So will Karl Rove go to jail?

Hobbes

In light of the email showing he blew the CIAs cover?

btw like the daily shows take on it.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/12.html#a3898 )

magick

yeah, good peice, got the new daly shows dvd its class, really recommend it to anyone who hasnt seen the show yet, one of the best shows ive seen in a while on american tv

jman0

Hobbes wrote:

In light of the email showing he blew the CIAs cover?

Are you kidding?
He'd get a Presidential Pardon in all of 2 seconds.

Sleipnir

Bush can't be in power without Karl Rove so he will do ANYTHING to protect him, thereby protecting himself.

Hobbes

Actually thats mentioned at the end of the daily show. Said based on past mistakes by other administration members and promotions he is probably looking at Chief Justice Rove.

Bri

Hobbes that's a class peice. Never realised how good the Daily Show is. Gonna keep an eye on Comedy Central from now on

Jail? No, I doubt it given how important he is to him now (and before).

bonkey

David Corn has been discussing Rove quite a lot since the entire thing broke over on his CapitalGames blog.

(Standard Disclaimer: Corn is about as Anti-Republican a critic as you can get, and is sometimes guilty of making mountains out of molehills.)

One thing he discussed in detail is why there is enough wriggle-room in the relevant laws to pretty-much ensure that Rove cannot be found guilty of a criminal act.

What is perhaps a more pertinent question is how long Rove can remain in the US Administration...especially bearing in mind that Bush and others went on record saying that if they found out that anyone in the Administration had a hand in this affair, that they wouldn't be in the Administration any more.

Corn's comments on Monday about Scott McClellan's stonewalling were quite fun. I mean...you had a spokesman refusing to discuss comments he himself (and Bush) made in 2004 about the case....because in 2003 he had been asked not to discuss the case while it was ongoing.

It really looks like the Whitehouse is playing a stalling game, hoping that what little press attention this revelation has been given (and it is relatively little) will die away and the problem with it.

jc

Villain

Thats one class piece, cheers hobbes

Wheely

I dunno, wouldnt it be great if we had another watergate on our hands, remember it was nothin when it started and all the untouchables went down for it, Haldeman and Erlichman included and they were, I think, in a higher position, officially anyway than Rove is today. Also snakes, which is what Rove is, are all the more dangerous when cornered. They grassed up Nixon to take the slack off themselves and Nixon very well might have ended up in the clink himself if Ford hadnt given himim a Pardon.......wouldnt it be cool to see Dubya in the cooler....oh the stuff dreams are made of!!!

TomF

I'd say the whole tempest in a teapot is another example of the pure nastiness that seems to typify the modern U.S. Democratic Party. Here is a quote from Dick Morris' take.

"But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.

Washington is a mean town where human sacrifice has been raised to an art form. But Karl Rove does not deserve this fate. He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector. He has shown himself to be a man of uncommon integrity and selflessness in serving this administration and this country. He should not be tossed to the partisan wolves."
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/071405.html

jank

He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector.

A guy that also broke the law.

Funny that you have the title thread as Democratic Nastiness while the article you linked to was written by Dick Morris, who is in the front line of the Republican Nastiness Campaign against Hillary Clinton

Morris is the author of Rewriting History, a rebuttal of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) memoir, Living History.

Doh!!

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

I'd say the whole tempest in a teapot is another example of the pure nastiness that seems to typify the modern U.S. Democratic Party. Here is a quote from Dick Morris' take.

He rats out an undercover CIA agent (which means dealth penalty in wartime btw :rolleyes: ) yet says he is ok because he "didn't actually say her name" instead said "The wife of...", I guess if the guy had 3 or 4 wives we could let him off? :rolleyes: .

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19359

That says it all really.

Hobbes

[edit]
I see Bush has flip-flopped now and said that if anyone on his staff was found to giving that information they would be fired if they are found to have broke the law! This is compared to 2003 where he said anyone found to be involved would be fired regardless if they broke the law or not.

I mean FFS if it was anyone else they would be in jail

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/DeanOnWilsonLeakWorseThanNixon.html

On July 22, Ambassador Wilson appeared on the Today show. Katie Couric asked him about his wife: "How damaging would this be to your wife's work?"

Wilson - who, not surprisingly, has refused to confirm or deny that his wife was a CIA operative - answered Katie "hypothetically." He explained, "it would be damaging not just to her career, since she's been married to me, but since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career. So it would be her entire network that she may have established, any operations, any programs or projects she was working on. It's a--it's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law."

And, indeed, it is.

