The heat is on.

Burn, Karl, burn.

Update: This is just too delicious.

– For the better part of two years, the word coming out of the Bush White House was that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a female
CIA officer’s identity and that whoever did would be fired.

But Bush spokesman Scott McClellan wouldn’t repeat those claims Monday in the face of Rove’s own lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledging the political operative spoke to Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, one of the reporters who disclosed Valerie Plame’s name.

McClellan repeatedly said he couldn’t comment because the matter is under investigation. When it was pointed out he had commented previously even though the investigation was ongoing, he responded, “I’ve really said all I’m going to say on it.”

Trouble in River City.

The Discussion: 33 Comments

Fry piggy, piggy, fry! You could make a lot of pork rinds out of his fat ass.They like their pork rinds in Tejas.

July 11, 2005 @ 7:59 pm | Comment

Salon has the transcript of the McClellan gaggle. Priceless. It’s a little long but since it’s subscription only, I’d be happy to paste if you guys are interested.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:09 pm | Comment

Billmon had them too — absoutely priceless.

July 11, 2005 @ 11:18 pm | Comment

ah, so great to see this great news. yeah, as AM said, turn him into pork rinds.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:30 am | Comment

For all your facetiousness AM you got this one right. I can’t wait to see if the make-believe soldier will put him away, of course if he is guilty of lawbreaking or policy breaking.

July 12, 2005 @ 12:50 am | Comment

From my perspecitive (I do not see much difference between the political left and the poltical right, they both wish to expropriate wealth from the people and redistribute it, just to different clientel is all) I see this slightly differently than you. I do not know much about karl Rove or many others in the USA. But I have noticed that the polarization in the United States is rather personality based and faction oriented, reminding me of later Ming dynasty politics (China) or later Yi dynasty poltics (Korea). From hindsight it appears in the case of Ming and Yi politics that the bickering was really pointless.

The reason I write that is that fundamentasl are quite often overlooked in meeting poltical infighting tactical positions. Several years ago during Bush I, in Los Angeles, there was a case where several white police officers were acquitted of some crime (The details I am unfamiliar with, but I believe it was race related). The Federal government stepped in and retried them in Federal court. Granted they were tryed under new legal rubrics, but it was still the same cast of characters, the same event; now, however, the government has a new weapon to attack its citizens, in spite of Constitutional restrictions.

Likewise here, in the glee to get karl, the bullying of the press is allowed. If this occurred during the Nixon administration, there would have been no smoking gun. In the political expediency to gain ends, both the left and the right are empowering government beyond its needs. There is no guarantee that some future administration will not use that added empowerment to bully its own citizens.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:08 am | Comment

JFS
Actually, the second in the LA case did not violate the Constitution as the officers were charged with a separate crime.

The left, as you put it, in America is definitely aware of the compounding effect of daconian policies and laws from one rightist administration to another. Many of the good people of the left are now battling against the worse effects of the Patriot Act.

July 12, 2005 @ 3:38 am | Comment

Chicharron De Cerdo De Rove con salsa de casa blanca es muy sabroso!Bien provecho!

July 12, 2005 @ 4:07 am | Comment

I can still hardly believe it! Is it possible Rove will get his just desserts? Is it possible? I’m daring to hope!

Now, if only Donald Rumsfeld would be revealed as the author of Mark Anthony Jones’ comments …

July 12, 2005 @ 5:37 am | Comment

Justice in the long run. Winston Churchill (half American, great admirer of America) used to say:
“You can always count on the American people to do the right thing, after all other options have been exhausted.” ๐Ÿ™‚

July 12, 2005 @ 5:44 am | Comment

Pete, I understand the rational of the second crime, but it was not really a separate crime as I understand it-that is, it was the same event, the same cast of people. If they were found innocent of the first, then how were they guilty of the second?

But whether that is accurrate or not is really trivial, in my view. As I wrote, it appears to me that we have broken up into factions in which we quarrel without any real basis or merit, we just quarrel so that our faction will be able to get its share of the loot. This is not to imply that there are not significant issues at hand, but I do not see the parties debating or struggling with those issues, rather just the personalities that are involved.

July 12, 2005 @ 6:57 am | Comment

Coke or Pepsi ?

July 12, 2005 @ 7:03 am | Comment

Coke for me.
Thank you from,
G W Bush.

July 12, 2005 @ 7:14 am | Comment

Thats why he choked on the pretzel! His throat was so numb he couldn’t feel it.Actually, He’s probably so stupid that he doesn’t even have gag reflexes.

