things stand, what is out in the public domain—which is to say quite a bit—indicates that no law was broken. The latest “news” from Cooper only strengthens that likelihood.

Link

Reply #57 July 25, 2005 9:47 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

The Fitzerald investigation will answer the letter of the law questions, but the fact remains, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA Agent working on WMD. Libby confirmed what Rove told Cooper. The intent of the law was to PREVENT disclosing the idendity of CIA Agents. That is just what Rove and Libby did even if they have not met all the details of breaking the law. If they were mearly gossiping from what they heard from the press they are wrong. WHY would two of the highest appointed officials be gossiping about our CIA Agents? The fact Rove told Cooper the information was about to be declassified make is very doubtful that Rove learned about Plame from any reporter! He most likely read the TOP Secret State Dept memo on Air Force 1 that contained a papagraph that mentioned Mrs Wilson's CIA status which was marked "Secret NO Foreign Nationals" . That indicates the info was important and a Top Secret document should NOT have been just anyplace for people to read!

Reply #58 July 25, 2005 9:54 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

He most likely read the TOP Secret State Dept memo on Air Force 1 that contained a papagraph that mentioned Mrs Wilson's CIA status which was marked "Secret NO Foreign Nationals" . That indicates the info was important and a Top Secret document should NOT have been just anyplace for people to read!

That's a lot of speculation there col. All your opinion as usual.

WHY would two of the highest appointed officials be gossiping about our CIA Agents?

I don't see where gossiping has anything to do with it. And would you stop with the "our agents" nonsense that you have been doing. You don't care one bit about Plame, just this non-scandal that barely involves Rove.

Understand this col.

The special prosecutor involved in the leak of a covert CIA Agent, has told the lawyer of Karl Rove, in an interview with the National Review, that the White House Advisor is "not the target of the investigation."

Reply #59 July 25, 2005 12:23 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The Fitzerald investigation will answer the letter of the law questions,

Excuse me Klink, but the letter of the "law" is ALL that matters! If during the investigation Rove is found to be "innocent" of any supposed charges, guess what? He goes free! If he's found guilty, then throw the book at him. "If" he's innocent all your whining, complaining and howling for his blood means absolutely NOTHING!

Reply #60 July 25, 2005 12:26 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Island Dog

That statement about Rove was last October. The info that is comming out every day about the Rove and Libby testimony and the statements of the reporters have expanded this to possible perjury and obstruction of justice. In addition there is an issue of a person with a security clearance revealing classified information.

I have a very clear understanding of how secret and top secret the documents are handled. I was responsible for many many such documents as a nuclear weapons officer in the Army. Please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about concerning the handling of classified documents. I was personally responsible for top-secret top-secret crypto no foreign national, secret and confidential documents that filled an entire room. This is a big deal and I would suspect some people have done things that violated the laws of this country and for which they should be held accountable.

Reply #61 July 25, 2005 2:02 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA Agent working on WMD

Show us the proof you have of this, Gene. Proof, now - not your assumptions & presumptions.

And I thank God you are no longer responsible for secret documents.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #62 July 25, 2005 2:21 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

That statement about Rove was last October. The info that is comming out every day about the Rove and Libby testimony and the statements of the reporters have expanded this to possible perjury and obstruction of justice. In addition there is an issue of a person with a security clearance revealing classified information.

Actually it hasn't col. You only read what you want to hear. Rove is not guilty of anything.

I have a very clear understanding of how secret and top secret the documents are handled. I was responsible for many many such documents as a nuclear weapons officer in the Army. Please don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about concerning the handling of classified documents. I was personally responsible for top-secret top-secret crypto no foreign national, secret and confidential documents that filled an entire room.

You don't know what you're talking about. And i seriously doubt you were trusted with anything that didn't have a handle on it.

This is a big deal and I would suspect some people have done things that violated the laws of this country and for which they should be held accountable.

It's not a big deal col. This has to be the biggest non-story this year.

Reply #63 July 26, 2005 7:41 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Daiwa

First, I NEVER gave classified information to people that were not authorized that info includung members of the press. If Rove and others had handled this information properly, the way I did, we would not be having this conversation.

