Excellent post.

I believe the evil here is not so much that liberals will slander men's names for politicval reason. -that's comes with the liberal package. I 'm muich more concerned with the damage to our legal system when it is merely a tool in the hands of either party. Credibility in the legal system is a must to avoid things like revolution and anarchy when things get going rough. The same must be said for the integrety of the vote -I'm compl;etely for voter ID and automatic jail time for voting fraud. Nothing less can preserve the integrity of the Republic.

"plameout" (v); a non-consequence instead of a desired negative outcome by one's political oppoenents.

(nuck, nuck, nuck)

“..neither did anything dishonest..”

Mark, when McClellan stood in front of the press corp and said that he personally asked Rove if he had anything to do with the leak, what was Rove’s reply? Was it “Yes Scott, I discussed Plame with Bob Novak”, or was it “I had absolutely no involvement in the Plame leak”.

Maybe your definition of “honest” includes lying to the people of America.

Barneyg2000,

RE: "I had absolutely no involvement in the Plame leak."

Fitzgerald has proven that Karl Rove's statement is 100% true.

Yep, that pretty much fits the definition of honest!

The fact that Rove discussed Plame in his conservations DOES NOT mean in any way that he "exposed" her as an undercover CIA operative. Everyone who knew Plame discussed her name. Many knew and talked about her working for the CIA. That does not make their conversations illegal. We have discussed this issue time after time and talked about what is illegal and not illegal. By now, Barney, you should at least begin to understand that.

Rove was asked if he had any role in illegally exposing Plame. He said no. Fitzgerald has confirmed that fact as well as the fact that Rove did not lie, obstruct justice, or break any other law! If that were not the case, Fitzgerald would have come up with an indictment against Rove. Fitzgerald has a reputation to protect too!

What part of NOT GUILTY do you not understand? What part of INNOCENT do you not understand?

Get over it. ROVE IS INNOCENT! Go hunt for another Republican to gore.

Better still, go hunt for those people who have and are releasing NSA and CIA secrets to the press on our efforts to protect Americans from being blown up by terrorists. Those are the people you should be worried about. Let's find them, try them, and hang them! The sooner the better!!!

AAR

Yet....It is OK for convicted felon George Soros to fund MoveOn.org and many many other "liberal" organizations.

Not just accused. Not just assumed. But CONVICTED.

“That does not make their conversations illegal.”

AAR, I never wrote “illegal”. The question from the press corp. was about involvement. Bush said “anyone involved…”. Rove clearly was lying to the public when he said that he had no involvement, and that is dishonest.

Couldn't have said it better, AAR. Fitzgerald concluded long ago that there was no "leak", but Barney must have been in line at the BDS sign-up table and missed the news.

"Rove clearly was lying to the public when he said that he had no involvement, and that is dishonest."

Wilson, through his lawyer, is threatening a civil suit against Rove.

Oh, how the Dems want to shoot themselves in the head, right after they've already shot themselves in the foot!

A Pandora's Box will be opened, and the ones who will have more to lose will be the Wilsons, Kerry, the NYT, the DNC and it won't be pretty.

Joe hasn't learned that MoveOn and other far-left groups won't be lining up to fund his misadventure, since they are already smarting over their depleted bank accounts from their other fiascos.

AAR and Mark make a sweeping declaration that Plame was not “covert” even though the CIA, DOJ, and the special prosecutor believe she was. At the very least, her identity was protected. By discussing her identity Rove and Libby broke their confidentiality agreement with the federal government.

Hardly the act of honest people.

Under EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958 (CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION) All employees with a security clearance, which Libby and Rove had, must sign a SF312 agreement that states:

(Section 3) “I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I am disclose it.”

“I'm tired of your s**t Barney. PROVE IT! You got the tapes? You got the fly-on-the-wall conversations Rove had with anyone which prove your allegation? Otherwise SHUT THE FRAK UP!”

Here you go Macker!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html
Q So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?
MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with them.

Barneyg2000,

One of us have trouble understanding the English language... and it isn't me!

Your "quotes" of the law do nothing to "prove" your allegations and charges. You can continue to allege and charge all you want, but those have been proven false by Fitzgerald by the fact that he found ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO INDICT Rove for anything!!!

Where did I say that Plame was not "covert"? The issue is did Karl Rove do anything illegally to identify her as a covert agent or cover up the investigation. There are some who say she was not "covert", but let's assume she was.

That does not make all conversations about Plame and her working for the CIA illegal. Basically, it is only illegal if a person KNOWS the agent is COVERT and then INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY RELEASES that information in an effort to EXPOSE that person as a COVERT CIA agent.

There is nothing illegal about discussing Plame or that she worked for the CIA, whether that person is Karl Rove, you, I, or someone else as long as we aren't knowingly exposing her as a covert CIA agent. Even if the person knows the individual is a covert agent working for the CIA, it is not illegal to talk about that person, or the fact that they work for the CIA as long as they don't intentionally and knowingly expose that individual as a covert CIA agent.