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply.

bonkey

Hobbes wrote:

I see Bush has flip-flopped now and said that if anyone on his staff was found to giving that information they would be fired!

Yup. He's now saying instead that anyone found breaking the law regarding this issue would be fired.

<sarcasm>
This I find very comforting. Its nice to hear the President of the United States confirm that he will not allow convicted criminals (convicted of divulging national secrets to the press for whatever reason) to serve on his staff.
</sarcasm>

jc

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

I see Bush has flip-flopped now and said that if anyone on his staff was found to giving that information they would be fired!

I mean FFS if it was anyone else they would be in jail

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/DeanOnWilsonLeakWorseThanNixon.html

is it not up to the district attorney or whatever their DPP is called to decide on who gets prosecuted? Separation of executive and judiciary and all that?

Hobbes

After reading Tom Tomorrow I can finally see that Karl Rove is the victim here.

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19366

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

I'd say the whole tempest in a teapot is another example of the pure nastiness that seems to typify the modern U.S. Democratic Party.

If you were a little more consistent with your moral stance on whistle blowing, Tom, you wouldn’t come across as such a hypocrite.

athena 2000

TomF wrote:

Here is a quote from Dick Morris' take.

"But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame’s cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term.

That will never happen. If Rove is dismissed from the administration if only for appearance's sake, there are secure phone lines and friends of friends that do conference calls. All the moves are 'totally political' and they are all nasty. The weiners stay in Washington!

Hobbes

"and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term."

I am amazed that people don't find this comment disturbing. They voted for Bush, not Karl Rove? Are they saying that Bush is incapable of making a decision without Karl? :rolleyes:

Nuttzz

Hobbes wrote:

"and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl’s advice in the remaining years of his second term."

I am amazed that people don't find this comment disturbing. They voted for Bush, not Karl Rove? Are they saying that Bush is incapable of making a decision without Karl? :rolleyes:

From Americas finest news source

Bush Awaits Orders From Rove On Handling Of Rove Scandal

TomF

I think the whole really silly media pursuit of Karl Rove is just going to fizzle-out and go "poof" within a month.

jank

TomF wrote:

I think the whole really silly media pursuit of Karl Rove is just going to fizzle-out and go "poof" within a month.

Why I thought it was a Democratic party campaign against him, now its a media pursuit

The Corinthian

jank wrote:

Why I thought it was a Democratic party campaign against him, now its a media pursuit

I think we're already demonstrated Tom's consistancy issues:

Mark Felt (Deep Throat) = Bad Whistle Blower
Karl Rove = Good Whistle Blower

TomF

I don't think any reasonable person in the U.S.A. can honestly deny that the national media there are not a branch of the U.S. Democratic Party.

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

I don't think any reasonable person in the U.S.A. can honestly deny that the national media there are not a branch of the U.S. Democratic Party.

When you say 'reasonable person' what do you mean - other than someone who agrees with you, apparantly?

Also, since when did Fox News become part of the U.S. Democratic Party?

Lemming

The US media is most certainly not a left-wing entity. It's right-wing, just more right-of-centre than many republicans seem to be, therefore making them think it's a democratic tool.

jank

Lemming wrote:

The US media is most certainly not a left-wing entity. It's right-wing, just more right-of-centre than many republicans seem to be, therefore making them think it's a democratic tool.

Well said.

TomF

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to the library of information supplied by "Deep Throat" I'll have to agree that the world will end at 2:42 pm tomorrow as forecast by one of those strange men who walk the streets wrapped in big banners written "Repent now, the end is nigh!"

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to the library of information supplied by "Deep Throat" I'll have to agree that the world will end at 2:42 pm tomorrow as forecast by one of those strange men who walk the streets wrapped in big banners written "Repent now, the end is nigh!"

Your religious beliefs are not in question Tom, only your flexible and partisan approach to the question of 'whistle blowing'.

What you seem to be overlooking, seeing as it suits your purpose to do so, is that it makes little difference whether one gives away a little information or a lot as ultimately they have, for reasons that may or may not be justified, broken a trust and betrayed an ethic - not to mention the possibility that they may have also broken the law. In short, you can’t get a little bit pregnant, Tom.

Now, had you a consistent position on such practices your arguments would hold, but you don’t. And your attempts at dismissive humour don’t change that.

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to the library of information supplied by "Deep Throat" I'll have to agree that the world will end at 2:42 pm tomorrow as forecast by one of those strange men who walk the streets wrapped in big banners written "Repent now, the end is nigh!"

Well he blew the CIA operatives cover, which meant that everything she worked on is also considered damaged, add to that her cover being blown would probably put other Agents on the field in trouble.