Proof ARE the statements of Cooper who testified before the GJ as reported in TIME . Also Cooper is not in jail for refusing to comply with the court about who told him about Mrs Plame.

I have a VERY good knowledge of classified procedures and do not give a *** what you think-- It is of NO value as it is predicated on BS! The CIA believes this is a BIG DEAL as does the FBI and Justice Dept. Compared with their opinion, your thoughts are worthless!!!!!!!!!

Reply #64 July 26, 2005 8:15 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Recent news reports and commentary have suggested that top White House adviser Karl Rove might be under investigation for perjury in the Plamegate affair. But sources familiar with the probe say the most frequently cited evidence for such speculation — an apparent inconsistency between Rove's and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's accounts of a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation — falls far short of being the basis for any prosecution, much less a perjury charge. Two days ago, in a front-page story headlined "Testimony By Rove And Libby Examined; Leak Prosecutor Seeks Discrepancies," the Washington Post reported that Plamegate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has been reviewing over the past several months discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony in his investigation of the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame." One such discrepancy, the Post reported, involved vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby. The other involved Rove: Prosecutors have also probed Rove's testimony about his telephone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the crucial days before Plame's name was revealed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak. Rove has testified that he and Cooper talked about welfare reform foremost and turned to the topic of Plame only near the end, lawyers involved in the case said. But Cooper, writing about his testimony in the most recent issue of Time, said he "can't find any record of talking about" welfare reform. "I don't recall doing so," Cooper wrote. The apparent discrepancy, first reported by Bloomberg News, is, according to the Post, evidence that Fitzgerald's investigation "has ranged beyond his original mission to determine if someone broke the law by knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative." Another Post account, citing the Cooper-Rove discrepancy, quoted an informed source saying that Fitzgerald is now " looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent.'" But speculation that Rove's conversation with Cooper might somehow form the basis of a perjury charge has no basis, according to knowledgeable sources. There are two reasons. The first is that there is solid evidence to support Rove's version of events. The second is that, even if Rove's account were incorrect, a conflict in testimony about welfare reform is not material to the Plamegate case. First the evidence. Two weeks ago, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin told NRO that Cooper called Rove on July 11, 2003, and that Cooper began the conversation by talking about welfare reform. After a brief talk about that issue, Luskin explained, Cooper then changed the subject to WMDs and the controversy surrounding former ambassador Joseph Wilson. But when Cooper testified before the grand jury, he said he did not recall talking to Rove about welfare reform — "I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11," Cooper wrote in his Time account of his testimony, "and I don't recall doing so." That, plus Cooper's statement that he was questioned closely about the issue during his grand-jury testimony, led to the current speculation that Rove might have given a false account of the conversation before the grand jury. But there is more to the story. Just moments after finishing his conversation with Cooper, Rove wrote a description of the talk in an e-mail to Stephen Hadley, who was then the deputy national-security adviser. The e-mail indicates that the two men did indeed begin their conversation with welfare reform. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail, which was first reported by the Associated Press. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger..." The e-mail appears to be solid, at-the-time evidence that the two men discussed welfare reform. "It appears that Rove's recollection of a conversation having been initiated about welfare reform is consistent with a contemporaneous e-mail he wrote to Hadley moments after he hung up the phone with Cooper," says a knowledgeable source. In addition, in a less-quoted section of his article in Time, Cooper himself acknowledged that he might have inquired about welfare reform. Cooper wrote that after reviewing his e-mails from the days in question, "it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in Time on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law." Cooper also wrote that, "I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform." (The welfare story, Cooper wrote, was ultimately pushed aside by other news.) It was not until Cooper went before the grand jury and was questioned at length about the welfare-reform issue — did he discuss it with Rove? — that Cooper got the idea that the topic might be important. The questioning, Cooper wrote, "suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform." But Cooper had no memory of that being part of the conversation. Hence the conflict. But it is a conflict, at least from what is publicly known, between an account — Rove's — that is supported by an e-mail written at the time, and an account — Cooper's — that is based on a lack of recollection, hedged by Cooper's concession that he had, in fact, been working on a welfare reform story. That is not, experts suggest, the stuff of perjury. "Even if [Rove] didn't have that contemporaneous e-mail, it has to be about something material," says Victoria Toensing, a former federal prosecutor who also, as a Capitol Hill aide, helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. "Whether [Cooper] called [Rove] about welfare reform or the price of milk, it wasn't at the heart of what the testimony was about, which was Valerie Plame. It would never be considered material." Rather, Toensing says, the difference between Rove's and Cooper's account of their conversation falls within the normal differences in recollection that often occur when two people are asked about the same event. And if such differences were the basis for a perjury prosecution, Toensing says, one might as well speculate that Matt Cooper could face such charges. Both scenarios, she suggests, are ridiculous. "Somebody remembers something as happening on Tuesday, and somebody remembers it happening on Wednesday. People differ in their memory. It's not perjury."