The questions to which Rove and McClellan were responding were about anyone breaking the law and intentionally and knowingly exposing Plame as a covert CIA agent. That was the whole purpose of the investigation. The question was not whether Rove or anyone else had a legal conversation about Rove. The question was whether or not Rove illegally released information about Plame's covert CIA status. The answer... NO!

It is apparent [TO ME] that Rove did not illegally release that information, nor did he lie or cover up information to that effect. Had he done so, Fitzgerald would have indicted him for something -- anything -- but Fitzgerald did not do that because Rove was INNOCENT of the allegations and charges!

Rove may be guilty of not paying a parking ticket (I don't know that to be a fact) or irritating liberals (that is a fact), but he has been proven INNOCENT of the allegations and charges related to the multi-month-multi-million-dollar Plame witch hunt!

Now... go for another spin around the block, because it's Plame-out on this one!!!

AAR

Thanks AAR, now the left will claim Rove won't pay his parking tickets and try to indict him for that.

AAR, you having an argument with yourself. Again, I have made no statements to the affect that Rove broke any laws. I question his honesty, and whether he broke his confidentiality agreement (i.e., his word) when he discussed Plame’s identity with Novak and Cooper. The agreement states:

“I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I am disclose it.”

Plame’s identity was at the very least classified if not covert.

Barney- you are 100% correct. Bush did say that. Chris Matthews of "Hardball" has been making that point all week long. I guess its ok to do something underhanded and dishonest in the Bush White House, as long as a prosecutor can't prove you broke the law. Innocent bystanders don't get called in front of a grand jury 5 times to testify. The last time, Rove was there for 3 1/2 hours, and privately told others at the W.H. that he was worried about getting indicted. But Luskin earned his pay this time!

Kahn,

Speaking of George Soros...his CONVICTION for insider trading has just been upheld by the Supreme Court in France. He will have to pay a fine of 2.5€, with apparently no jail time.

I am not surprised that there is NO news about this in the US press, afterall he's part of the liberal untouchable class that Ann Coulter talks about.

'I guess its ok to do something underhanded and dishonest in the Bush White House, as long as a prosecutor can't prove you broke the law. Innocent bystanders don't get called in front of a grand jury 5 times to testify.' kritter

So now the mantra is he's still guilty ...we just can't prove it.

And, if as they say 'any prosecutor worth his salt can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich', must be that either Rove is actually INNOCENT or Fitzgerald is incompetent.

Merry Fitzmas to all you moonbats

Barneyg2000, kritter,

I repeat...

The questions to which Rove and McClellan were responding -- or thought they were responding -- were about anyone breaking the law and intentionally and knowingly exposing Plame as a covert CIA agent. That was the whole purpose of the investigation. The question was not whether Rove or anyone else had a legal conversation about Rove. The question was whether or not Rove illegally released information about Plame's covert CIA status. The answer... NO!

Now, if that was the issue to which the questions referred. If Rove and McClellan answered those, or whatever questions they believed they were answering correctly -- and which Fitzgerald's non-indictment says they did -- where is that dishonest?

Kritter,

Interesting concept!

When a grand jury is trying to sort through the tons of information they have and render a true and correct decision those who were called to testify are thereby guilty of the crimes! The longer a person testifies, or the more times they are called to clarify issues, the more guilty they are!!!

WOW! I didn't even know that liberals could go that far. I know killers and criminals are presumed to be innocent by liberals until and even after they are convicted. I know that Republicans are believed to be guilty if they are indicted. But this is the FIRST time I have ever heard anyone found guilty and convicted by liberals for testifying before a grand jury.

This open up a whole new arena to allege guilt. Just think, every time a Conservative, Christian, or Republican is called before a grand jury or called to testify in court, they are thereby convicted of the crimes or alleged crimes which are being tried!

Interesting concept! Typical liberal thinking!!!!!

AAR

AAR, “..were about anyone breaking the law and intentionally and knowingly exposing Plame as a covert CIA agent…”

Go back and read the confidentiality statement. Unintentional or ignorance of the classified nature of the information is not an excuse. Also, read Scotty’s statement. There is no discussion of legal or illegal “leaking” of Plame’s identity. It is flat out no discussion of Plame’s identity by Libby or Rove, and that is a lie.

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Q So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

AAR- Just remember- O.j. is still searching for the "real killers". Good legal representation goes a long way towards reducing accountability-Just ask wacko jacko!

kritter, witnesses testifying before in a Grand Jury don't have legal representation in the proceedings, nor can any legal representative of the witness consult or address the Grand Jury. It doesn't matter how good your lawyer is if you're not indicted.

Barneyg2000,

I have read, re-read, and re-read your post. Your point is...?

Perhaps I am missing something, but right now, I don't see it! I have read and re-read the questions you provided and McClellan's reply. Is there something else I am supposed to read, some obvious facts that I am missing, or that I am supposed to know or read? Because if there is, I am missing it. Since you are being so persistent, I think we are miscommunicating but I really don't know where.

