YASNY Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 When you are under oath, there is no such thing as a little white lie. Perjury is perjury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 02:58 PM) When you are under oath, there is no such thing as a little white lie. Perjury is perjury. Yup. Just like you can't be 'a little bit pregnant'. You are, or you are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 3, 2005 Share Posted July 3, 2005 Charles Schumer calls on Rove to deny claims in person, not through lawyer "We've heard it from his lawyer, but it would be nice to hear it directly from Mr. Rove that he didn't leak the identity of Valerie Plame, and that he didn't direct anyone else to do such a dastardly thing," Schumer said in a statement. "I have said from the first day ... whoever leaked the classified information should be punished to the full extent of the law." http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopN...-bc-us-leak.xml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benchwarmerjim Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 new O'Donnell post on Hufftington On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times. On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not “characterize the substance of the conversation.” Luskin claimed that the prosecutor “asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.” This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Rove’s grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper’s source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/arch...-rove_3584.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Who is this O'Donnell guy anyway? Is he a democrat or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jul 3, 2005 -> 09:58 AM) When you are under oath, there is no such thing as a little white lie. Perjury is perjury. Clinton went to an Impeachment trial over his "perjury." He was exonerated. Clinton paid for his "perjury." O'Donnell, if he writes for National Review, is by definition not a Democrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 01:12 PM) Clinton went to an Impeachment trial over his "perjury." He was exonerated. Clinton paid for his "perjury." O'Donnell, if he writes for National Review, is by definition not a Democrat. Wino, it is not very often that I would say this, but your ideals expressed in this post is what the hell is wrong with our country today, on both sides of the idealogy front. I love how you just blow off "perjury". It stinks, it's baloney, and I'm frankly disappointed in you for just blowing it off, no pun intended for Billy C. If Rove committed perjury himself, he deserves to fry for it. PERIOD. I don't care WHO you are... you cannot be above the law, no if's and's or but's about it. And you say Clinton was exonerated, no he wasn't. He wasn't impeached, but he wasn't exonerated either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 5, 2005 Author Share Posted July 5, 2005 Lawrence O'Donnell is MSNBC's chief Washington Correspondent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 09:39 AM) Wino, it is not very often that I would say this, but your ideals expressed in this post is what the hell is wrong with our country today, on both sides of the idealogy front. I love how you just blow off "perjury". It stinks, it's baloney, and I'm frankly disappointed in you for just blowing it off, no pun intended for Billy C. If Rove committed perjury himself, he deserves to fry for it. PERIOD. I don't care WHO you are... you cannot be above the law, no if's and's or but's about it. And you say Clinton was exonerated, no he wasn't. He wasn't impeached, but he wasn't exonerated either. You're right, I misspoke. He was acquitted. Clinton was not held above the law. He had an impeachment trial and won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 QUOTE(winodj @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:41 PM) You're right, I misspoke. He was acquitted. Clinton was not held above the law. He had an impeachment trial and won. Clinton was aquitted just like Bush would be aquitted today if he were to be impeached... along party lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 Clinton was punished, he lost the privilige to practice law for a few years. Lawyers that perjur are subject to discipline, in Illinois it is the ARDC. Not exactly sure where Clinton was practicing or under what rules he was regulated. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/10/01/scotus.clinton/ As for Rove Id expect the same thing over the lieing under oath, very little. The difference is, that what he lied about may actually be a crime which he can be convicted of. Where as fornication in the oval office is not illegal, therefore his perjury was the entire scope of the illegality pretty much. SB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted July 5, 2005 Share Posted July 5, 2005 So in either case, Clinton did suffer some consequence for his actions. But to sit there and say he got away with it, because he was never found guilty is bulls***. The impeachment managers had their shot - and they failed... and the vote wasn't on party lines. A number of Republicans didn't support that either. I just wish people wouldn't throw another example from the past to justify a bad action. What bothers me about this... and everything else lately is the "outrage" factor. It's something I've been guilty of - being outraged for the sake of being outraged - maybe in the hope it will bring someone else to my side. But it does nothing but make people upset. Nobody can be pissed off at their own side it seems anymore. There are lots of things that I don't like about the party that I belong to. Lots of Senators and Congressmen I wish would go away. A couple weeks ago, I got asked to protest a Corzine challenger's fundraiser because Karl Rove was going to be there. They were outraged because some strategist who wasn't on our side was going to be there. I told the organizer that I wasn't going because I didn't care. I'm not voting for the Republican in this election - and I'm probably going to work for Corzine... but I don't mind the Republican (Forrester) and I won't cry if he wins.... So I'm not going to protest. She didn't get it. Sometimes I wonder if people get it here too. It's ok to be mad at things that actually matter. Cheating on an election, putting troops/agents at risk for political gain, killing people, hurting people. The rest doesn't matter. So why be pissed off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 6, 2005 Share Posted July 6, 2005 Okay so O'Donnell says Cooper's source is Rove. And Cooper says his source allowed him to release his name in court so he wouldn't have to spend time in prison like Miller. When are we going to find out already? When does he testify? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 7, 2005 Author Share Posted July 7, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 03:20 PM) Okay so O'Donnell says Cooper's source is Rove. And Cooper says his source allowed him to release his name in court so he wouldn't have to spend time in prison like Miller. When are we going to find out already? When does he testify? I think he already has, but it was before a grand jury, and thus the testimony is currently sealed. We will find out what he said when and if Fitzgerald hands down indictments. Before that, it is basically requried to be a secret by the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benchwarmerjim Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 The Grand Jury stuff is over in October, so I guess well have to wait until then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 7, 2005 Share Posted July 7, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 6, 2005 -> 05:20 PM) Okay so O'Donnell says Cooper's source is Rove. And Cooper says his source allowed him to release his name in court so he wouldn't have to spend time in prison like Miller. When are we going to find out already? When does he testify? Judith Miller's crappy, unverified reporting – relying almost entirely on Chalabi's misinformation and the pseudo-corroboration of the same misinformation by the administration and some segments of the CIA – remain the biggest shots in the arm for the cause of selling the Iraq War to the American public. That said, I wouldn't discoutnt that she had a personal axe to grind with Joe Wilson (notwithstanding the fact that that she did not run a Plame story) since he was instrumental in revealing some of the most flawed intelligence being used to fuel the call to war. The scrutiny on the false Niger nukes story certainly renewed/intensified scrutiny on Miller's own erroneous 'aluminum tubes = nuclear program' and 'Iraqi "scientist" points at the sand = WMDs' NYT stories. More than likely, the unnamed "senior administration official" who outed Plame to Judy Miller was also the one who pseudo-corroborated the bad information coming from Chalabi and the other Iraqi exiles and the Iraqi National Congress. I support the rights of journalists to not reveal their sources and hope the federal blanket protection measures are passed. But if she testifies I hope she is required to reveal who in the administartion was vouching for the information she ran with when she put together the stories that made the case for war so much more compelling to the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 10, 2005 Share Posted July 10, 2005 Some of Matt Cooper's email to his bureau chief involving Rove. Reveals that Rove didn't at this point reveal Plame's name but he was trying to discredit Wilson's trip. Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" ... The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." ... "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... " http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/page/2/ lot more at link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 10, 2005 -> 04:23 PM) Some of Matt Cooper's email to his bureau chief involving Rove. Reveals that Rove didn't at this point reveal Plame's name but he was trying to discredit Wilson's trip. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/page/2/ lot more at link Call the Grand Jury and lets get this going... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Exactly. If Rove broke the law, he needs to fry, just like the rest of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Let's say that for some reason he didn't break the letter of the law, i.e. the law is terribly worded, and he can get away with the "I only said Wilson's wife, I didn't say Valerie Plame" defense. First, if Bush is such a straight shooter, why exactly would he let a guy who clearly violated his trust and just barely maneuvered himself out of jail stay in the white house? Second, why in God's name would you let this guy keep his security clearance? (Remember, he still has access to a huge amount of government information, and he's already shown a willingness to abuse that priveledge) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Does anybody know why Rove was kicked off of the Bush I campaign? Hint: drip... drip... drip... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 pssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Scott McClellan gets hammered in White House briefing http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 QUOTE(KipWellsFan @ Jul 11, 2005 -> 03:22 PM) Scott McClellan gets hammered in White House briefing http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov wow... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.