Link

Reply #65 July 26, 2005 8:34 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

I have a VERY good knowledge of classified procedures and do not give a *** what you think--

That's okay cause we don't give a rat's butt what "you" think either! Oh and btw.....

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann featured Joe Wilson in an "exclusive" live interview on Friday night's Countdown to plug Wilson's book, The Politics of Truth, "now in an updated paperback version." Though, as the Weekly Standard recalled last week, "the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence thoroughly shredded Wilson's credibility," and the magazine contended that "almost every public pronouncement of Joe Wilson's from the spring of 2003 forward is either an exaggeration or a falsehood or both," Olbermann refused to question Wilson's undermined claims and instead treating him and his wife as maligned victims. Olbermann posed such questions as, "Do you have a sense, specifically a chain of events of what happened and who made it happen, who actually ruined your wife's usefulness in the war on terror?" And: "Do you and your wife, or either one of you, ultimately hold the President responsible for what happened here?" He followed up: "Is he [President Bush] responsible for the leak?" Olbermann wondered: "Have the two of you considered civil suits against anybody who might have been involved in the leak of your wife's name and work?" I. Wilson denied that his Feb. 2002 mission to Niger to investigate reports of an Iraqi uranium deal was suggested by his wife, who worked in the CIA's counterproliferation division. In fact, according to the bipartisan findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson's wife "offered up his name" at a staff meeting, then wrote a memo to her division's deputy chief saying her husband was the best man for the job. II. Wilson insisted both that he had debunked reports of Iraqi interest in Niger's uranium and that Vice President Cheney, whose interest in the subject reputedly prompted Wilson's trip, had to have been informed of this. The Intelligence Committee found otherwise when it questioned Wilson under oath: On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims....For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, [Wilson] told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair." III. In the spring of 2003, after a purported "memorandum of agreement" between Iraq and Niger was shown to be a forgery, Wilson began to tell reporters, on background, that he'd known the documents were forgeries all along. But the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA (and Wilson) had been unaware of the documents until eight months after his trip. Moreover, it found that "no one believed" Wilson's trip "added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story." It found that "for most analysts, the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." IV. Wilson's confidence that Cheney knew about his trip served as the basis for his accusation, passed along uncritically by the New Republic, that it "was a flat-out lie" for President Bush to have accused Saddam Hussein of trying to obtain uranium in Niger. He told Meet the Press interviewer Andrea Mitchell, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there." The Intel Committee's findings: "Because CIA analysts did not believe that [Wilson's] report added any new information to clarify the issue...CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue." As Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts concluded in the "Additional Views" section of his report: "The former ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading."

So much for that ca-ca!

Reply #66 July 27, 2005 7:05 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

This is not about Wilson. You are in the ca-ca. The issue is Rove and Libby providing the idendity of a CIA Agent to the press, Again, if this were not a serious issue, the CIA, FBI and Dept of Justice would not be investigating this matter!

Reply #67 July 27, 2005 7:28 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

This is not about Wilson. You are in the ca-ca. The issue is Rove and Libby providing the idendity of a CIA Agent to the press, Again, if this were not a serious issue, the CIA, FBI and Dept of Justice would not be investigating this matter!