Again, I don't see where any classified information was leaked by Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or Elliot Abrams. The fact that Plame worked for the CIA IS NOT CLASSIFIED. Discussing the fact the Plame worked for the CIA is NOT RELEASING CLASSIFIED information. If I were Rove and Libby and replied to a question asking if I leaked the [classified] information about Plame, I would also have replied that I had not. I see nothing that indicates to me that Rove violated any "confidentiality statement". .....Can we agree on that or am I missing something here?

You want me to take something entirely out of the context of the actual discussion and conversations and agree that Rove and Libby were "dishonest". I can't and won't do that either. For one, I don't have all of the information. Second, I don't have the time to do that. Third, Fitzgerald has already concluded that Rove is innocent. Fourth, anything I say won't change the facts or your opinion.

To fully evaluate McClellan's statement and those of Rove and Libby upon which it is based, I would have to read back through all of the discussions to determine exactly what questions they were answering, the related discussions, and everything related to it, and the context in which they replied. Then I would have to determine if what McClellan said was what Rove and Libby actually said or meant -- you know, anytime someone repeats something, the wording and possibly the intent and meaning can change. Next I would have to read or hear the discussions that lead up to the questions to which McClellan responded. I don't have the time to do all of that, and I don't have the piles of information to do it even if I had the time. Even if I did, however, it won't change the results. Rove will still be INNOCENT and you will still maintain that he is dishonest.

Fitzgerald has already sorted through the stack of relevant information and concluded that Rove and Libby were not the "leakers". Libby was indicted, but not for leaking classified information. Rove was cleared and found to be totally INNOCENT of anything related to Fitzgerald's investigation. .....Can we agree on that or am I missing something here?

The reply you quote -- "...you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?" -- appears to be correctly stated as I understand the information and facts. I see nothing dishonest or inconsistent with that statement. .....Is this the statement to which you are referring as being dishonest?

AAR

kritter,

O.J. can quit "searching" for the "real" killer. The civil case found him!

I'm sure you recall the phrase "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit," right?

Try taking a leather dress glove of the type that was used as evidence in the trial. Let is soak for a few hours in blood -- cattle blood from a local butcher will work just fine for this purpose.

Wad the blood soaked glove up a little and let it dry thoroughly.

After the glove has thoroughly dried, try to put it on.

What do you think happens?

AAR

Uh, AAR, O.J. was indictd by a Grand Jury, so was Michael Jackson. Karl Rove was not indicted by a Grand Jury. Legal counsel can only get a person off once a person is indicted or charged.

The reporter from TruthOut.org is in total denial.

--------------

Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:37 a.m. EDT

Reporter in Denial Over Karl Rove Exoneration

The web reporter who had the Washington press corps buzzing after he claimed on May 13 that Karl Rove had been indicted says he's standing by his story - even though Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald exonerated the top Bush aide two days ago.

"I have to tell you, I'm shocked by the news" that Rove was cleared, Truthout.org's Jason Leopold told radio host Steve Malzberg, filling in on "Fox News Talk" for John Gibson.

But Leopold said he won't retract his Rove indictment story until Fitzgerald himself issues a denial.

"Karl Rove was under the microscope for three years and it is [Fitzgerald's] obligation to come out there and tell everyone himself that Karl Rove was cleared," he told Malzberg.

"All we have right now is Karl Rove's attorney . . . saying: 'Hey, we got a letter. But I'm not going to share that letter with anybody.' What is that?"

The skeptical reporter suggested that there may be more to the Rove exoneration than meets the eye, wondering aloud: "Did Karl Rove cut a deal? . . . Did he offer up information?"

But when Malzberg pressed, "You mean like on Dick Cheney?" Leopold quickly retreated, insisting: "I don't know. I'm not saying that."

Leopold's initial report was taken seriously by D.C. pundits. "Everybody's buzzing in Washington. Is this guy going to get indicted?" announced MSNBC's Chris Matthews, a day after the Truthout story hit.

Leopold says now that the ball in is the special prosecutor's court.

"If [my report] is wrong, and Patrick Fitzgerald comes out with a statement and says it's wrong, or says that Rove is in the clear - well, I'll be out there to say I was completely wrong," he promised.

Bane of Liberals' Existence,

I totally agree.

I just though I would give kritter something to think about.

I still can't get over kritter thinking that Rove is guilty, tried, and convicted by the fact that he testified 5 times before the grand jury with one lasting 3 1/2 hours.

AAR

" There is no place for Rove and Libby to get their good name back"

Not to worry. Its common knowledge that you can't get something back that you never had in the first place. And in a way it seems like fitting justice; Valerie Plame can't get her covert status as a CIA agent back, either. (BTW, did you know Bush's dad sent her a nice condolence letter lamenting the fact that her identity was exposed? They don't even seem like they're from the same DNA sometimes. He's such a decent guy)

Kritter,

Got a link for that assertion? I can't find anything on it, and I find it hard to believe that the Elder Bush would offer condolences for the loss of nothing....

kritter,
A great number of agents were identified by the CIA leaks of Aldrich Ames in 1994. The CIA stongly suspected Mrs. Wilson was compromised and didn't use her as a covert agent after that.