FLASHBACK 9/23/03: “The President Knows Karl Rove Wasn’t Involved”
FLASHBACK 9/23/03: “The President Knows Karl Rove Wasn’t Involved”
This morning, Newsweek revealed that Karl Rove told Time reporter Matt Cooper that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.
Here is what White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said about the matter on 9/23/03:
Q All right. Let me just follow up. You said this morning, “The President knows” that Karl Rove wasn’t involved. How does he know that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I’ve made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it’s public knowledge. I’ve said that it’s not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove —
Pretty strong language from Mr. McClellan. Will someone in the White House press corps ask for an explanation?
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
29 Responses to “FLASHBACK 9/23/03: “The President Knows Karl Rove Wasn’t Involved””
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Are you threatening me?
July 10th, 2005 at 6:41 pmIf someone doesn't ask about this, I'm writing a letter to every news organization demanding an explaination. I'd urge everyone else reading this to join me.
July 10th, 2005 at 6:48 pmI think Sarah is right, it's important to know the truth! Karl Rove should come clean and if President Bush is involved too, then he needs to fess up to it also.
July 10th, 2005 at 7:40 pmOn October 7th, 2003, President Bush said of the Plame scandal:
I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials.
For more of the Bush's disinterest regarding the traitor(s) in his White House, see:
"A Wink and a Nod: Bush on the Plame Scandal"
July 10th, 2005 at 7:58 pmIn a nutshell, it appears that Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin will argue that (a) he didn't knowingly reveal CIA agent Plame's identity; and (b) his intent was to not to out Plame, but prevent Time from running erroneous stories about Iraq and uranium in Niger.
For more details, see:
"The Rove Defense: No Controlling Legal Authority"
July 10th, 2005 at 8:00 pmBy now it should be very clear that the Bush Administration's defense of its lies are as shallow as the poor uneducated self-serving people who support this "war on terror".
What is needed are a few good people (of any color, creed, or zip code) to step up to the plate and prosecute to the fullest extent. This includes Congress throwing the SOB's out of the WhiteHouse. Dept. of Justice. Supreme Court. Someone. Anyone.
Bush and his entire crew are the most deserving of jail time of anyone since Nixon and #41 (for his lies about central America and arms dealings).
July 10th, 2005 at 8:14 pmFolks, based on the lack of reporting of the Newsweek story in the MSM today, don't hold your breath that any of the WH press corps will be asking any questions about Mr. Rove in the near future!! I think Sarah is right, we need to start a writing campaign to these outfits-not that it's going to do any good. Remember DSM????? Where's THAT story, now???
July 10th, 2005 at 8:15 pmDSMs? Conyers and the 131 signers haven't forgotten, neither will we.
July 10th, 2005 at 8:40 pmSaying "Joe Wilson's [The Joe Wilson who demonstrably lied when he said his wife wasn't involved in sending him to his mint-tea-drinking-by-the-pool in Niger] wife obviously isn't treason; anyone who calls it treason is engaging in mindless hysteria.
It's highly unlikely saying that is even close to being any crime.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:28 pmEditor, you're a scumbag.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:32 pm"Editor, you’re a scumbag."
Intelligent, civil, thoughtful, tolerant, open-minded discussion, the hallmarks of liberalism. *L*
July 10th, 2005 at 9:35 pmJust the truth baby, just the truth.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:38 pmIt looks like a high crime and misdemeanor to me. Start the impeachment proceedings. How many more votes do we need in
the house to do it? The senate?
This is a federal crime and he should go to prison with Rush Windbag (drug dealer), Karl Rove and anyone else that is involved.
Nixon's crime was not nearly as this plus his lies for going to war.
July 10th, 2005 at 9:56 pmNavy VET -- "High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't apply to Rove no matter what he does. He's not an officeholder. Such ignorance.
There's not even evidence of any crime being committed at this point.
July 10th, 2005 at 10:01 pmEditors:
Saying “Joe Wilson’s [The Joe Wilson who demonstrably lied when he said his wife wasn’t involved in sending him to his mint-tea-drinking-by-the-pool in Niger] wife obviously isn’t treason; anyone who calls it treason is engaging in mindless hysteria.
I'm sorry, I'm not entirely clear how this statement is relevant to the topic at hand. I believe TP is pointing out that the White House position on September 23, 2003 is inconsistent with the facts at hand.
Whether or not what Rove said and did is treason is another matter altogether. The issue here is that the White House position 2 years ago on the leak of Valerie Plame was that "Karl Rove wasn’t involved" and "it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place". Clearly, such is not the case.
Do you disagree?
July 10th, 2005 at 10:05 pmAFJ Editors, when Navy Vet said to start the impeachment proceedings, he didn't mean against Rove. You're right that a man who's NOT the President but a member of the President's staff cannot be charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors." The President CAN be impeached. Follow Navy Vet's obvious train of thought...
