Rove Should Be Fired, Spy's Husband Says

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elaine_s_Cross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Elaine_s_Cross

Guest
WASHINGTON - Presidential confidant Karl Rove should be fired for his role in the CIA leak, the husband of the agent whose cover was exposed told NBC’s “Today” show on Monday. “I think the president should fire him… these are firing offenses,” Joe Wilson, a retired career U.S. diplomat, said of Rove.

msnbc.msn.com/id/9875093/
 
The opinion of someone who has not told the truth even once does not really matter. Especially when removing Rove was his obvious desire from the start. Even the Washington Post (no friend of the President) chronicled Wilson’s endless lying. There was no crime to investigate. If you read the law his wife did not meet even one of the requirements described to merit protection from exposure. She was not at any time in the previous 5 years and undercover agent. The fact that she was employed by the CIA was common knowledge in Washington Social circles mostly because of Joe Wilson’s love of attention.

This is just another example of what happened to Martha Stewart. There was no crime committed to be investigated but the investigation itself produced a charge just so it would not look like the waste of time and money that it was. There is an old saying in the legal community:

“You can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich if you give them enough time”

and this is why any lawyer worth anything will ALWAYS advise his client to refuse to appear before a grand jury if legally possible.
Any lapse of memory or implied contradiction can be made into a perjury charge and who among us can exactly remember all past events in which we were involved? Unfortunately for Martha Stewart and Mr. Libby, a well-known figure who refuses to testify is immediately crucified in the press so they are kind of forced to appear.
 
Its funny how people are still accusing Joe Wilson of being a liar, but yet he isnt the one under investigation by Fitzgerald… or hit with indictments. Somebody better let Fitzgerald know that Rush Limbaugh has the “real scoop” :rolleyes:
 
I have deleted an uncharitable post and a reply to it from this thread.

Calling someone a liar without evidence is uncharitable.
 
Elaine’s Cross said:
WASHINGTON - Presidential confidant Karl Rove should be fired for his role in the CIA leak, the husband of the agent whose cover was exposed told NBC’s “Today” show on Monday. “I think the president should fire him… these are firing offenses,” Joe Wilson, a retired career U.S. diplomat, said of Rove.

msnbc.msn.com/id/9875093/
Click to expand...

Since Mr Wilson is dis-ingenious at best…Why should Mr Rove be fired…he testified and no indictment was issued…
 
Rove was targeted by this investigation. The Dem’s want Rove gone soooooo… bad.

OK - so Joe Wilson goes to Africa for 8 days and doesn’t find evidence of any desire to buy uranium. That’s it case closed. No evidence found. This is ridiculous to think that a one man investigation can get to the facts in a country that continually hides them.

Saddam played the cat and mouse game for years and got away with it.
 
Since Mr Wilson has mischaracterised his trip to Niger he carries zero credibility with me–not to mention he made false claims about who sent him to Niger in the 1st place.
 
40.png
aimee:
Since Mr Wilson is dis-ingenious at best…Why should Mr Rove be fired…he testified and no indictment was issued…
Click to expand...
Yet. Fitzgerald was pretty clear on the fact that Rove is still under investigation, and it’s been confirmed that “Unnamed Official A” in Libby’s indictment report, who directly colluded with Libby in the leak, was Rove.

Rove may never be indicted, but Fitzgerald sure is giving it a go.
 
40.png
SamCA:
Yet. Fitzgerald was pretty clear on the fact that Rove is still under investigation, and it’s been confirmed that “Unnamed Official A” in Libby’s indictment report, who directly colluded with Libby in the leak, was Rove.

Rove may never be indicted, but Fitzgerald sure is giving it a go.
Click to expand...
Do you have a link for Monsieur Libby’s indictment report?
 
I haven’t been able to find the actual report, but numerous news sites talk about “Official A”.

For instance, the first thing that came up in Google was this CNN article: cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/

From that article:
The 22-page indictment said Libby – before discussing Wilson and Plame with reporters – discussed them with several people in the White House, identifying them only by title and alleging no wrongdoing on their part.
Click to expand...
They included Cheney, then-press secretary Ari Fleischer, an undersecretary of state identified by two sources as Marc Grossman and a senior White House official referred to as “Official A.” Two other sources close to the probe said “Official A” is Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser.
Click to expand...
It is worth noting that Fitzgerald has used this method before. In a case in Illinois that started out as a traffic-related death and eventually turned into one of the most sweeping exposures of government corruption in our time, Fitzgerald repeatedly referred to an unnamed “State Official A,” who later turned out to be Governer Ryan of Illinois – who has since been indicted by Fitzgerald, after he doggedly gained evidence through a painstaking process of slowly indicting his way through the network of middle-men up to the governor himself.

That may not happen here, of course. But the idea that Rove not being indicted yet means he’s out of the woods seems a bit premature.
 
40.png
SamCA:
I haven’t been able to find the actual report, but numerous news sites talk about “Official A”.