Sounds like he did a lot if you ask me.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

If Rove's raised eyebrow and recommendation not to go too far with a certain thread of investigation is equivalent to ....

Which part of that does telling/confirming that someone who allegedly works for a private consultancy is actually a CIA employee (thus confirming both that they are CIA, and not admittedly so, which equates to confirming that they are in fact under-cover) falls under raising an eyebrow and recommending not to continue with an invetigation?

Which part of confirming to the Whitehouse Administration (who then publically announced it) that you had nothing to do with the affair under legal scrutiny, only for it to subsequently emerge that he did, in fact, not only have something to do with it but was central to it falls under raising an eyebrow and suggesting that the investigation not continue?

Or is the investigation that you are referring to the one which set out to find out who leaked the information and whether or not they had broken the law? In which case....what is not reprehensible about the person who leaked the information making such a suggestion?

Jeez...what next Tom? Will you join the ranks suggesting that it was David Corn who actually outed her because he was the first to ask if an agent had been outed?

jc

TomF

Whew! I once tried to read James Joyce's "Ulysses" and gave up in despair. Ditto some Russian novels. Also I once borrowed Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and gave up on that after about 10 pages of arcane symbols they used trying to prove that 1 +1 make two. This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

Whew! I once tried to read James Joyce's "Ulysses" and gave up in despair. Ditto some Russian novels. Also I once borrowed Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and gave up on that after about 10 pages of arcane symbols they used trying to prove that 1 +1 make two. This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

That's lovely, but when you're happy to rejoin the rest of us on planet Earth, feel free to address what's been posed of you.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

Could you maybe supply some references to where ppl are claiming that he's done any such ridiculously melodramatic thing, Tom?

Sounds to me like your overblowing the allegations made against him having originally understated the actions themselves to an equally farcical extent. Doesn't sound to me like its those after Rove who are trying to obscure the truth in the name of an agenda at all, but rather those trying to defend him.

supersheep

He won't get jail. The right-wing commentator who revealed it in the first place wasn't touched - did he break the law? I'm not sure. The journalist who didn't reveal it, but refused to reveal a source did get a prison sentence...
And Karl Rove is one of Bush's right-hand men. He needs him.

TomF

I just read an interesting article about this case that makes me think the media might be on the verge of blacking-out the whole story. Here's a small quote:

"In retrospect, it's clear [that] Plame and Wilson pulled off a monumental deception, with the help of the media. The facts suggest that Plame and her husband were determined to undermine the [Bush] Administration's Iraq policy and were prepared to go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish that. Together with their media allies, they created such a firestorm over the naming of Plame that the White House panicked into seeking a special prosecutor.

When Bush official Karl Rove warned Matt Cooper of Time [magazine] away from the story, on the ground that Plame had arranged the trip by her husband, he was on to the hard truth about this case. But the media were not really interested and the White House did not pursue this line of inquiry to its logical conclusion-a full-fledged investigation into the Plame-Wilson plot and who else in the CIA was behind it. Perhaps the White House was fearful of starting a war with the CIA."

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/3879_0_2_0_C/

The Corinthian

Is AIM another example of how you don't think any "reasonable person in the U.S.A. can honestly deny that the national media there are not a branch of the U.S. Democratic Party"? If so, I wonder why they're advertising for a new PR head here?

Meanwhile in the Real World the controversy has not yet abated. Feel free to rejoin the debate when you rejoin said Real World.

Oh, and feel free to respond to any of the numerous points that have been made to you too here. When you rejoin us that is.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I just read an interesting article about this case

What makes this article interesting? I would hazard that its interesting to you only because it - yet again - insists that someone else is to blame.

Strangely, if someone were to propose an "inversion" of this type of story, where the Repubalicans were allegedly pulling off a mass deception of the public with the assistance of the media purely with the intention of damaging Democrats (who we'll say are in power for this hypothetical situation), I'd be willing to lay money that not only would you not find it interesting, but you'd decry it as a typical Democratic Tinfoil-Hat Loony-Left Conspiracy-Theory piece of rubbish which only proved how pathetic the US media is.

In short - I believe that you find this story interesting - and worth "sharing" - for no other reason than because it backs up your pre-formed belief that the Republicans did nothing wrong here (because they're Republicans) , not because it has any merit in and of itself.

that makes me think the media might be on the verge of blacking-out the whole story.

Makes you think? Don't you mean it makes you hope, Tom? Personally - I don't care about media focus on the story. They can go completely schtum and it still won't stop Fitzgerald's investigation, which is what ultimately will decide what happened.

Together with their media allies, they created such a firestorm over the naming of Plame that the White House panicked into seeking a special prosecutor.

What a load of absolute toss. Anyone who can suggest that a special prosecutor is not merited when an agent's cover is blown (and there is no question that Plame was an agent, nor that her cover was blown by someone) is showing nothing but contempt for the law in my opinion. Why is it panicing when one takes steps to determine if the law has been broken, and if so by whom?

Is the confidentiality of US operatives under any form of cover not supposed to be sacrosanct? Doesn't the US administration owe these people the basic demonstration of respect that shows they take any breach of this standard seriously? After all the crapola spouted by Republicans about not supporting <insert Republican policy here> being unpatriotic, its amazing how many of them have no issue with ppl outing agents....although I'm guessing if a Democrat could be blamed, it would be about as unpatriotic an action as could possibly exist.

It is pathetic, diversionary, and I would go so far as to say unpatriotic to suggest that it is anything less than due dilligence to appoint a special prosecutor - effectively to determine if a law had been broken, and if so by whom and why.

When Bush official Karl Rove warned Matt Cooper of Time [magazine] away from the story, on the ground that Plame had arranged the trip by her husband, he was on to the hard truth about this case.

Correct. He warned him away from the case by disclosing confidential information. Now...why did he warn him away from the case if not because there was the danger that confidential information would get leaked.

Even if it was a Democrat plot, involving Wilson, Plame, the Democratic party, the US media, and god-knows-who-else, Rove still has no excuse for confirming the identity of an operative under cover. None. It doesn't matter if that cover would be blown the following day anyway, nor if it was only some "not really that top-secret" type of cover.

But the media were not really interested and the White House did not pursue this line of inquiry to its logical conclusion-a full-fledged investigation into the Plame-Wilson plot and who else in the CIA was behind it.

I think the author of this piece doesn't actually understand the powers of investigation granted to the special prosecutor. Either that, or the author does understand, but is being deliberately disingenuous about it.

The prosecutor was not limited to investigating just the White House Administration, but rather what happened, and who did what. This means that the prosecutor - the appointment the author claims was a mistake, remember - had the freedom to follow this (crazy) line of reasoning as much as any other. What the author seems to be suggesting, therefore, is that it was wrong not to direct the SP onto a specific path, and that it was wrong to give the SP the freedom to figure out what happened.

In short...the author is effectively saying that it was a mistake not to decide who was guilty before assigning a prosecutor to find this out.

Interesting? Sure its interesting. Its interesting to see what bull**** is being thought up to deflect the focus from Rove.

jc

The Fish

bonkey wrote:

David Corn has been discussing Rove quite a lot since the entire thing broke over on his CapitalGames blog.

(Standard Disclaimer: Corn is about as Anti-Republican a critic as you can get, and is sometimes guilty of making mountains out of molehills.)

One thing he discussed in detail is why there is enough wriggle-room in the relevant laws to pretty-much ensure that Rove cannot be found guilty of a criminal act.



jc

i know

gregos

It'll never happen. How could they put Bush's Brain in jail?

gregos

TomF wrote:

Whew! I once tried to read James Joyce's "Ulysses" and gave up in despair. Ditto some Russian novels. Also I once borrowed Russell and Whitehead's "Principia Mathematica" and gave up on that after about 10 pages of arcane symbols they used trying to prove that 1 +1 make two. This is how I feel these days wading through the clap-trap about how this man Rove has nearly brought down Western Civilisation, never mind the CIA. It's just silly jockeying to get at Bush.

Hi TomF.

Am I correct in thinking that you couldn't understand Ulysses, certain Russian novels, and "Principia Mathematica" by Russell and Whitehead? That's some qualifications, Tom. Did you consider reading "Principia Mathematica" by Newton?

Hobbes

What was that line from a fish called wanda?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand

TomF

I looked into some of Newton's Principia, but the geometrical reasoning was so complex and meandering that I also gave-up on that. Wasn't it in Latin, too? I only did 3 years of Latin. I tried the longest to read Gibbs' Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, but gave up on it, too, also on Onsager's paper on reciprocal relations. I also wanted desperately to understand the principle behind Lagrange's Multipliers. I could go on and on listing what I tried to read and understand but couldn't.

mycroft

TomF wrote:

I looked into some of Newton's Principia, but the geometrical reasoning was so complex and meandering that I also gave-up on that. Wasn't it in Latin, too? I only did 3 years of Latin. I tried the longest to read Gibbs' Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, but gave up on it, too, also on Onsager's paper on reciprocal relations. I also wanted desperately to understand the principle behind Lagrange's Multipliers. I could go on and on listing what I tried to read and understand but couldn't.

