home

Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Tue Jul 05, 2005 at 08:21:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Lawrence O'Donnell would like to ask Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's lawyer,

You told Newsweek that your client “never knowingly disclosed classified information.” Did Rove ever unknowingly disclose classified information?

Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, says in his book, when discussing McClellan's defense of Rove at an October, 2003 press conference:

.... the administration's defense is extremely narrow: the leakers and pushers of the story did not know the undercover status of Valerie Plame, and therefore, though they may have disclosed her name, they did not commit a crime.

< Joe Wilson on Leakers: Elliot Abrams, Libby & Rove | Detaining Cyrus Kar >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know | 39 comments (39 topical)
    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    The Ignoramus Defense. How appropriate.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    Indict him, prosecute him. Fitz has reputation as thorough prosecutor. I think jail would be good for Rove, sort of round out his education.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    graphicus at July 5, 2005 09:58 PM The Ignoramus Defense. How appropriate.
    Yes, but they will get away with it. It is the same thing time after time with the Bush administration: it is not whether they are lying or being dishonest, but rather how creatively they do so. And you may not know it, but it really is for your own good, national security being what it is and all, you see? Really no different than what Bill said about what the definition of "is" is when you boil it down and try to distil it, however.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    So, first decide that no crime was committed but then prosecute anyway-that makes a lot of sense.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#5)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    "knowingly" is required by the law in question. It's an excellent defense.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Posted by Ed at July 6, 2005 08:09 AM So, first decide that no crime was committed but then prosecute anyway-that makes a lot of sense.
    If Karl is so innocent, then why does he refuse to answer any questions from reporters? What has he got to hide? Where is the "open" and "honest" government that Bush promised the nation? What makes the Bush administration any different than the Clinton administration as far as investigation is concerned? Unimpressed, as always.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    the leakers and pushers of the story did not know the undercover status of Valerie Plame, and therefore, though they may have disclosed her name, they did not commit a crime
    Funny, I always believed that the rule was that ignorance of the law was no defense. I guess IOKIYAR, like many other things.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    I don't know-he apparently did testify in front of a grand jury. what is owed beyond that? if he lied, he could be prosecuted for that. if his lawyer lied about him not being a target, big deal-defense lawyers often lie and his lawyer's statements will not stop an indictment. you folks apparently want indictments even if there is no proof of unlawful conduct. that really speaks highly of your civil liberties credentials.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Posted by Ed at July 6, 2005 09:24 AM I don't know-he apparently did testify in front of a grand jury. what is owed beyond that?
    What is owed? How about the full, honest and open disclosure that Bush promised the rest of us? Where is that? Again, if Rove has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, then why should he have any problem with discussing his role to the American public? What is he afraid of? I guess it depends on what your definition of the word “is” is, remember? Still unimpressed.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    like I am unimpressed by your legal analysis. did he testify-yes. did he tell the truth-time will tell. do people often get lectured by AUSA not to discuss testimony even though not prohibited-yes. do we have the slightest idea if he did anything unlawful-no and all facts disclosed to date say no/time will tell if this is wrong. perhaps you should go to Kos website and get your talking points straight.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#11)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    What, exactly, beyond his testimony can he tell? "I didn't do it" doesn't leave much room for details about having done it, or how it was done. Hey, Adept. Check the law. It was written so that ignorance of the law was specifically an excuse. I speculate it's because if somebody is outed illegally, a good number of people will know about it within a short period of time and prosecuting them for talking about it is silly. But whatever the reason is, "knowingly" is required.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Posted by Ed at July 6, 2005 09:40 AM do we have the slightest idea if he did anything unlawful-no and all facts disclosed to date say no/time will tell if this is wrong.
    If Karl did nothing wrong, then he should be more than willing to tell the whole world. Otherwise it looks a lot like he is just hiding behind his lawyer. No way to sidestep that fact, is there? (You neo-cons hated Clinton for such behavior, but obviously you will tolerate it from Bush and his parrots as long as it forwards your cause. Total hypocrisy, that). Unlike neo-cons like you, I don’t rely on any talking points and none would be needed in this situation anyway. It is obvious to anyone except the Kool-Aid drinkers that Rove is covering his butt and splitting legal hairs (again, like Bill Clinton and crew). This is just a prime example that Bush lied (again) to us all when he said that his administration would be different as far as openness is concerned. If I were you, I would direct your hostility toward Bush for not keeping his promise instead of attacking the messengers here. Still unimpressed.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    actually, you are very wrong and highly unimpressive. you don't have to testify in front of the GJ-you can plead the Fifth or demand immunity. would him saying "I did nothing wrong" make you happy-we know the answer to that. what is obvious to your exalted brilliance sure must not be obvious to everyone-hence the investigation. if Rove did wrong, we'll find out about it. if he did nothing wrong, you'll look like a fool.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Neo-con ED wrote:
    actually, you are very wrong and highly unimpressive.
    And you seem to have Selective Reading Disorder and/or in true Rove-like fashion, you also don’t like to answer questions that bother you. I can see now that as a Kool-Aid drinker, you will never give me a straight answer and that all I will accomplish here in trying to engage you in meaningful debate is to waste Talk Left bandwidth. Can you tell I’m still unimpressed? You have my permission to go back to sleep now.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Labyrinth: Every word you type is a talking point. Neo-con? Kool-Aid drinker? How about something more original, like Bush Lied-Kids Died? Halliburton, anyone? Look, if Rove broke any laws, fire him and throw him in jail. But he completely cooperated with the Grand Jury, which is still sorting everything out. I guess waiting for the dust to settle a little before calling for his head is silly. Sure he answered to that little ol' Grand Jury thingee, but how dare he not answer to THE MEDIA? Tell you what. I'll send a reporter to your house to ask if you still beat your wife, and run your responses at 6, and 11, and ... Adept: Ignorance of the LAW is no defense. If the LAW says that ignorance of her status IS a defense, the only indefensible ignorance here is your post.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Scott, And we know Rove has been truthful with the grand jury because...? Because his paid mouthpiece has said so? What you assume to be true is often just as flimsy as you claim your opponents assumptions to be. It's all just opinion. Logic and reason are the scoring shots here.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    no one here has the slightest idea what he testified to at the GJ-we just know he did it. if his lawyer lied, big deal-they do it all the time and clients still get indicted(I believe Ebbers/Kozlowski/Simpson's lawyers all said clients were innocent). right now, there is no evidence before us he did anything wrong. if you have such evidence, you should call Mr. Fitzgerald.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Ed, O'Donnell's unflinching stand on Rove as the source, and his willingness to stand up in public as no one else in this business has, is certainly compelling. While Rove's sittting and hiding in private is not compelling. But power players get off scott-free every day, maybe he'll be one, maybe he deserves to be one, maybe he doesn't. I have my own opinion.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    ED, RA, and Scott I was just wondering if it turns out that Rove did leak the name to the press, knowingly divulged top secret information, found guilty, and is carted off to jail does this in any way reflect badly upon the Pres.? If not why? I am sure you will all say that you don't want to respond to a hypothetical question, and that would be unfortunate, but I would like to know if all of negative allegations turn out to be the truth then does this make King George the Bush come down a few notches on your scale of goodness?

