Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Huff Post O'Donnell "The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted"

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
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:30 AM
Original message
Huff Post O'Donnell "The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted"
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:37 AM by Pirate Smile
The One Very Good Reason Karl Rove Might Be Indicted

Two years ago, when I first read the federal law protecting the identities of covert agents, my reaction was the same as everyone else who reads it -- this is not an easy law to break. That’s what I said on Hardball then in my first public discussion of the outing of Valerie Plame, and that’s what I said on CNN the other night. Let’s walk through the pieces that would have to fall into place for Karl Rove to have committed a crime when he revealed Plame’s identity to Matt Cooper.

-snip-
I’ll be surprised if all four of those elements of the crime line up perfectly for a Rove indictment. Surprised, not shocked. There is one very good reason to think they might. It is buried in one of the handful of federal court opinions that have come down in the last year ordering Matt Cooper and Judy Miller to testify or go to jail.

In February, Circuit Judge David Tatel joined his colleagues’ order to Cooper and Miller despite his own, very lonely finding that indeed there is a federal privilege for reporters that can shield them from being compelled to testify to grand juries and give up sources. He based his finding on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which authorizes federal courts to develop new privileges “in the light of reason and experience.” Tatel actually found that reason and experience “support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources.” But Tatel still ordered Cooper and Miller to testify because he found that the privilege had to give way to “the gravity of the suspected crime.”

Judge Tatel’s opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get. The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “aving carefully scrutinized voluminous classified filings.”

Some of us have theorized that the prosecutor may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case, but Tatel still refers to it simply as a case “which involves the alleged exposure of a covert agent.” Tatel wrote a 41-page opinion in which he seemed eager to make new law -- a federal reporters’ shield law -- but in the end, he couldn’t bring himself to do it in this particular case. In his final paragraph, he says he “might have” let Cooper and Miller off the hook “ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

Tatel’s colleagues are at least as impressed with the prosecutor’s secret filings as he is. One simply said “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. It looks like there will be no discussion on ths matter today...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Convienent, very convienent
All the judges who have seen the prosecutor’s secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Well, the shit will hit the fan when the indictments come down. That
is really the key time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:28 AM
Response to Original message
4. Victoria Toensing is a sinister, sneaky propagandist. She is a
lawyer who was given an assignment to write the law that protects the identity of covert officers of the CIA. Therefore, she is on camera again. During the 1990's, she appeared on TV several times a week to assassinate the character and immorality of Clinton. She acted in a partisan way under the guise of being a legal expert.

The same thing is happening now - this morning on C-Span, she mixed her law with partisan slants as is normal for her. She is not a good actor and her scheme is transparent.

The right wing strategy is revealed with her appearances shilling for the WH on the leak issue.

You can be sure that she and many, many right wing legal experts are going to be on TV paving the way to say that Rove and his helpers and those who gave in-line authority to do what they did will be trying to get you bto believe that Plame was no longer protected. Last week when Toensing was on an evening show, she pulled no punches about it. Today she tried to make it all sound more legal.

They are all going to cry about the demise of the whistleblower protection of silence as she did once again this morning.

Few of them will own up to the fact that we did have a typical journalist set up here.

Typical - the journalist is a third party in a situation where there is a wrongdoer and a whistleblower and the third party investigates and writes it up or doesn't.

In this situation the Miller and the other journalists are the second party - which makes them a party to the wrongdoing. They were acting in concert to harm someone.

The cooperation offered by the journalist was not an act for the good of the people. It was an act for the good of this administration and these journalists second parties, therefor it was not for the good of the citizens.

If you agree, then every claim of the demise should be ignored or fought. There is no threat to tradition. A second party is subject to the law.

They want to spin you bad to help the White House. The lawyers and journalists are working at a speedcar pace. What this is is another war against the citizens for the protection and propagation of propaganda of this administration using journalists to help them propagandize (and ruin lives along the way).

When Susan McDougall would not testify and went to jail, her defiance was against badgering by battalions in the right wing military war on Clinton.

Judith Miller going to jail is because she is pretending to uphold the third party right to privacy, but since there is no whistleblower, she is in a conspirator roleand she is only protecting the wrongdoer.

The propagandists are in full force. Hold your ground. Get ready for the assault by the press to say that Plame was no longer undercover with the CIA. It seems Fitzgerald would have already checked that out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I've already heard that crap about her not being undercover repeatedly
and it isn't being countered effectively.

Fitzgerald will be the one to blow that argument away when he hopefully comes out with indictments within the next few months.

Victoria Toensing is such a partisan hack it is painful to listen to her lie and spin. I try to avoid it.

I do wish there were some people who have been paying attention and can counter the spin who would be going on these show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. IMO, there is NO way.....
....that Fitzgerald convened a GJ and did not have documentary evidence to present to them on one of the basic issues: Whether or not Plame was covert. If this could not be evidence, then there was no reason to convene the GJ. This is basic stuff to any prosecuting atty ~ and, let's face it, as the US Atty for the Northwest Dist of Illinois, Fitzgerald was a seasoned prosecutor and waaaaaaay beyond basics.

IMO, her file with the CIA would have documented if she was or was not covert. The fact that it was allegedly "common knowledge" is irrelevant in that it might be "common knowledge" to those in the WH, but it was not this to the general public and THAT was where she was outed. Some people in the WH were in a position to have that knowledge and, yeah, it might be common to them ~ but NOT to the public and that IMO was the intent of the statute as to what it was enacted to prevent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I'm sure it is fully explained in the eight pages. This is the part that
jumped out at me:

"Judge Tatel's opinion has eight blank pages in the middle of it where he discusses the secret information the prosecutor has supplied only to the judges to convince them that the testimony he is demanding is worth sending reporters to jail to get."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hepburn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Bingo...
...what was redacted from public filing has to be very, very hard info. And I agree ~ if the reporters were being sent to jail, the judge has to agree with the position of the USAtty.

Man, I cannot WAIT to see what is coming out of this investigation. :popcorn:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tommymac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
6. Thanks for the article.
:kick:

This still needs to get some attention here despite other events. God knows it won't anywhere else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dalloway Donating Member (744 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. agree
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laureloak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
11. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodermon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
12. Another encouraging line from the article:
The gravity of the suspected crime is presumably very well developed in those redacted pages. Later, Tatel refers to “having carefully scrutinized voluminous classified filings.


VOLIMINOUS, people.

Fitzgerald has The Goods on these crooks; do not doubt it for a minute.
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. Recommended And Kicked !!!
My first smile of the day... Thanks!

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pirate Smile Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No problem, partner. I love your picture
:hug:
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 Thu Apr 24th 2014, 08:32 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