For instance, the first thing that came up in Google was this CNN article: cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/

From that article:

It is worth noting that Fitzgerald has used this method before. In a case in Illinois that started out as a traffic-related death and eventually turned into one of the most sweeping exposures of government corruption in our time, Fitzgerald repeatedly referred to an unnamed “State Official A,” who later turned out to be Governer Ryan of Illinois – who has since been indicted by Fitzgerald, after he doggedly gained evidence through a painstaking process of slowly indicting his way through the network of middle-men up to the governor himself.

That may not happen here, of course. But the idea that Rove not being indicted yet means he’s out of the woods seems a bit premature.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the info…

Well…if Mr Rove is indicted it won’t be from this grand jury…however, since Mr Fitzgerald is as determined as he seems…if Mr Fitzgerald had the evidence it would bring an indictment to get Mr Rove…he would have done it…

I suppose its speculation right now…we shall see 😉
 
40.png
aimee:
Thanks for the info…

Well…if Mr Rove is indicted it won’t be from this grand jury…however, since Mr Fitzgerald is as determined as he seems…if Mr Fitzgerald had the evidence it would bring an indictment to get Mr Rove…he would have done it…
Click to expand...
Oh, absolutely. He said as much himself – if someone wasn’t indicted, it was because he couldn’t prove they were involved.

Of course, the reason he couldn’t prove who was involved was that witnesses committed obstruction of justice.
I suppose its speculation right now…we shall see 😉
Click to expand...
It’s worth mentioning that Matt Cooper went on the Today Show today, and came right out and said point blank that Karl Rove was the one who leaked the information to him.
 
40.png
SamCA:
Oh, absolutely. He said as much himself – if someone wasn’t indicted, it was because he couldn’t prove they were involved.

Of course, the reason he couldn’t prove who was involved was that witnesses committed obstruction of justice.

It’s worth mentioning that Matt Cooper went on the Today Show today, and came right out and said point blank that Karl Rove was the one who leaked the information to him.
Click to expand...
So, Mr Wilson was an informant to Mr Kristoff which he admitted…you know in that op ed/column which led to outing his wife.which I purpose was probably never in…I’d wonder if Joe Wilson was considered for indictment :hmmm:
 
40.png
aimee:
So, Mr Wilson was an informant to Mr Kristoff which he admitted…you know in that op ed/column which led to outing his wife.which I purpose was probably never in…I’d wonder if Joe Wilson was considered for indictment :hmmm:
Click to expand...
So giving information to a newspaper is now the same as revealing the name of a non-official cover (most in danger) CIA agent? I think that people know better than that and should just honestly admit that what Mr. Rove did was unethical at best.

There’s never been any suggestion that Mr. Wilson committed a crime and it seems that saying it is a way of dodging and weaving for Mr. Rove.
 
40.png
Thekla:
So giving information to a newspaper is now the same as revealing the name of a non-official cover (most in danger) CIA agent? I think that people know better than that and should just honestly admit that what Mr. Rove did was unethical at best.

There’s never been any suggestion that Mr. Wilson committed a crime and it seems that saying it is a way of dodging and weaving for Mr. Rove.
Click to expand...
Yes…

dodging and weaving :confused: you’d need to check with Mr Wilson about that…but we musen’t get off topic… 😃
Mr Rove was not indicted…so I guess we’ll just have to see how it all plays out 😉
 
40.png
aimee:
Yes…

dodging and weaving :confused: you’d need to check with Mr Wilson about that…but we musen’t get off topic… 😃
Click to expand...
What do you mean?

Let’s be blunt about this. The information Wilson revealed was not a national secret, and it was not a crime to release it. The information Rove released – and there’s no question that he released it at this point – was specifically illegal. According to George Bush Sr., it was treason. Trying to equate the two seems like little more than a desperate attempt to avoid admitting the Bush administration could possibly have done anything wrong.

But let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right, and what Wilson did was just as bad. Does that make it OK for the White House to turn around and answer his supposed crime with another?
Mr Rove was not indicted…so I guess we’ll just have to see how it all plays out 😉
Click to expand...
Based on Fitzgerald’s past performance, I’m really looking forward to it.

From today’s Washington Post:
Rove remains a focus of the CIA leak probe. He has told friends it is possible he still will be indicted for providing false statements to the grand jury.
Click to expand...
“Everyone thinks it is over for Karl and they are wrong,” a source close to Rove said. The strategist’s legal and political advisers “by no means think the part of the investigation concerning Karl is closed.”
Click to expand...
Cooper’s attorney, Dick Sauber, said Fitzgerald certainly meant it when he told Luskin last week that Rove remains in legal jeopardy and under investigation. “It wouldn’t surprise me knowing how careful he is and how much he doesn’t want to be seen as trigger-happy, that he is going through each of those things [that Rove presented] and seeing if they can be verified or not,” Sauber said.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
aimee:
Yes…

dodging and weaving :confused: you’d need to check with Mr Wilson about that…but we musen’t get off topic… 😃
Mr Rove was not indicted…so I guess we’ll just have to see how it all plays out 😉
Click to expand...
So is that your standard for government conduct? As long as someone is not indicted? What happened to bringing honor and integrity to the White House? I believe it’s called lip service.

And I’d like to think that we both know that moral standards are about a lot more than what is a crime in our country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top