July 12, 2005 @ 7:20 am | Comment

Off topic I know, but you might be interested.

US forces in Britain have been ordered to stay outside the M25 (the expressway that surrounds London). This might seem logical considering that somebody just bombed London, but there is another reason that has been floated; that US fores are afraid that angry British will blame the UK-US alliance for the bombing and take it out on US soldiers.

Since the Brits that I know are absolutly steaming about this, and a lot of them are blaiming their alliance with America for bringing this attack on them, it sounds highly probable.

July 12, 2005 @ 8:54 am | Comment

Sue eeeee!

July 12, 2005 @ 9:28 am | Comment

ACB: the travel ban was lifted a few hours ago.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:27 am | Comment

From all I’m reading, this will not bring Rove down. But he has at least been exposed as a liar and the WH has been exposed as pure hypocrites, as if we didn’t already know.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:35 am | Comment

ACB — are many Brits really blaming the alliance with America for the attacks? with all respect, I think most people blame the people who exploded the bombs.

it’s true though that some people were pissed off with the order for the US forces to stay out of London but that’s because it was a pathetic display of timidity (I mean, er, force protection).

as I’ve said elsewhere on this site, after 9/11 it was pretty obvious that London would be hit, Iraq war or no Iraq war.

July 12, 2005 @ 1:18 pm | Comment

Thus far, I still see little in the way of real facts. Lots of speculation and even more accusation – but few concrete facts. And if Rove is half the evil genius you constantly accuse him of being don’t be too suprised if this blows up in your faces.

If Plame was not covert and was not an operative – no crime. If Rove was not aware of her status as a covert operative – again no crime. This is according to Fitzgerald himself. Also, why is Miller in jail if Rove is her source? He has signed a waiver. Thats why Cooper is now talking about Rove. Who is Miller protecting? Fitzgerald has also said that Rove is not a target.

Wouldn’t it be absolutely hilarious if Rove’s defense was parseing the meaning of the word “reveal”? Shades of Clinton!!!!

My prediction on all of this: Lots of noise, phoney moral indignation from people with no morals themselves – and Rove still sitting pretty when it’s over. This, of course, is also pure speculation.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:46 pm | Comment

Clinton parsed about a blow job, which I have no trouble with and which the American people didn;t mind very much. Most husbands would do that to protect their family dignity. Rove, on the other hand, seems involved in a much more serious offense. Yes, it’s pure speculation, but so was the tidal wave of speculation from the right that Clinton was going to be forced out of office. Now it’s our turn, only this time the offense is serious and could result in jail time for someone. Probably not Rove, though my fingers are still crossed.

July 12, 2005 @ 10:49 pm | Comment

Richard:

Clinton lied under oath and to a federal prosecutor. I don’t give a damn what it was about, it’s not acceptible and, whether impeachment was called-for or not, could not be ignored.

Rove probably lied to the press. No big deal. If that becomes grounds for removal from office, Washington is going to be a ghost town.

No one knows yet what Rove said to Fitzgerald or the grand jury. If he lied to them, he ought not only have to resign, he should be prosecuted, but I seriously doubt he’d be that dumb.

July 13, 2005 @ 2:05 am | Comment

A good source of information from one of Plames’ friends a the CIA. Really intelligent.

As to Clinton — well, they tried to impeach him and our wonderful government, following its laws and processes, found his non-crime to be non-worthy of regime change. And his ratings soared. What a great president. What a great hero and inspiration to all Americans. Sure, he had a sex problem, but it had nothing to do with his inspiring leadership. Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln and FDR and JFK all had sexual issues while in office, but they were kept under wraps by the knowing media, as they should be. We all have a private life, even lawyers. Even presidents.

This longing for a return to Clinton-era peace, prosperity, hope and transparency is what is fueling the Hillary-for-president movement, which has surprised me by its popularity. Gone are the days of “Clinton fatigue” as people look back and recall what it’s like to have a real president. Thank God there is still some hope for this nation after the great Bush clusterfuck.

July 13, 2005 @ 11:08 am | Comment

So if our wonderful government following its laws abd processes finds Rove committed no crime – will you be as willing to accept it?

