Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

[CaptnKirk]

Don't forget that Rove was an understudy to the Nixon Machines Donald Segretti -
and has been an assassin of opponents & respectable polititians since the '70s

Rove

Just like Nixon before the Bush Administration - the 'Power' is used to 'Get People' who do not cottle to thier line -
they screw everyone over so they can gain more power for themselves, it's illegal - period.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When will you do more than provide a link and think it proves your claim?

Hmmm.... Pot meet kettle. :laugh:

I seem to recall pages and pages of post after post in this very thread when I asked you the same thing and got absolutely no links, let alone anything on topic.

And yes, there is a link and a point to this post. The link is this thread, and all it takes to get the point is enough time to read the thread from the top.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Note, chicken, that even if you're fantasy was reality, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq. (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)) was violated as well.

Let's be honest here. This is an administration that is forced time and time again to invent the most ridiculous defenses for its actions. Are Americans actually willing to be governed by people who must continually evade the spirit of the law to advance their illegal agenda?

Aren't you becoming embarassed by now making excuse after ridiculous excuse?

I'm embarassed just watching you.

It's really pathetic. Like the "Mission Accomplished" thing. Or Bush's "address" wherein he STILL linked Iraq with 9/11.

When will you WTFU?

When will you do more than provide a link and think it proves your claim?

I provided the links and relevant text to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 already and showed how it would not be applicable to Plame since she is past the 5 year stipulation. She has been in DC since 1997.

Now try and actually prove what you are claiming is correct.

Whoops!

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Whoops!

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

Whoops is right.

You'd never make a lawyer. Certain people are trying to conflate "working undercover" with "covert agent." They are NOT one and the same.

Now read that statement closely and hopefully it will give you a hint where you and others are stumbling and bumbling.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: BBond
Note, chicken, that even if you're fantasy was reality, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq. (governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)) was violated as well.

Let's be honest here. This is an administration that is forced time and time again to invent the most ridiculous defenses for its actions. Are Americans actually willing to be governed by people who must continually evade the spirit of the law to advance their illegal agenda?

Aren't you becoming embarassed by now making excuse after ridiculous excuse?

I'm embarassed just watching you.

It's really pathetic. Like the "Mission Accomplished" thing. Or Bush's "address" wherein he STILL linked Iraq with 9/11.

When will you WTFU?

When will you do more than provide a link and think it proves your claim?

I provided the links and relevant text to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 already and showed how it would not be applicable to Plame since she is past the 5 year stipulation. She has been in DC since 1997.

Now try and actually prove what you are claiming is correct.

Whoops!

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

And furthermore, what I've already demonstrated to TLC (in response to his absurd claim that only cleared people can be indicted for passing classified information) is that if the source of Rove's information about Plame's identity was classified, then revealing that classified information is also a potential criminal act, indictable under Section 1(d) of the U.S. Espionage act of 1917. This is in addition to any potential charges under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, or to any potential charges of conspiracy or perjury.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
When will you do more than provide a link and think it proves your claim?

Hmmm.... Pot meet kettle. :laugh:

I seem to recall pages and pages of post after post in this very thread when I asked you the same thing and got absolutely no links, let alone anything on topic.

And yes, there is a link and a point to this post. The link is this thread, and all it takes to get the point is enough time to read the thread from the top.

Oh you mean all those posts where you claim I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground and call me TastesLikeChickenSh8 and TastesLikeBullsh8?

So how is it you get away with so much personal abuse in this forum that would have others banned or warned at the very least, Harvey? Hmmmm? Want to tell us your secret?

:roll:

 

[BBond]

Chicken, I think they did this one just for you...


> Hot Karl

...and everyone like you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Once again, BBond can't reply with facts and instead replies with a "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" post.

Typical.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whoops is right.

You'd never make a lawyer. Certain people are trying to conflate "working undercover" with "covert agent." They are NOT one and the same.

Now read that statement closely and hopefully it will give you a hint where you and others are stumbling and bumbling.

So what's the difference between undercover and covert??
And you keep claiming that she wasn't covert, no harm was done to the CIA's assets. Then please explain why the CIA asked the DOJ to start an investigation.

Also, Rove and/or the leakers don't have to be prosecuted under the IIPA. The espionage act (dessiminating classified info) applies to this case as well (and this was pointed out above).

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once again, BBond can't reply with facts and instead replies with a "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" post.

Typical.

I think everyone here can see the facts just fine...

> McClellan's Flop Sweat

...everyone other than Bushies like you.

Countdown begins for the Bush administration.



And...

"I've responded to your questions, dick."

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: conjur
Post: White House fears indictment
http://washingtontimes.com/upi/20050714-104442-6075r.htm

White House officials told The Washington Post they fear someone in the Bush administration may be indicted regarding the leak of a covert CIA operative's name.

The Post report Thursday did not name its sources, saying "officials acknowledged privately" that an indictment naming a member of the administration could come this year.

Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has been investigating the release of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, which is a crime for a government official. But the Post said legal experts said there are other possible problems related to the case, including perjury and obstruction of justice.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper appeared Wednesday before a federal grand jury convened to look into the case. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, remains jailed in Virginia because she refuses to appear before the grand jury.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove has been linked to Cooper but Rove's attorney Robert Luskin said, "Cooper's truthful testimony will not call into question the accuracy or completeness of anything Rove has previously said to the prosecutor or grand jury," the Post reported.

I wonder how many members of the WH were at Cooper's testimony yesterday.

I wonder how many are praying that Judith Miller remains their faithful jailbird lackey.

Who is Judy protecting?

 

[conjur]

Abrams? Hughes? Hadley? Bolton?

 

[BBond]

Cheney?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whoops is right.

You'd never make a lawyer. Certain people are trying to conflate "working undercover" with "covert agent." They are NOT one and the same.

Now read that statement closely and hopefully it will give you a hint where you and others are stumbling and bumbling.

So what's the difference between undercover and covert??
And you keep claiming that she wasn't covert, no harm was done to the CIA's assets. Then please explain why the CIA asked the DOJ to start an investigation.

You begin with a false assumption. I claim she dies not fall under the definition of "covert agent." I've made no statements concerning any harm done to CIA assets because it would be pure speculation and nothing more. We don't know if any assets were or were not harmed. Besides that, has the CIA itself (and not friends of Plame) claimed that assets were harmed? I doubt that there would be because Plame was listed as the cheif executive of Brewster Jennings & Associates. There was one other employee. Additionally it's already been stated that the CIA had pulled Plame back in because her cover had suposedly been blown in 1994. If that's true it's doubtful the CIA would associate Plame with any of their vital assets after that point.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/ar...rent_cia_front_didnt_offer_much_cover/

Apparent CIA front didn't offer much cover

...

A spokeswoman for Dun & Bradstreet Inc., a New Jersey operator of commercial databases, said Brewster Jennings was first entered into its records on May 22, 1994, but wouldn't discuss the source of the filing. Its records list the company at 101 Arch St. as a "legal services office," which could mean a law firm, with annual sales of $60,000, one employee, and a chief executive identified as "Victor Brewster, Partner."

...

Also, Rove and/or the leakers don't have to be prosecuted under the IIPA. The espionage act (dessiminating classified info) applies to this case as well (and this was pointed out above).

It might apply. Can you prove it's being used in this case?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Once again, BBond can't reply with facts and instead replies with a "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" post.

Typical.

I think everyone here can see the facts just fine...

By "everyone" you certainly mean only your lefty fruit loop pals in here.

"I've responded to your questions, dick."

You haven't responded to my questions. But everyone in here who's not a lefty fruit loop moonbat can see that clearly.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: conjur
Abrams? Hughes? Hadley? Bolton?

The more important question is, which < ahem > Shrub are they protecting?

Originally posted by: BBond
Cheney?

I doubt that Cheyney leaked anything to anyone about this. He's more interested in leaking info to his buddies about how to secure the next bloated defense contract and how to overcharge the taxpayers for whatever work they do (or don't) perform. :roll:

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop, fruit loop.

Are you more hung up on the fruits or the loops? :laugh:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: conjur
Abrams? Hughes? Hadley? Bolton?

The more important question is, which < ahem > Shrub are they protecting?

Originally posted by: BBond
Cheney?

I doubt that Cheyney leaked anything to anyone about this. He's more interested in leaking info to his buddies about how to secure the next bloated defense contract and how to overcharge the taxpayers for whatever work they do (or don't) perform. :roll:

All of which is now possible at record levels in Iraq. And Wilson was an impedement to Cheney's plans in Iraq.

 

[jahawkin]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what's the difference between undercover and covert??
And you keep claiming that she wasn't covert, no harm was done to the CIA's assets. Then please explain why the CIA asked the DOJ to start an investigation.

You begin with a false assumption. I claim she dies not fall under the definition of "covert agent." I've made no statements concerning any harm done to CIA assets because it would be pure speculation and nothing more. We don't know if any assets were or were not harmed. Besides that, has the CIA itself (and not friends of Plame) claimed that assets were harmed? I doubt that there would be because Plame was listed as the cheif executive of Brewster Jennings & Associates. There was one other employee. Additionally it's already been stated that the CIA had pulled Plame back in because her cover had suposedly been blown in 1994. If that's true it's doubtful the CIA would associate Plame with any of their vital assets after that point.

Why was a criminal investigation started?? I agree that we don't know for sure whether assets were comprimised. But by using logic, we can infer that there were assests comprimised. Why else would the CIA want an investigation?? Perhaps you could offer some alternative explaination.

As for the espionage act, I don't know if its being used but since it deals with leaking classified information, it could possible be used here. The point is the technecalities of the IIPA that have to be met to prosecute under that law do not have to be met with these other laws.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: jahawkin

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jahawkin

So what's the difference between undercover and covert??
And you keep claiming that she wasn't covert, no harm was done to the CIA's assets. Then please explain why the CIA asked the DOJ to start an investigation.

You begin with a false assumption. I claim she dies not fall under the definition of "covert agent." I've made no statements concerning any harm done to CIA assets because it would be pure speculation and nothing more. We don't know if any assets were or were not harmed. Besides that, has the CIA itself (and not friends of Plame) claimed that assets were harmed? I doubt that there would be because Plame was listed as the cheif executive of Brewster Jennings & Associates. There was one other employee. Additionally it's already been stated that the CIA had pulled Plame back in because her cover had suposedly been blown in 1994. If that's true it's doubtful the CIA would associate Plame with any of their vital assets after that point.

Why was a criminal investigation started?? I agree that we don't know for sure whether assets were comprimised. But by using logic, we can infer that there were assests comprimised. Why else would the CIA want an investigation?? Perhaps you could offer some alternative explaination.

It would seem the CIA would request an investigation of the name of a CIA operative being released regardless of assets being compromised or not. A least that would make logical sense to me. I highly doubt they'd go "Well, no harm, no foul. No biggy." ymmv.

As for the espionage act, I don't know if its being used but since it deals with leaking classified information, it could possible be used here. The point is the technecalities of the IIPA that have to be met to prosecute under that law do not have to be met with these other laws.

I agree with you that it may be possible to use the Espionage Act. But so far I haven't seen anything to indicate Fitzgerald is taking that route.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Huh, I am still wondering what he did wrong.

He did not name her.

He did not call the reporter and was tricked into even discussing it.

He technically did nothing illegal as she was never an undercover agent.


So, what is the problem. If anything, it looks like a well planned media hit on Rove. The reporter tricked him into even mentioning the subject. Rove told the reporter that the story was probably not good as Wilson was about to be caught lying to Congss about it. The NYT still has a secret source that really revealed the name, as well as most likely played a large role in getting Wilson's false report published.

Pretty clear that this was nothing more than a media hit.

Aha!! Finally a defense that might work.

Rove was tricked into it!

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Whoops!

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

Whoops is right.

Agreed.

You'd never make a lawyer.

Damn. I'm crushed. I think I'll go into the corner and cry.

Certain people are trying to conflate "working undercover" with "covert agent." They are NOT one and the same.

lmao. maybe we should define the words "working" and "agent" to help you out?

>>A covert agent is defined as someone whose identity is classified and who has served outside the United States within the last five years.

>>"The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years."

from cooper's email: >>Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ...[/b]

Now we just have to demonstrate to you that "double super secret" means "classified". Can someone give me some help here? I'm not a lawyer after all.

Let me know if you need helped with the words "served" and "outside" also.

Now read that statement closely and hopefully it will give you a hint where you and others are stumbling and bumbling.

lmao. keep your mouth running, i enjoy it.

 

[Maverick]

Regardless of whether or not this whole CIA leak story is getting blown out of proportion by the press,
Karl Rove is just getting his just dues. In politics you can't make as many enemies as he has and not burn for it later.

This was a long time coming...even he had to know his luck would run out sooner or later. You don't get a reputation like his by being an innocent victim for 20+ years.

 

[Bitek]

"Forest for the trees?"

What really is the counter arguement then, Rove is not guilty because he exposed a CIA operative [/i]~6[/i] years after best publically known overseas assignment, and its only illegal if you do it within 5?

Perhaps that will get him off technically, but his actions are just one more part of a larger and treacherous operation by this administration surrounding the run up to the Iraq War and its consequences.

The fact remains that if her cover wasn't blown before, it certainly is now, effectively ending her career as a CIA operative. Perhaps she would have been useful in a future CIA assignment in this wartime environment, as her front was still being maintained. Who is to say? Certainly not Rove. All that is ruined now thanks to him. He had no authority nor right to commit such an action. While perhaps not technically illegal, it was certainly unethical. For that alone he is fit to serve in the nation's highest branch of govt.

This whole affair occurs amongst the admin's larger web of deceit about Iraqi WMDs, Al-Quesadia links, pretense of even looking for diplomatic disarmament. At every step they have lied to the us, so blantently and wontonly it only show their contempt. Tens of thousands of American soldier's lives have been lost or ruined due to their actions surrounding the Iraqi war, including members of my own family. Applogize for them if you wish, you only serve as their tool.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
lmao. maybe we should define the words "working" and "agent" to help you out?

>>A covert agent is defined as someone whose identity is classified and who has served outside the United States within the last five years.

>>"The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years."

from cooper's email: >>Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ...[/b]

Now we just have to demonstrate to you that "double super secret" means "classified". Can someone give me some help here? I'm not a lawyer after all.

Let me know if you need helped with the words "served" and "outside" also.

Now read that statement closely and hopefully it will give you a hint where you and others are stumbling and bumbling.

lmao. keep your mouth running, i enjoy it.

Please tell me you are not this dense. You posted the answer yourself and had it right in front of you, yet you're still oblivious. Let me help you out, because it's apparent you need it:

A covert agent is defined as someone whose identity is classified AND who has served OUTSIDE the United States within the last five years.

She's been in the US since 1997, 6 years before she was outed by Novak.

Still laughing TC?