July 10th, 2005 at 10:29 pmBill:
I am curious as to what the penalty for Rove could be if in fact it turned out that he was guilty of a crime. As a member of the President's staff (and presumably on the payroll of the American taxpayer), is there any way he would be able to keep his post if convicted of a crime - even a lesser one than treason? Are you aware of any other situations similar to this hypothetical scenario in history regarding an official such as Rove?
July 10th, 2005 at 10:36 pmIs "high crimes and misdemeanors" a charge that can only be levied against a President?
Just curious...
July 10th, 2005 at 10:41 pmWill someone in the White House press corps ask for an explanation?
Unlikely. The WH press corps is now focused on the London transit bombings -- they will be consumed with this topic for days.
I remain convinced that Rove got the inforamtion about Plame's identity from someone in the EOB. This is where the Vice President's office is located and suggests Cheney was the leaker.
Rove was the messenger.
The good news is, the work of the Grand Jury continues despite bombings, hurricanes or SOCTUS openings.
. . .
July 10th, 2005 at 11:40 pmIsn't it illegal to be Karl Rove? Maybe not, but it should be.
Where is the Grand Inquisitor when you need him? As for that matter, the Editors, American Federalist Journal should be dunked a few times just for the fun of it.
Whether or not a crime was committed isn't the question. It is the manner in which these joker neocons carry and conduct themselves. Something's not right.
You can chum with Red Herrings, but you won't catch any fish.
I use minnows to catch fish. It works.
July 11th, 2005 at 12:29 amEditor - you are a troll. Go away.
Rove should resign for the good of the nation. But this administration has a higher goal within it's grasp. And that is to show the american people the integrity and grace they personify. And to do that George W. Bush should resign along with Dick Cheney, Condi, Alberto, Donald and all the other loyal administration people.
Then, we as Americans and the WHOLE WORLD will truly be able to breath free.....AAhhhhhh, smells like freedom....
ps - in the event that they don't all resign, en mass, I say we start impeachment proceedings.
July 11th, 2005 at 1:23 amRefer to the above comment by:
agent provocateur #1
If this individual unfailing supports the President's agenda - Why is he not backing up his convictions by presently standing shoulder to shoulder with our hard working military in the democratization of Iraq?
Although on second thought - The mental capacity - or lack thereof - exhibited there in that churlish immature comment only proves that if he were to be required to use a hand grenade he'd end up pulling the grenade . . . and throwing the pin.
un-Admirably yours...
July 11th, 2005 at 2:00 am.
Are you threatening me? It is a federal crime to issue terroristic threats on Al Gore's internets. If you hoist me again with my own petard, I swear I will call the FBI and put a "Nuke The Whales" bumper sticker on my Hummer.
July 11th, 2005 at 4:34 am“High Crimes and Misdemeanors:� A Short History of Impeachment
The right to impeach public officials is secured by the U.S. Constitution in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, which discuss the procedure, and in Article II, Section 4, which indicates the grounds for impeachment: “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.�
Removing an official from office requires two steps: (1) a formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of Representatives, and (2) a trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult, requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate. The vice president presides over the Senate proceedings in the case of all officials except the president, whose trial is presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This is because the vice president can hardly be considered a disinterested partyâ€â€if his or her boss is forced out of office he or she is next in line for the top job!
What are “High Crimes and Misdemeanors�?
Bribery and treason are among the least ambiguous reasons meriting impeachment, but the ocean of wrongdoing encompassed by the Constitution's stipulation of “high crimes and misdemeanors� is vast. Abuse of power and serious misconduct in office fit this category, but one act that is definitely not grounds for impeachment is partisan discord. Several impeachment cases have confused political animosity with genuine crimes. Since Congress, the vortex of partisanship, is responsible for indicting, trying, and convicting public officials, it is necessary for the legislative branch to temporarily cast aside its factional nature and adopt a judicial role.
The Infamous Sixteen
Since 1797 the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen federal officials. These include two presidents, a cabinet member, a senator, a justice of the Supreme Court, and eleven federal judges. Of those, the Senate has convicted and removed seven, all of them judges. Not included in this list are the office holders who have resigned rather than face impeachment, most notably, President Richard M. Nixon.
The Small Fry
The first official impeached in this country was Senator William Blount of Tennessee for a plot to help the British seize Louisiana and Florida from Spain in 1797. The Senate dismissed the charges on Jan. 14, 1799, determining that it had no jurisdiction over its own members. The Senate and the House do, however, have the right to discipline their members, and the Senate expelled Blount the day after his impeachment.
Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was the first impeached official actually convicted. He was found guilty of drunkenness and unlawful rulings, on March 12, 1804, and was believed to have been insane.
Associate Justice Samuel Chase , a strong Federalist, was impeached but acquitted of judicial bias against anti-Federalists. The acquittal on March 1, 1805, established that political differences were not grounds for impeachment.
Other officials impeached were implicated in bribery, cheating on income tax, perjury, and treason.
The Big Fish
Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second.
