Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It begins...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

    Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

    By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

    WASHINGTON - Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of
    CIA officer
    Valerie Plame.


    In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

    "I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

    A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

    "There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

    Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

    Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

    Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.

    The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald's request.

    In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

    Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President
    Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the
    FBI.

    In his column, Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with information about Plame. Novak said he cannot publicly reveal the identity of that source even now.

    "I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves," Novak said in his statement. "I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue."

    Rove's role in the scandal wasn't revealed until last summer when Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper disclosed that Rove had leaked him the CIA identity of Wilson's wife. Cooper cooperated with prosecutors only after all his legal appeals were exhausted and he faced jail.

    While Rove escaped indictment, Libby has been charged with lying about how he learned of the covert CIA officer's identity and what he told reporters about it.

    The latest news and headlines from Yahoo News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos.

    Comment


    • #17
      See posts #8, 9, & 14

      Comment


      • #18
        Thank you for your lack of substance Jubaji, you didnt bother to address one of the subjects I asked you to, I guess if you have no answers silence on the issues at hand is a good alternative. Your previous posts did not address the facts (If you believe any of the points I made false or misleading please elaborate) they simply claim that they are open to "Interpretation"
        Then please tell me how YOU see this action Jubaji? Id love to hear your "spin" on the subject, please include some actual facts in the body of your rebuttal. It would be nice.

        Comment


        • #19
          I pointed you toward posts #8, 9, 14, and now that I think of it, 11 because they contain the points that are relevant to this discussion. In light of those points, there isn't much more to say until or if more information comes to light that alters any of those points.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
            I wish I had a million bucks to wager. If I did, I would say this. If Clinton was president, and some of his staff were involved in outing a CIA agent, I bet one million dollars that jubaji and other conservative republicans (or whatever you call yourselves) would not hesitate even for one minute in calling for heads to roll.

            If Clinton was president and had sent troops to Iraq, Jubaji and other would be saying "Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11--this is a 'wag the dog' type situtation.".

            You'd be out a million bucks, you f-ing hypocrite.

            Comment


            • #21
              Go troll for dates somewhere else, you hypocritical, presumptuous, partisan idiot.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                And how am I a hypocrite?

                You are a hypocrite for denouncing partisan attitudes on one side, while in the same breath demonstrating a partisan attitude on the other. Clear enough, idiot?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                  People like you probably will....
                  Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                  I can only guess about you:.
                  Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                  You are probably....
                  Presumptuous idiot. This crap is straight out of boarspear's 'if you have nothing to say about someone, just guess and then respond to that!' handbook

                  Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                  when that pie-hole nutter made ethnic slurs about you, I was one of the first to defend you.
                  As far as I can recall, no one here has made ethnic slurs that apply to me personally.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                    And before you say I don't know what I am talking about, I was in the Army for 4 years, which is 4 years longer then Dick Cheney and the other war-hawks.
                    Or jubaji and treelizard combined with them.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                      Not one of my questions did you intelligently reply to. Not one. I hope everyone sees this post. I don't think you even read what I said. -

                      Who the F do you think you're kidding that you actually posed any serious questions? You can't believe that everyone is as stupid as you. You came here with an agenda and a little prepared partisan rant. How cute! No one could see through your clever approach! Give it a rest, hypocrite.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                        yeah, they did. Nutter was calling you certain anti-semetic variations of your user name. I thought that was uncalled for. I said so. In fact, I quit the forum until he was banned.

                        Selective memory for the troll....it works for his heroes.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                          yeah, they did. Nutter was calling you certain anti-semetic variations of your user name. I thought that was uncalled for. I said so. In fact, I quit the forum until he was banned.

                          That's a very principled stand. I remember that and took offense as well. But the slur itself did not apply to me personally. I just don't like ethnic slurs in general.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                            Everyone here knows you for what you are. All talk. It's been pointed out time and time again. The only ones that defend you are the ones that think it might be cool to take your side.-

                            Well, they're right, it is cool to take my side!

                            This is a forum, so in a way you are correct. It is all talk. I try to make it a point to resond to people based on their words, not their self-professed biographies. If you say something stupid, its stupid in and of itself, not because you have studied this or that for X years are because your favorite color is blue or because your hobby is stamp collecting, etc. If someone (hmmm...maybe someone with the initials BS?) makes an outrageous, silly, irrational statement, it is mitigated in no way by claims of this or that expertise. A specific technical point? Maybe. A personal anecdote (for what limited worth they have)? Sure. Reasonable knowledge based on personal experience? Ok. But irrational comments, or rational and insightful comments are such on their own merit regardless of what someone claims about himself. If you agree with me about something it shouldn't be based on my many many years of training and competition, the scraps I've been in, or my experiences around the world; it should be because I've said something that seems reasonable and true to you. If what I say doesn't seem reasonable or true you are always welcome to let me know. Will you take my every word as gospel if I impress you enough with my resume? I hope not. That would reduce you to the level of sniveling sycophants like KOTF. It also reduces every argument to a pissing contest along the lines of "oh yeah, well I have done X for ten years so I'm right!" "oh yeah, well I've done Y for 11 years so I'm right!" Further, this kind of quantification inevitably leads some people to make up things about themselves because they think it will "win" an argument, and leads even more people to attempt to discredit the experiences of others because they are just sure that will "win" it for them. Yes, there are idiots who do that. Idiots like BS and his crew are too dim to hold their own in a discussion any other way.

                            If you disagree with something I say, let me know. If you really can't stand not knowing my life story, send me a PM. Just don't blame me if its not interesting enough.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                              Where did I do that, troll? I am a dem, that's true, but I will vote for Mcain or Guiliani in a heartbeat over Hilary. If I was truly a partisan, I would not say that.

                              Nope, try again, troll.

                              Here's a perfect example of what I was saying! You can claim you would vote for this one or that one, but your own words contained the hypocritical partisan rant. See how that works?


                              If you can't see where this little bit of your rant is pure partisan piffle, then you are too far gone to help.
                              Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                              Rightists as a matter of routine put thier agendas ahead of thier country. Rightists do this kind of stuff all the time.

                              Liberals may be naive, but at least thier hearts are in the right place. Liberals are not evil and bad people like the rightists

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Mr. Arieson
                                Like I said, you are either a middle aged right winger, or a teenager. -

                                And here we see again the BS tactic of making guesses about someone, in the absence of actually knowing what the hell you are talking about, and then responding to your own little fabrications! You couldn't even make up your mind which guess to go with on this one! Poor form, BS will be disappointed.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X