Comments on: U.S. News Editor Parrots Rove’s Legal Spin

By: Vinilo Suave

Vinilo Suave — Sun, 17 Jul 2005 06:44:37 +0000

Citizens, go to http://nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17rich.html?hp

Can’t hurt; might help in simplifying the falsely complex

By: Nick Perez

Nick Perez — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:35:04 +0000

sorry for being picky butyou are quoting sec (b) which only provides for 5 years in jail. Sec. (a) which is almost identical provides for 10 years in jail. I’d lot rather see (a) apply than (b). LOL

By: braun

braun — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:33:10 +0000

Here’s another good link.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000793—-000-.html

By: The Janitors, American Federalist Urinal

The Janitors, American Federalist Urinal — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:11:46 +0000

IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it a little bit ironic that the left is so suddenly concerned about someone outing a CIA operative. In the past they would have stopped at nothing to dissolve the CIA. Now, they are the CIAÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s new best friend. It makes you wonder what is really going on. Why hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the NY Times allowed Judith Miller to testify. What is she hiding? Who is she protecting? My guess is that it is something really damaging. I do not think that Rove will face any punishment at all. In fact, he may get a promotion after all of this is said and done.

Comment by Always Right Ã¢â‚¬â€ July 12, 2005

Why break with tradition? Every complete failure in this maladministration has been rewarded or promoted. This time taking the top bunk at club fed may have to suffice. Who do you suppose will get the bottom bunk?

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:55:54 +0000

Hello Mr. Always Right. The irony that is obviously lost on you is the right’s attitude towered Law religion and any other conservative value that is held dear, when broken by a member of their own is considered a no big deal but when broken by a member of the left is “the end of the world”

Can you say hypocrite………

You know if you losers could at LEAST practice what you preach, I could live with that.

By: Lee Russ

Lee Russ — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 21:01:16 +0000

Matt Langer:

1. Whether Valerie Plame falls under the protection of the statute is an interesting question–did she ever leave the US on agency business within 5 years of the relevant disclosure?

2. Even if Rove did not fall within the description of someone who had “authorized access,” there had to be someone who was “authorized,” who told someone who was unauthorized, about Plame’s role at the CIA; whoever was authorized and revealed it might be liable under this statute.

3. Even if Rove is not technically guilty under this statute, he has a lot of public statements of noninvolvement to answer for, and if he was dumb enough to lie to the independent prosecutor, he has a potential perjury charge to deal with.

4. Even if Rove is not guilty under this statute, Bush has publicly vowed to fire whoever “leaked” the info about Plame to the press. If that turns out to be Rove, Bush either has to embarass himself and renege on the promise to fire the leaker, or actually fire the leaker.

By: Texan

Texan — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 20:26:23 +0000

There are three people who need to worry –
those people are Bush, Cheney and Laura Bush.
Think about it. Rove gave an okay for Matt Cooper
his approval to talk to the Grand Jury. Why not
also give it to Miller. It wasn’t Rove that talked
to Miller. It has to be one of the other three.
You know how loose Bush is with his mouth when
he doesn’t have a speech written for him.
Cheney tries to be a “big shot.”
Laura could have been interviewed for an upcoming
article and let it slip. Betcha!!!!
Bush probably gave Miller a verbal agreement that
he would pardon her later if she didn’t talk.

By: Susan

Susan — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:56:01 +0000

This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw today.

It read: “Don’t mess with the U.S.A.”

It was stuck on the bumper of a Japanese S.U.V.

Only a moron and hypocrit would display something so ignorant.

By: jethro

jethro — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:50:24 +0000

more examples of uncritically relaying the spin:

WaPo 7/11: “Rove’s lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name”

WaPo 7/12: “The e-mail did not say that Rove identified Plame by name…”

NYT 7/12: “Mr. Rove had discussed the C.I.A. operative at the heart of the case without naming her”

AP 7/12: “Rove’s lawyer, said his client did not disclose Plame’s name”

and i think it was isakoff that started this nonsense, was it not?