So using "your" logic, since Rove is NOT the target of the investigation does that mean he's in the clear?

Reply #68 July 27, 2005 10:19 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Once again, Gene, you ignore anything you can't answer & just regurgitate the same shit over & over. You are a propagandist of the worst kind because you understand exactly what you are doing, by your own claims.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #69 July 27, 2005 3:25 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The issue is Rove and Libby providing the idendity of a CIA Agent to the press, Again, if this were not a serious issue, the CIA, FBI and Dept of Justice would not be investigating this matter!

This "issue" is about someone leaking the name of this CIA employee. It was not Rove. I know your mind doesn't let you think about anything but "blame Bush", but Rove is the target here, except by the media.

Reply #70 July 27, 2005 6:29 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

IslandDog

I will try this slowly. Cooper testified it was Rove that told him Mrs. Plame was a CIA Agent. The CIA was so concerned they went to the Justice Dept, and a SP was appointed and the FBI started a major investigation. Please tell me which of there words you do not understand?

Reply #71 July 27, 2005 6:50 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

I will try this slowly. Cooper testified it was Rove that told him Mrs. Plame was a CIA Agent. The CIA was so concerned they went to the Justice Dept, and a SP was appointed and the FBI started a major investigation. Please tell me which of there words you do not understand?

Col, you have not listened to anything presented here to you, so don't try that with me. Rove told him Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. There is no crime there col. Why are people still sitting in jail if Rove is the "leak"? I have told you before these types of investigations are common in Washington. The only people making a big deal out of this is the Bush haters and their media allies. Other than that, it's a non-story.

Read this real slowly again col because you haven't responded to it yet. The prosecutor says Rove is not the target of the investigation. Do you understand this col?

Reply #72 July 27, 2005 9:19 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The prosecutor said that Rove was not a target of the investigation last October (2004). That was BEFORE much of the most current information, including the differences between Rove/Libby and the reporters testimony took place. There is another law that will not allow someone that knows information in classified and has a security clearence from releasing that information. Rove admitted to Cooper the information HE GAVE COOPER was classified and said it was to be declassified soon! Rove also has a security clearence. BINGO!!!

Investigations the size and scope of this inveatigation do NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. This case, according to the CIA, is a SERIOUS violation. I will believe the CIA LONG before people on JoeUser!

Reply #73 July 27, 2005 10:42 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

The prosecutor said that Rove was not a target of the investigation last October (2004). That was BEFORE much of the most current information, including the differences between Rove/Libby and the reporters testimony took place. There is another law that will not allow someone that knows information in classified and has a security clearence from releasing that information. Rove admitted to Cooper the information HE GAVE COOPER was classified and said it was to be declassified soon! Rove also has a security clearence. BINGO!!!

WRONG ANSWER Klink! Read the date and cry in your beer! Try THIS year, NOT 2004!
WRONG ONCE AGAIN!

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:50 a.m. EDT Prosecutor: Karl Rove Not Target of Probe Plamegate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had told top White House advisor Karl Rove that he's not a target of his investigation into who leaked the identity of CIA analyst Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak. And Fitzgerald has also asked the top Bush aide not to discuss the case in public.

Reply #74 July 28, 2005 1:33 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Rove admitted to Cooper the information HE GAVE COOPER was classified and said it was to be declassified soon! Rove also has a security clearence. BINGO!!!

Uh, BING-NO!!!, Gene. You might want to be a little more specific about what you are alleging here and where exactly the allegation came from. I suspect you are talking around the facts or using unconfirmed "leaks" again. I know I'm wasting my time, but just for the record.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Reply #75 July 28, 2005 8:22 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Investigations the size and scope of this inveatigation do NOT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. This case, according to the CIA, is a SERIOUS violation. I will believe the CIA LONG before people on JoeUser!

This investigation is no bigger than any other. The only people who are blowing this up is liberals and their media allies col. Don't you understand that. Nobody cares about this.

WRONG ANSWER Klink! Read the date and cry in your beer! Try THIS year, NOT 2004! WRONG ONCE AGAIN!

Will you finally admit you are wrong col?