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Posted by Scott at July 6, 2005 11:38 AM Labyrinth: Every word you type is a talking point. Neo-con? Kool-Aid drinker? How about something more original, like Bush Lied-Kids Died? Halliburton, anyone?
    Naturally, you are dead wrong: phrases or words like "Neo-con" and "Kool-Aid drinker" are descriptive terms, not “talking points.” Talking points are prepared, canned responses to specific issues. Your obvious lack of understanding in that area speaks volumes about the rest of your opinions. (I would be willing to bet that you attended the same schools and English classes as Ed, didn’t you?) But what I would still like to know is why Rove is avoiding the press and why he won’t simply go on record to state that he had absolutely nothing to do with the Plame leak. I’m sure he could avoid any disclosure that his attorney would not approve of. How about a little of that promised Bush openness from Rove? Anyone else besides me think that he is keeping mum because he fears being locked into statements he may make? I remain unimpressed.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    Lab my good buddy, c'mon.... 'I would say, “Thanks for being honest and open and I sincerely hope that you have told us the truth and that we can rest assured that you were not the source for the Plame leak.”' Were you able to type that drivel with a straight face? I'm not into tractor pulls, but I wouldn't denigrate those that are as half-wit rubes. Wait a minute, I know you. You think you're that pompous Boston Brahmin on M*A*S*H*, right? No, couldn't be. You intellectual giants don't watch TV, except PBS, of course.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    perhaps you should gaze upon your reflection in a mirror-I am sure that impresses you. Why would I bother with a hypothetical on Rove's conduct when no one has any idea what that conduct is? when and if it turns out he did something wrong, ask the question. what reason can you think of for Rove talking to the press about testimony he has already given-it isn't worth the ink to print and would prove nothing-do we not remember Pres. Clinton's emphatic I did not have sex statements.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Dadler, uh, where did I say he told the truth, or assume anything to be true? I guess I assumed he cooperated with the GJ, but not because his lawyer said so, but because nobody (that knows anything, unlike all us speculators) has said anything differently, including the GJ. Re O'Donnell, his 'unflinching stand' isn't as compelling for me as for you. As for his standing up in public, has he been called before the GJ? If so, I doubt he'd have much to say publicly. They generally tell you to shut up while they go about their business. Silence doesn't always equal guilt. I'm no member of the Rove fan club, but all these "if he's got nothing to hide he'll answer all our questions now" comments remind me a little of some 50's Senate hearings I remember hearing about. p.s. Want to apologize for my 'indefensible ignorance' comment to Adept. Gratuitous low blow. Must get some soap to wash my mouth out.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Posted by Ed at July 6, 2005 01:05 PM perhaps you should gaze upon your reflection in a mirror-I am sure that impresses you. Why would I bother with a hypothetical on Rove's conduct when no one has any idea what that conduct is?
    It wasn’t me who asked any hypothetical. I only want to know why Rove suddenly has a problem with talking to the press; why he has “lawyered up”; and why he just doesn’t go on the public record with a big, fat, gigantic, unequivocal “I was not the source for the information about Ms. Plame.” That would satisfy the unimpressed masses, to be sure. What is it about those questions/statements that you don’t seem to grasp? Unless Rove is hiding something, then it looks really, really bad, which most Kool-Aid drinkers would say about, oh, lets say, a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry. Color me still unimpressed as of this writing.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    ShermBuck, if Rove goes to jail, it would reflect badly on Bush because he picked Rove for this important Admin. position; but more on Rove, unless he acted at Bush's behest. I have this nasty habit of holding people accountable for their own actions. I'm just wacky that way. I'd hold Bush more accountable for his words and actions after Rove's fall. What I wouldn't do is use it to proclaim Bush the Antichrist. I have no scale of goodness for Bush. Lab, sorry, I thought calling anyone who disagreed with you a neo-con WAS a 'prepared, canned response to a specific issue'. Thanks for deigning to grace me with your superior intellect. And I appreciate your interest in where I went to school. I forgot that the better educated are my superiors. I should've learned that lesson from the junior Senator from Massachusetts. Now that you've put me in my proper place, on to your question. Am I to believe that if Rove would 'simply go on record to state that he had absolutely nothing to do with the Plame leak' you would say, "thanks for clearing that up for us -- have a nice day"?