I agree Clintion’s sex issues should have been private. But it was Bill himself who screwed that up – not the media or the GOP. They admittedly took full advantage of the opportunity Bill gave them. If you recall, the perjury arose not from the Starr investigation. Clinton was in a federal court answering to a suit for sexual harassment. He was asked a pertinent and material question and lied under oath in his response. The laws and processes of our wonderful government found him to have been in contempt of court for doing so. Which is why Paula Jones won every penny she asked for plus her lawyer’s fees. That was the deal to avoid being charged with perjury. The rationale behind lying to protect his family or himself from embarassment is bogus. If he was truly concerned about such embarassment he would not be doing things that couse it in the first place.

Perjury is always serious. Ask any lawyer the effect of perjured testimony on a case. And it does not matter why the perjury was committed.

The Democrat Party has been continually shooting itself in the foot and is becoming more and more mareginalized as a result. They have lost both houses of Congress and the WH. Every election cycle sees more and more losses. Dean delivers bitter diatribes and the Dems call on W not to be divisive. Long time party supporters not identify themselves as moderates or independents to avoid being called Democrats. The state I live in has historically been a Dem stronghold. They are now on the verge of losing their majority in both houses and the Gov is running second in the polls. A reflection of national trends. This is very bad. If the Dems cannot et it together – and soon – they will cease to exist. There needs to be a second strong party. Right now, the Dems do not fit the bill.

July 13, 2005 @ 1:55 pm | Comment

Yes, of course I will accept it if Rove is found to have committed no crime. aND If they find he did to something sleazy, I’ll hold him to account. You should do the same for our greatest president, William Jefferson Clinton, who was definitively cleared of any and all wrong doing. A knight in shining white armor.

Give the Dems some time; under Hillary, I suspect they can’t go wrong and the nation can get back on track. They have definitely been muddled, but that’s only because there hasn’t been a genius like Bill Clinton to give them direction. The GOP of course has their genius already, Karl Rove. Too bad his genius is totally evil – and that’s something I will not change my opinion on, no matter whjat the prosecutor says I’ve done enough research into him to safely say he is a criminal and almost as sociopathic as Mark Anthony Jones.

July 13, 2005 @ 3:00 pm | Comment

From today’s Bullmoose Blog:

The Moose observes that the right is very flexible when it comes to the rule of law.

It is striking how indifferent the right has been about the Plame leak. It seems likely that someone in the Administration leaked the name of a covert operative. If it had been in a Democratic Administration, the right would be in a fury. “Rule of law” would be the slogan on the banner that the right would wave as they would take to battle. Charges of treason would be the talking point of the day.

When the Moose traveled in conservative circles in the late ’90’s he would often argue that impeachment was the product of legal phenomena that conservatives opposed on principle – the independent prosecutor statute and frivolous litigation. In essence, the right was pursuing impeachment by any means necessary – even by means they once opposed on principle.

The response by the right was that they were upholding the “rule of law”. “Perjury” was perjury – even it was obtained by the unprincipled means of entrapment. Principles be damned – they were “defending” the constitution.

Of course, the right was not terribly concerned about the principles of federalism or opposing judicial activism in Bush v. Gore or in the recent Schiavo situation. The principle of limited government was cast aside long ago for pork barrel incumbent protection and for the benefit of their corporate cronies in the Medicare drug bill. Ultimately, it is all about power.

Conservatives are the new moral relativists. If you don’t believe the Moose, just ask Ralph Reed, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, and yes, Karl Rove. They came to power in ’94 promising to tame the power of government – now they are enamored by it.

Conservatives have made the ultimate faustian bargain. Can conservatism survive conservatives? Perhaps, the solution is to create a new organization – Conservatives Anonymous.

Hello, I’m the Moose and I’m a recovering conservative!

July 13, 2005 @ 3:56 pm | Comment

Richard:

Clinton was “definitively cleared of any and all wrong doing?????

I don’t think so.

Special Prosecutor Ray’s report concluded that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the President for perjury:

โ€œThe independent counselโ€™s judgment that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute President Clinton was confirmed by President Clintonโ€™s admissions. Specifically, President Clinton admitted, in writing, that he โ€˜knowingly gave evasive and misleading answersโ€™ to question put to him under oathโ€

“President Clinton’s offenses had a significant adverse impact on the community, substantially affecting the publicโ€™s view of the integrity of our legal systemโ€

Clinton’s lawyers then cut a deal with Ray, whereby Ray would not bring criminal perjury criminal charges against the president and Clinton:

(1) admitted to providing false testimony that was knowingly misleading, evasive, and prejudicial to the administration of justice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas;

(2) acknowledged that his conduct violated the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Arkansas Supreme Court;

(3) agreed to a five-year suspension of his license to practice law and $25,000 fine;

(4) paid a civil contempt penalty of more than $90,000 imposed by the federal court for violating its orders;

(5) paid the $850,000 in settlement of the Paula Jones case;

In addition the US Federal District Court specifically found that Clinton engaged in conduct constituting contempt of court.

Cleared of all wrongdoing my ass. He admitted wrongdoing and cut a deal.

July 13, 2005 @ 8:47 pm | Comment

Well, let’s just say we see it differently. The guy was a victim of entrapment.Today he looms godlike over other presidents, and Hillary is the country’s last hope to restore our nation to sanity. Even you can’t deny that obvious fact. (Repeat, fact.)

July 13, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Entrapment?!?

How the hell was he entrapped?

A person is ‘entrapped’ when he is “induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit.”

He was asked a question under oath by a private lawyer, not a law enforcement officer.

He could have told the truth or he could have lied.

He chose to lie. Indeed, he planned to lie long before the question was even put to him (remember the false Lewinsky affidavit he obtained).

No one pursuaded or induced him to lie, he made that choice on his own.

Unfortunately for him, the lawyer asking the question knew the truth and there was evidence to prove it. So he got caught.

Clinton then lied again to the special prosecutor under oath. The special prosecutor did not pursuade him or induce him to lie. Indeed, the prosecutor requested that he tell the truth. He didn’t. Unfortunately for Clinton, Monica preserved the stained dress. Caught again.

He wasn’t “entrapped” he was caught. He wasn’t “cleared”, he copped a plea. Big difference.

July 13, 2005 @ 10:11 pm | Comment

Oh yeah, and as for “looming God-like over other Presidents”, which ones, pray tell?

Let’s just look at the most recent (sparing Bill any embarsassing comparisons with, say, Honest Abe).

FDR v. Clinton = Someone’s looming alright, but it isn’t Bill.

Truman v. Clinton = Truman by a mile.

Eisenhower v. Clinton = Ike going away.

Kennedy v. Clinton = Even Kennedy’s sleaze dwarfs Bill’s (Marilyn Monroe in Frank Sintra’s hotel room vs. Monica Lewinsky by the sink.)

LBJ v. Clinton = LBJ, easily.

Nixon v. Clinton = A close call. Give Clinton the edge.

Ford v. Clinton = Another close call. “Whip Inflation Now” vs. “It depends what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

Carter v. Clinton = Ok, here Clinton looms God-like over his rival, but who wouldn’t?

Reagan v. Clinton = Again, someone’s looming, but it ain’t Bill.

Bush 1 v. Clinton = Bush in a close one.

July 13, 2005 @ 10:26 pm | Comment

I repeat, the greatest American president. I repeat, never found guilty of nuthin’. If he was, he would have been thrown out. God knows, the special proisecutor was itiching for it and the entire GPP had their knives out. Thank God justice usually prevails in America. Usually; I’m afraid Rove will weasel out, but at least he’s been fully exposed.

July 14, 2005 @ 5:22 pm | Comment

Knowing the great love of irony by commenters on this site, I give you l
the ultimate irony. The law regarding acceptable lines of inquiry into a defendant’s past behavior was signed into law by Clinton himself. With Hillary talking about how this change gave women more empowerment.

“Never guilty of nuthin”? Isn’t that a quote from Al Capone?

In Bullmoose’s study of relaltivism he apparently overlooked Sen. Leahey leaking documents from the Intellience Committee that resulted in the loss of a foreign intel asset. Thats “loss” as in disappeared from the face of the earth. Remind me again of his punishment I can’t seem to find too many references to it.

Fitzgerald has stated the Rove is not the target. Who is? What if it’s Wilson? Talk about Irony!!! Maybe its Aldrich Ames. What if it gets traced back to Dems trying to make Rove look bad? No, really.

I still have not seen any answer as to who Miller is supposedly protecting. Rove has clearly waived any and all confidentially agreements.

Conrad, while the Monroe affair was spectacularly decadent – JFK’s affair with the mistress of the Mafia’s Capo de tutti capo far outclasses even that. On soooooo many levels.

July 14, 2005 @ 11:52 pm | Comment

Don’t know about the Leahy issue; never heard of it. Yeah, Wilson’s the target. Why didn’t I figure that out!?

No matter who the target is, the fact is Bush said he would fire whoever was involved in the leak. Now he refuses to say that.

July 15, 2005 @ 8:43 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.