Johnson, a Southern Democrat who became president after Lincoln's assassination, supported a mild policy of Reconstruction after the Civil War. The Radical Republicans in Congress were furious at his leniency toward ex-Confederates and obvious lack of concern for ex-slaves, demonstrated by his veto of civil rights bills and opposition to the Fourteenth Amendment. To protect Radical Republicans in Johnson's administration and diminish the strength of the president, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, which prohibited the president from dismissing office holders without the Senate's approval. A defiant Johnson tested the constitutionality of the Act by attempting to oust Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. His violation of the Act became the basis for impeachment in 1868. But the Senate was one vote short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict, and Johnson was acquitted May 26, 1868.
Senator Charles Sumner, witness to the proceedings, defined them as “political in character.â€? Historians today generally agree with his assessment and consider the grounds for Johnson's impeachment flimsyâ€â€the Tenure of Office Act was partially repealed in 1887, and then declared unconstitutional in 1926.
Bill Clinton was ultimately dragged downâ€â€though not defeatedâ€â€by the “character issuesâ€? brought into question even before his election. An investigation into some suspect real estate dealings in which Clinton was involved prior to his presidency failed to turn up any implicating evidence. However, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr managed to unravel a tangled web of alleged sexual advances and affairs in Clinton's past. The trail led to former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky. After months of denials, including in a videotaped legal testimony, Clinton admitted in August of 1998 that he had had a sexual relationship with the young woman during the time of her internship.
The infamous “Starr Report� outlining the findings of the Independent Counsel's investigation was delivered to the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, 1998 and subsequently made available to the public. Many felt the report, filled with lurid details of Clinton's sexual encounters with Lewinsky, to be a political attack against the President rather than a legal justification for his impeachment. Of the 11 possible grounds for impeachment cited by Starr, four were eventually approved by the House Judiciary Committee: grand jury perjury, civil suit perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power.
On December 19, following much debate over the constitutionality of the proceedings and whether or not Clinton could be punished by censure rather than impeachment, the House of Representatives held its historic vote. Clinton was impeached on two counts, grand jury perjury (228–206) and obstruction of justice (221–212), with the votes split along party lines. The Senate Republicans, however, were unable to gather enough support to achieve the two-thirds majority required for his conviction. On Feb. 12, 1999, the Senate acquitted President Clinton on both counts. The perjury charge failed by a vote of 55–45, with 10 Republicans voting against impeachment along with all 45 Democrats. The obstruction of justice vote was 50–50, with 5 Republicans breaking ranks to vote against impeachment. (See also William Jefferson Clinton)
The One That Got Away
Of thirty-five attempts at impeachment, only nine have come to trial. Because it cripples Congress with a lengthy trial, impeachment is infrequent. Many officials, seeing the writing on the wall, resign rather than face the ignominy of a public trial.
The most famous of these cases is of course that of President Richard Nixon, a Republican. After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behaviorâ€â€his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidenceâ€â€led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. “In all of this,â€? the Articles of Impeachment summarize, “Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.â€? Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974.
July 11th, 2005 at 4:37 amDemosthenes,
Our most fervent wish is that each and every one of them be sentenced to Hell. Not the purgatory of Dante, or the Bible, but the Hell described by Sartre in No Exit. A place where each one would spend eternity in a room with someone like you and ED.
I am curious as to what the penalty for Rove could be if in fact it turned out that he was guilty of a crime. As a member of the President’s staff (and presumably on the payroll of the American taxpayer), is there any way he would be able to keep his post if convicted of a crime - even a lesser one than treason? Are you aware of any other situations similar to this hypothetical scenario in history regarding an official such as Rove?
July 11th, 2005 at 4:48 amDid anyone notice that the internet is no longer reporting from Iraq.
Ever since Bushie's prime time nonsense, I am unable to find reports on Iraq on the front page of Yahoo.
Did the administration threaten the owners of Yahoo lives now?
votetoimpeach.org
July 11th, 2005 at 10:14 am#21
Kindness, I must take you to task for telling "Editors" to go away, and I request that you rescind your comment and give them the welcome you would extend to anyone whose opinion you support.
Editors, I ask you in all seriousness to stay right here and continue to post as many comments as you possibly can. Frankly, I am amazed that someone can have their head so far and so firmly wedged up their ass and yet still be able to talk shit so clearly. You are a constant source of amusement for me in a bush-world that seems to grow more absurdist by the moment, and I insist that you continue on here in your role as court jester (Egad! I hope that doesn't sound threatening...). By the way, your motley is looking a trifle ragged. Perchange you might be eligible for a grant from the Council for the Clothing of Conservative Clowns (no, I'm not a liberal, perish the thought; I just have a great deal of disdain for little pussies like yourself who lick the ideas of others all day long and then cough up faux-federalist fur-balls.
July 11th, 2005 at 11:33 amcomputer game
Please check out some relevant information on schwermetall
October 17th, 2005 at 3:50 am2313
You are invited to check out the pages on 1438
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:43 am