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Scott : No, you have the same reading comprehension and English language problems that Ed seems to have. I said that calling someone a “neo-con” or a “Kool-Aid drinker” was a descriptive word or phrase. Use of such names or descriptors is in fact a “label,” whereas “talking points” come in the form of prepared statements that contain multiple, many worded responses to specific issues. Am I getting through? (And you are welcome for the free English lesson, but I doubt it will help very much).
    Now that you've put me in my proper place... Your proper place is probably at a tractor pull, but to try and answer your question: No, I would say, “Thanks for being honest and open and I sincerely hope that you have told us the truth and that we can rest assured that you were not the source for the Plame leak.” Unimpressed, but there may be hope since you at least tried to address my question.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#26)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    What good would it do for Rove to say anything in public? Are there as many as one lefty who would say, "Well, if you say so, I'm satisfied, and, by the way, I kind of like Bush, after all."? Your assertion that he should say something contains the planted axiom that you would act in good faith if he did. Rove's no dummy. Expecting lefties to act in good faith is a fool's bet. IMO, he's doing it to keep you all crazy. Boy, he can do that without lifting a finger, can't he.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Scott, You said he completely cooperated with the Grand Jury. Your words. Scroll up the post. Cooperating with a grand jury, I assume, means the same to both of us, which would mean telling the truth. As for any line about "indefensible ignorance", i don't know to what you are referring? As for O'Donnell, he is standing up, saying he stands by Rove as the source or he'll suffer the consequences. Rove is a bigmouth who is suddenly hiding, when the only reason to hide is if you HAVE something to hide. Peace, my friend.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Wow,Scott and R.A., you two are really a couple of nasty cusses, ain't ya? I asked, what I thought at least, was a fairly good hypothetical that had no traps or logical twists in it and still you guys came up with the patented lame "I won't answer a hypothetical question until it comes to pass" excuse. [Remainder deleted. Stop with the personal insults. All of you. Stay on topic.]

