Leaker in Plame case - Karl Rove?

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
Lawrence O'Donnell claims to know the source for Matt Cooper's information on Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent. None other than Karl Rove himself. It has been rumored for a long while, but if true could well mean a trial for Rove.

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.
link
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,525
OBJECTIVE reality
Indeed. This is the kind of thing which, in the past, has gotten people executed for treason.

Rove has always been my #1 suspect. From what I've read about him, he's mean-spirited, a sociopath and a revenge freak. It would not be unlike him.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
You know Democrats support a womans right to choose though. Besides that, Valerie needed to be exposed, she was asking for it.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
How would O'Donnell be privy to this information, I wonder? If he isn't right, he's going to look quite the fool. If he is right, Rove deserves to be hung by his thumbs. And I'm sure every Republican agrees. Right?
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
This is coming from many different sources now. The basis for these claims supposedly lays in the documents that have been ordered released.

As the scandals add up, the lies become exposed, and the hypocrisies are exposed, you have to wonder how much more has to be done before people really start questioning why they want to put their faith in these people.

There is no low for this Administration, and yet there are people who believe in and defend them. Religious people as well, who are still under the impression that it is for some kind of greater good.
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
The precedent is unfortunate but I can't help but wonder if Time is doing this more out of political motivation. Whatever, if it is Rove, how will he run the country from inside a prison, or worse in front of a firing squad? bushco is all in favor of executing those without redeeming social qualities, n'est ce pas?
 

ham_man

macrumors 68020
Jan 21, 2005
2,265
0
IJ Reilly said:
How would O'Donnell be privy to this information, I wonder? If he isn't right, he's going to look quite the fool. If he is right, Rove deserves to be hung by his thumbs. And I'm sure every Republican agrees. Right?
Being a conservative, I respect Carl Rove. However, if he is in any way responsible for this, he should be removed in some way, shape or form from his position...
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
ham_man said:
Being a conservative, I respect Carl Rove. However, if he is in any way responsible for this, he should be removed in some way, shape or form from his position...
If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
3,996
Republic of Ukistan
stubeeef said:
If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.
Even I, an ignorant foreigner unfamiliar with your arcane language, can tell that you are comparing apples with oranges. Not a productive occupation in any language.
 

latergator116

macrumors 68000
Sep 30, 2003
1,675
0
Providence, RI
stubeeef said:
If you believe lying under oath is a crime then yes he should be treated like a criminal if it is proven he is, Just like clinton should have, I think every democrat would agree, right! I thought so.
I don't think Clinton should have been put under oath in the first place. Instead of answering the question and lying, he should have said "that is none of your business and is not relevent to my presidency," or something similar.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
skunk said:
Even I, an ignorant foreigner unfamiliar with your arcane language, can tell that you are comparing apples with oranges. Not a productive occupation in any language.
Lying under oath is Lying under oath. When apples lie under oath, they are doing the same as oranges when they lie under oath. No matter your definition of "is".
If you are comparing why they are under oath, than yes these are different reasons. Murder is murder whether for love or money, different reasons with the same real outcome.
If Rove is found guilty, then sentence him. I have no problem with that. I have no support for the illegalities of Nixon nor Clinton.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Wether or not I agree with the political ideas of a party or not, does not close my eyes to the fact that every single administration has done illegitamate crap from time to time. White lies, black lies, boldface lies, whatever. Based on the "man" or the "office" it still happens and will continue to.
Are some more or less worse than others? I don't know, I just know that when our leader, dem or rep, stands up under oath and lies to the nation, it is the wrong thing to do. When they do it to pursue National Interest I can't say it is better either.
If having sex and lying about it, is a failing of the man only, than I beg to differ. As president, it is a misuse of trust (intern and all) and as the Commander and Chief, an infraction of the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice), as well as the civilian problem of perjury.
If lying about arms sales to the central americans is a failing of a president, than fine, atleast it was in that persons view, a benefit to a country and not himself. Still wrong, less selfish, and violates loads of laws as well.
The man being the "apple" (biblical fall) and the president being "oranges", I see the apple as selfish and stupid, the orange being stupid.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
I think we're beginning to see the form damage control will take if Rove is indeed the leaker. We'll hear nonstop references to Clinton's alleged crimes and various other distractions and obfuscations, and little if any outrage coming from the Republican side directed at Rove, and certainly no insistence that he be prosecuted for what is clearly a federal crime. No Republican who wishes to ever attend a party function again will call it an act of treason, though every last one of them would if a Democrat, let alone a Democratic president's chief political advisor in the White House, had done anything even remotely similar.

It's all perfectly predictable, really. Defend the party at all costs.
 

miloblithe

macrumors 68020
Nov 14, 2003
2,076
28
Washington, DC
That's a valid point. Lying for your own benefit is clearly something different from lying for the sake of the country. The flip side of that though is if you're wrong about your reasons, you've added perjury to screwing the country over. It also seems hard to believe that the Bush administration was that naive and idealistic to believe that Iraq and Afghanistan would be easily set up in a few years into model democracies. I think you're right. They lied about this going into it because they believed it was in their own best interest: a state of permanent war that they could exploit for their own financial and political gain.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
Clinton?

This is about Karl Rove, who is currently the issue. And whose actions not only include lying but directly and purposefully breaking federal law for political retaliation.

Lets not forget the difference. Rove knew what he was doing and why he did it, assuming it was Rove. Whoever did do it, knew the same.

Clinton broke no federal laws and was his personal life was politicized because his political life was untouchable, though they tried to harm both. The sole reason of putting him under oath was to make a big deal out of the fact that he was under oath. Cause apparently that is what make all the difference, not what he was lying about or anything.

Besides, Clinton lied and nobody died. If you want to bring liars into the issue, our current President trumps all.

So, for once, it would be nice to stay on topic and actually deal with Karl Rove who is the issue here, like it or not. Karl Rove who has been acting with seeming impunity over the past decade or more may have finally gone too far again. Karl Rove is the person who has potentially broken federal law.

Unless you think that nothing should be punished because an example of someone else having done it can be found, it seems like people should be judged individually on the seriousness of what they have done. Or why not just go around killing people, OJ and Robert Blake did it.
 

mcarvin

macrumors regular
Oct 26, 2003
212
1
Southern NJ
Xtremehkr said:
Link.

Newsweek breaks the story. If only the Downing Street Memo had received this much attention.
Plame is to GWB as Watergate was to Nixon - the spark that lit the fire and broke an administration wide open. The Memo should (!) come into play if there's a grand jury or special investigation ordered.
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
I was thinking along similar lines, the DSM may have been too much to start with. But this is a good example of how these people operate. Either way, it is becoming apparent that the Administration had a direct role in exposing Plame and knowingly broke the law. Which makes a bold faced liar of GWB, who vowed to go after the leaker, in much the same way OJ is still looking for the real killer it seems.
 

mcarvin

macrumors regular
Oct 26, 2003
212
1
Southern NJ
Xtremehkr said:
I was thinking along similar lines, the DSM may have been too much to start with. But this is a good example of how these people operate. Either way, it is becoming apparent that the Administration had a direct role in exposing Plame and knowingly broke the law. Which makes a bold faced liar of GWB, who vowed to go after the leaker, in much the same way OJ is still looking for the real killer it seems.
I want to say that Rove's strategies and tactics over his career would eventually backfire on him at some point. And should that ever happen, it ain't gonna be for a stupid little jaywalking offense. I just hope that if there's an independent prosecutor, that that person is tenacious enough to turn over every rock during the investigation.

This has his fingerprints all over it. If the charge is levied against him and he's found guilty, and just one single undercover operative lost a life as a result, he should swing from the rafters. I would not be a fair juror for that case.