Most off topic post ever.

magick

The Corinthian

TomF wrote:

I looked into some of Newton's Principia, but the geometrical reasoning was so complex and meandering that I also gave-up on that. Wasn't it in Latin, too? I only did 3 years of Latin. I tried the longest to read Gibbs' Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, but gave up on it, too, also on Onsager's paper on reciprocal relations. I also wanted desperately to understand the principle behind Lagrange's Multipliers. I could go on and on listing what I tried to read and understand but couldn't.

Ahhh Tom... the other poster boy for intelligent design.

sceptre

I'm having trouble reading Harry Potter 6 as I keep falling asleep.

I suspect I may be closer to understanding Kaptain Redeye's comments on oneupmanship. If I am, please knock it off (everybody), though especially TomF in this localised thread as I couldn't give an organgrinder's nut what you've failed to read. Having read most of the irrelevant stuff mentioned for what appears to be no relevant reason here (and limiting "Russian novels" largely to Pasternak and Tolstoy, read translated as my Russian is limited to greetings and insults) and being willing to discuss elsewhere, I'd suggest the literature, mathematics and physics boards.

I'm not closing the thread. There may be someone who wants to discuss Karl Rove's doings and it might be a little convenient if I close that avenue.

Next off-topic post gets a ban at my personal whim though.

TomF

I just read that the CIA leak story is hotting-up again (think Joe Wilson's wife Valerie Plame of the CIA, New York Times, Karl Rove, Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury special prosecutor, Judith Miller, Bush-hating). This article is very interesting and it makes you wonder about the U.S. "newspaper of record" and whether it is on the skids.

"...Surprisingly, most people are unaware that Miller is involved in a controversy over a leak that is far more serious than the relatively trivial Plame matter. Shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Miller learned from a leaker in the federal government that the FBI intended to raid the offices of an Islamic 'charity' that was suspected of being a terrorist front. According to a court decision in February 2005, which can be accessed here, Miller responded by telephoning the charity and asking for comment... ."

***

"If the facts are as alleged by the prosecutor, Miller may have committed a crime by communicating information to the Islamic group that could have tipped them off to an impending raid. Note, too, that the prosecutor who has been pursuing this matter is none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame matter.

It is hard to see why Miller would go to jail rather than identify Scooter Libby as one of her sources for the Plame report, given that Libby and his lawyer waived any privilege in writing; that the privilege belongs to the source, not the reporter; and that Libby himself testified freely about his conversation with Miller, and urged her to do the same. On the other hand, it is entirely plausible that Miller was willing to go to considerable lengths to protect not only her source, but also herself, in a situation where she not only received information about an imminent FBI raid, but allegedly passed the information on to the organization that was under investigation.

Given what we know now, the most plausible explanation of Miller's conduct is that she went to jail because she feared that if she agreed to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury, she could be asked about the FBI leak, and she wanted to protect both her source and herself. In that case, perhaps what really got her out of prison was the agreement that her lawyer made with the prosecutor to limit questioning before the grand jury to the Plame matter. This would have the effect of barring any inquiry into the more significant FBI leak. Why would Fitzgerald agree to forgo any questioning about the FBI leak, which until recently he pursued aggressively? Based on publicly available information, there is no way to know. Maybe Fitzgerald is so concerned with securing an indictment of an administration official that he is willing to sacrifice the FBI investigation in order to achieve that goal. Another possibility--one hopes, a more likely one--is that Fitzgerald has agreed not to ask for the name of the source of the FBI leak because Miller, through her lawyer, has already given it to him, perhaps in exchange for an assurance that she will not be criminally prosecuted.

This is speculation, of course. What is not speculation, however, is that Miller and Bennett have cynically wronged Scooter Libby by pretending that he is somehow to blame for Miller's 87-day stay in a federal prison."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/165xdjkg.asp?pg=2

ISAW

So will Rove go to gaol?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3420495&postcount=1

Expect a proclamation from George:

... in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs.

Hobbes

Mentioned in another thread but it is looking like Bush and Cheny may be connected to the leak.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/01/AR2005100101317.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/17/bush_plame/index_np.html

Hobbes

Rather then create a new thread...

New material has surfaced over Cheny. Newspaper clipping with Chenys comments about Plame. Here is one of such items.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/cheney-notes/

There is also rumours that Karl Rove has been indicted last Friday for Perjury in the Plame affair, although I can find the rumours and one news report only, so not sure it is actually true or not.