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Also, Dadler, Michael Issikoff has stated that the leaker was Rove. At least he leaked the name to Matt Cooper. I think you can infer that whoever leaked Valerie Plames name to Judith Miller was a totally different person. So there is the possibility that more than one person participated in the leakage, and this jibes with what Novak has said all this while.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Rove keeping a low profile? is your short term memory slipping? remember long ago, to a time when he mentioned how liberals were not prepared to fight after 9/11. it made it to the papers and even was mentioned here one or twice. do you call that a low profile? that was all of two or three weeks ago.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Oh yeah, I like to include PPJ in all my negative posts since it gets him so worked up and I can't help but think his hatred is the only thing getting him through a day. It also keeps him warm at night. Also, Jeralyn, is there still the 4 posts a day rule or has that been scrapped since you have the whole TypeKey account thing going and can monitor and delete offensive posts?(See, I can ask a question and not be a smart-a%s about it, though it pains me to do so)

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:54 PM EST
    Posted by Scott at July 6, 2005 02:32 PM Lab my good buddy, c'mon.... ' Were you able to type that drivel with a straight face?
    Yes, I was able to. So what is your point? (That means, what are you trying to say, O.K.?)
    I'm not into tractor pulls, but I wouldn't denigrate those that are as half-wit rubes. Wait a minute, I know you. You think you're that pompous Boston Brahmin on M*A*S*H*, right? No, couldn't be. You intellectual giants don't watch TV, except PBS, of course.
    I see I was dead to rights with the tractor pull assessment. I also see that I probably could also add pro-wrestlin’ and NASCAR in there, too. I don’t watch TV. Too many neo-con political hacks on there for my taste, or worse still, such drivel as Paris Hilton and “Reality TV.” (Which I suspect you would lap up like a hungry dog). Not very impressive.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#34)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    ShermBuck And I'm worked up?

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#36)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    PPJ. It's called projection.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#37)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    RA - Yes. TL edited out all of ShermBuck's really good stuff. DA - And a good morning to you. As I type this I hear the sirens in London on the TV. Kinda makes your petty attack seem of no importance.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#39)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    DA - Ho hum.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    Dark Avenger, PPJ's petty insults are the result of an inability to come up with an argument against the facts, or common sense. He writes these long diatribes to waste space, as he did on the open forum the other day.

    Remember the saying, "misery loves company". He's a baiter.

    Re: Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Dadler, Your definition of 'cooperating' is probably better than mine. I considered it showing up and answering, not necessarily telling the truth. I'd think you can cooperate with a GJ and lie to it at the same time. Like I said, yours is better. The 'indefensible ignorance' thing was my apologizing for a shot I took at somebody else's response. ShermBuck: Really don't know what you mean calling me a nasty cuss. I thought I answered your question honestly. Funny, though. I answered your hypothetical, and (I thought) without any gratuitous shots. I even apologized to somebody else for a little shot I gave him earlier. And I'm a mean cuss. Labyrinth continously (and tediously, IMO)insults me (as well as various groups he feels are my brethren) and that's AOK. And you get so nasty with me that the moderator washes YOUR mouth out with soap. You're hurting my feelings, dude. Lab: ' Were you able to type that drivel with a straight face? Yes, I was able to. So what is your point?' My point (I thought it was pretty clear) is that I don't believe you. For the record, I'm not into tractor pulls, reality TV or 'wrasslin. I don't think the Theory of Relativity has anything to do with my sister, and no I'm not married to her either. The world's fascination with Paris Hilton I just can't understand. I could see her being famous for being a rich, stupid ho if she was at least a HOT rich, stupid ho. I don't watch NASCAR, though a group of my Dem. co-workers (right here in the Northeast -- go figure) is. They even have some kind of pool.

    Joe Wilson on What Rove Didn't Know | 39 comments (39 topical)