By: Kevo

Kevo — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:36:46 +0000

That should be “noted legal expert Hannah Storm”

By: tinylittledots.com » Blog Archive » Think Progress ABC Parrots Rove Legal Spin

Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:26:59 +0000

[...] Think Progress Ã¯Â¿Â½ ABC Parrots Rove%u2019s Legal Spin [...]

By: John S.

John S. — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 19:25:21 +0000

Damn liberal media…up to their antics again.

By: kindness

kindness — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:35:15 +0000

Spin it however you want. The general public realizes this is a case of “What the meaning of ‘is’ is” and they aren’t too happy that bushco is being led by liars.

The right is unhappy with that and is trying to play wack-a-mole with the media and blogs, but that doesn’t address their problem.

Their problem is that the average, middle of the road, middle class, tax paying public is seeing unconciounable behaviour by its “leaders” and is very uncomforatable with it.

You righties want to stop the problem? Tell your leaders to address the problem instead of trying to blame it on us.

By: Matt Langer

Matt Langer — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:25:06 +0000

The “name” ambiguity is just the tip of the iceberg. The snippet shown here is one graf (421.b) of the greater code, codified in its entirety between sections 421 and 426. Section 426 lays out the definitions by which the prior five subchapters are to be interpreted, and in there are various defenses for Rove, including the potential that Plame, by virtue of having come back to the states in ‘97 from her last overseas assignment, but not qualify as a “covert agent.” Additionally, he might not fall under the rubric of “authorized,” also specifically defined, given that prior to his promotion to DCoS he may very well have not been authorized (had the necessary security clearance) to have access to the information. And then there’s the all-important legal definition of “intent,” which wil surely play into this.

See here for the law in its entirety:
http://mattlanger.blogspot.com/2005/07/when-is-leak-not-leak.html

By: Flamethrower

Flamethrower — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:21:23 +0000

Glad to know Hannah Storm’s analysis – that pretty much settles it. I guess she thinks she’s as smart as her other ESPN alum Mr. Olbermann.

By: Adrift on the Cosmic Sea

Adrift on the Cosmic Sea — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 18:06:28 +0000

The ‘name’ defense is blatantly laughable. But I am still worried that the scoundrel will get away with it. The law states:

..learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent…

Does that mean identifying the agent as a covert agent? Because Rove didn’t do that. He just said (paraphrasing) ‘Wilson’s wife is with the CIA’. But he didn’t say ‘Wilson’s wife is a secret agent with the CIA’. Is this distinction important? I want to see Turd Blossom get canned as much as anyone, but I have doubts about this case. I hope Fitz has something more damning that this…

By: Darth Filibustrous

Darth Filibustrous — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:59:58 +0000

Always wrong -

Nope, most Americans are FOR fighting terrorism through global intelligence gathering and following the recommendations of the 9-11 commission, the right is FOR bombing marketplaces & wedding parties halfway across the globe for no reason and creating more terrorists every minute.

You must be Rove himself, ‘coz not even Bush would be calling for Rove’s promotion right now…

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:56:35 +0000

“In the past they would have stopped at nothing to dissolve the CIA.”

We did? Is this another Rovian therapy and understanding accusation?

Let me explain this so even you can understand Always Right (sic). We had this little thing called 9/11. You might remember it? Valerie Plame was working undercover to prevent WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists. Karl Rove blew her cover for partisan gain, thus putting national security at risk. Incidentally, some of us live near large cities so we are quite concerned about terrorists getting WMD. To that end, we prefer people like Plame who know what the hell they are doing, as opposed to Dick Cheney who is consistently wrong on the subject. No WMD in Iraq, none in Niger, and we may never look into Pakistan as long as Bush is in charge.

You think Rove will be promoted. A reasonable assumption, considering Bush fires anyone who is right and promotes anyone who is wrong.

By: cynical ex-hippie

cynical ex-hippie — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:50:38 +0000

So if one were to go to downtown Karachi where al Qaeda members are plotting their next attack, point to a CIA undercover agent and yell, “Spy!” that would be perfectly legal as long as you don’t say the person’s name?

By: Always Right

Always Right — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 17:44:11 +0000