Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What if its not Rove?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:02 AM
Original message
What if its not Rove?
And there is as good a chance that it is not Rove as there is that it is Rove.

No indictments for him and immediately you have the White House and every bit of the press giving the quite proper retort that the maniacal know-nothing Democrats were out there howling for Rove's blood while Scottie quite properly kept his mouth shut and George kept on backing his boy. You don't think that is what will happen if Rove comes up clean?

However I'm hoping that what we'll see is that Cheney was the source, giving the information to Miller, who then spread it around. In my version, which is no better or worse than anyone else's version, Cheney told Miller to have the reports she gave the story to contact Rove or Libby for confirmation. George sat back in his usual stupor and didn't have a clue what was going on because Dick didn't tell him. This is the simplest explanation I can come up with consistent with the very few facts we have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
southernleftylady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. I'm scared that they are going to go and make powell go down with the ship
since he was the most outspoken of the group
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alpharetta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. He deserves to rot in a jail cell
The WMD lies in his testimony to the UN

The 1960's Pentagon whitewash he authored of the "investigation" of atrocities in Vietnam where he concluded "relations with the Vietnamese civilians are excellent."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ewagner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's not just the Democrats
who are piling on Rove...it's the media itself....

he's bullied the media for years and now they see a chance to discredit him and weaken his influence...sort of a freedom wish I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
3. Rove is already deemed "dirty" because
he named her to Cooper, and because he confirmed Novak's question about her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
4. It was Rove and Scotter Libby
Edited on Sat Jul-16-05 10:12 AM by imenja
see today's Washington Post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. i was thinking htat yesterday. so the mcmahon that wouldnt
commit to the hanging of rove on hardball the other nite really did the right thing. as of this moment he says, will have to see.

the dems out there raising a stink are going to allow repugs to use it. what did it teach me

as we on this board demand our dems to stand up and make a fuss before the time is right, isnt so good.

so sit down and see what is developed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
6. Rove has already admitted it
He has said he did not leak the info but confirmed it as true. They are one and the same.

REP. HENRY A. WAXMAN RANKING MINORITY MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
JULY 15, 2005

Fact Sheet

Karl Rove’s Nondisclosure Agreement
Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President’s top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson’s identity as a covert CIA official.

Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for “negligently” disclosing Ms. Wilson’s identity.

KARL ROVE’S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement,” also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: “I will never divulge classified information to anyone” who is not authorized to receive it.2

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST “CONFIRMING” CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.
One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the “briefing booklet” that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:

Before … confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, … confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.3

THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION
Mr. Rove’s attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson’s identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: “Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.”4

Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: “before disseminating the information elsewhere … the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified.”5

“NEGLIGENT” DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove’s attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove’s conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson’s covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who “knowingly, willfully, or negligently” disclose classified information.6 The sanctions for such a breach include “reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions.”7

THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must “take appropriate and prompt corrective action.”8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.
The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: “Officers and employees of the United States Government … shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently … disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified.”9
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.

ENDNOTES
1 Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information (as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_ 12958_amendment.html).
2 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312 (Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf / 0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf).
3 Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf ).
4 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b).
5 Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73.
6 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added).
7 Id. at 5.5(c).
8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1).
9 Id. at 5.5(b).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Karl Rove has a string of fake
information against perceived enemy's of the rotten scum of this administration. bush is worse than nixon. Wilson's information was true and so that is why they want to do him in. It was verified by the Italians that the material was a forgery. That should be brought out. rove is a lying sack of you know what. Plame wa on to something out in the mid east and that is a reason to destroy her. Saud's were involved not Iraq. bush has to protect his base who are Saudis. Keep your eyes on the prize folks there is more than meets the eye here. Randi Rhodes did a great job following the real story last week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 10:46 AM
Response to Original message
8. It's Gonna Be Someone Somewhere
If Fitzgerald hadn't found something illegal going on...worth getting an indictment...he wouldn't have pursued this case for as long as it has. Also, the judges wouldn't have allowed him to continue...they wouldn't have allowed the jailing of Cooper and Miller. There's definitely some smoke coming out of that federal court room.

If it's not Rove, it's gonna be someone else either related to or a part of this regime. It's going to take this story and move it to another level as a trial could uncover a lot of "bodies" as to why this regime had to disclose Ms. Plame's identity and why it was done...the entire Joe Wilson smear campaign.

Be patient. Good things happen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Hey -- You Have the Chimp Washing a Kitty Cat in Your Sig Line!
Whereever did you get that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KharmaTrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Jon Stewart's Patience Inspired Me...
Snarf away...LOL

Enjoy...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peekaloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. lol....." not germane"
I think he stole that clip from Letterman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
11.  Rove-gate: Who Leaked to the Leakers? This isn't about Karl Rove
Rove-gate: Who Leaked
to the Leakers?
This isn't about Karl Rove
by Justin Raimondo
http://antiwar.com/justin/

Read this article from yesterday, it will give you a new perspective



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. remember 2000 debate tapes stolen?
they tried to put the blame on the gore camp and it was in the media for days...knocking gore like a punching bag,

then Low and Behold.along comes Yvette Lozano who took the "rap" and got a year in jail.3 years probation.......wonder what else she got?..........that little media blitz was more than likely the work of rove...as well as the Swift boat liars :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal In Texas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-16-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. There is NOT a good chance it's not Rove. IT IS ROVE.
All that remains is how the repukes will spin it. (Or further spin it; check their talking points out...)

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 06:47 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC