Who's behind Valerie Plame? Oh, MY...KARL ROVE!

[mykevermin]

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''

Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.
EDIT for Linkee-Doo (http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839)

Well, this is all the statement of one analyst. I don't know where he got his sources, but analysts shouldn't present themselves as that certain unless they know something (which, given his "I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this," he just may).

I don't consider this to be precise fact, given who's making this claim. If it is true, however, it is perhaps the most delicious thing that has happened in YEARS.

myke.

[Quillion]

It was obvious from the beginning that Karl Rove was the leak. They were trying to discredit the husband, probably blackmail. I'm just glad it's becoming public knowledge.

[Gothic Walrus]

I'm surprised that this thread hasn't erupted yet.

If this is true, then we're all in for a hell of a ride. I'd love to see Rove pay for this. but who knows how this will end, or even if he's the leak?

[mykevermin]

I'm surprised that this thread hasn't erupted yet.

If this is true, then we're all in for a hell of a ride. I'd love to see Rove pay for this. but who knows how this will end, or even if he's the leak?

Well, even among the right, I doubt you'll find many people but the severely brainwashed few that would dare claim Rove didn't have a hand in it.

Also, since this is still a good amount speculation at this point (in other words, if you watch enough 24/7 news channels, you learn to discredit much anything said by someone with "analyst" next to their name).

I have no hangups in saying that I fucking hope to god this is true. Fry the motherfucker.

myke.

[Drocket]

There seems to be growing credence that it was Rove that did the leak. I'm not really surprised at all by the news, myself. However, I don't think nearly as much will come of this as it should. Probably the best that can reasonably be hoped for is that the investigation into the matter will dig up other bigger things.

[coffman]

Rove may have indeed leaked this to the media, but he could not have been "the" leak. At the time, Rove did not have clearance for intelligence information. There is speculation that the information was given to Rove by none other than Vice President Cheney himself. Between this and the Downing Street Minutes we are beginning to see the collapse of the Bush administration.

[MrBadExample]

I'd love to see Turd Blossom get indicted for perjury. That would be hilarious.

[camoor]

They have to have a patsy to take the fall.

I bet the leak turns out to be...

Jeff "I'm super thanks for asking" Gannon

[CaseyRyback]

Rove may have indeed leaked this to the media, but he could not have been "the" leak. At the time, Rove did not have clearance for intelligence information. There is speculation that the information was given to Rove by none other than Vice President Cheney himself. Between this and the Downing Street Minutes we are beginning to see the collapse of the Bush administration.

there were two sources, or that is what Novak claims

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/cia.leak/

[Sarang01]

Rove may have indeed leaked this to the media, but he could not have been "the" leak. At the time, Rove did not have clearance for intelligence information. There is speculation that the information was given to Rove by none other than Vice President Cheney himself. Between this and the Downing Street Minutes we are beginning to see the collapse of the Bush administration.

Rove doesn't know when to keep his hands to himself(no pun intended). He got fired from Bush 1's campaign or Presidency for doing something suspect. Looks like the bastard can't resist being a dirty motherfucker.

[rumblebear]

Well, even among the right, I doubt you'll find many people but the severely brainwashed few that would dare claim Rove didn't have a hand in it.

Also, since this is still a good amount speculation at this point (in other words, if you watch enough 24/7 news channels, you learn to discredit much anything said by someone with "analyst" next to their name).

I have no hangups in saying that I fucking hope to god this is true. Fry the motherfucker.

myke.

Waiting for PittsburghAfterDark to disprove all these crazy liberal alligations by saying how we're all dumbass idiots for questioning Karl Rove's superiority.

[Drocket]

Waiting for PittsburghAfterDark to disprove all these crazy liberal alligations by saying how we're all dumbass idiots for questioning Karl Rove's superiority.

Hmm, it'll probably be a while. PAD currently seems to be taking his medication, so he's at least moderately rational at the moment. It seems like he can only afford the prescription maybe one month out of every 3 or 4, but it'll probably be a couple of weeks before the current refill runs out and he's back to his insane self.

[mykevermin]

Waiting for PittsburghAfterDark to disprove all these crazy liberal alligations by saying how we're all dumbass idiots for questioning Karl Rove's superiority.

Well, I'm still waiting for him to admit that he was wrong about the article on Fox News ratings that he posted. He was very proud of himself for disproving the liberal conspiracy to speak to the downward trend of viewership on Fox. Then I pointed out that the article he cited only referred to increasing viewership for a 3-hour timeslot, and he's not been back since.

PAD knows when he's been licked, and he ain't coming anywhere hear that thread or this one.

myke.
...since when has Novak been talking about the case?!?!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Licked? Hardly.

The whole idea that Rove is behind this is completely laughable. This story was one that broke in 2003. The fact that Time employees sat on Rove as a "confidential source" is a complete fallacy. If the media was willing to air forged documents, fail to look into the Swift Boat Veterans claims do you honestly think a couple of mainstream reporters would fail to nail Karl Rove over Valerie Palme on something so trivial as..... principle?

Yeah, Time has such high journalistic standards that they sat on this fact through the election and their employees are willing to serve jail time to protect a much maligned Republican advisor. Principle and honesty protecting a Bush White House staffer was much more important to these reporters than being hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein that may have played a part in bringing down a presidency.

Oh, and monkeys are currently exiting my spinchter at a rapid rate.

[mykevermin]

Licked? Hardly.

The whole idea that Rove is behind this is completely laughable. This story was one that broke in 2003. The fact that Time employees sat on Rove as a "confidential source" is a complete fallacy. If the media was willing to air forged documents, fail to look into the Swift Boat Veterans claims do you honestly think a couple of mainstream reporters would fail to nail Karl Rove over Valerie Palme on something so trivial as..... principle?

Yeah, Time has such high journalistic standards that they sat on this fact through the election and their employees are willing to serve jail time to protect a much maligned Republican advisor. Principle and honesty protecting a Bush White House staffer was much more important to these reporters than being hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein that may have played a part in bringing down a presidency.

Oh, and monkeys are currently exiting my spinchter at a rapid rate.

Your theory simply cannot be true. I hope you'll be comfortable with the fact that you are absolutely, uneqivocally (I love that ultra-pretentious word) wrong. Ready?

Your theory is premised upon the insistence that in no way, shape, or form would the three people (two and a half, since Novak's hiding out in the shade at the moment) hold out on releasing a government source, in a Republican administration, given the potential career-making Woodward-and-Bernsteinian (?) kind of collegial kudos that these three would get for spilling the beans. In other words, our media is so frothing mad with liberals that Cooper and Miller would undoubtedly blow their proverbial wads with excitement at the opportunity to fuck up this administration severely, by outing a perjurer (perjurist?).

So, in a short sense, you think that, ceteris paribus in the MSM, nobody could withold information about this administration's wrongdoings for any period of time, correct?

Alright, you're going to have to live with a fact. Although I'm not angry, and I'm actually feeling very paternalistic at the moment, I'm going to type this in caps so that it comes out crystal clear.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT IT WAS A REPUBLICAN MEMBER (OR MEMBERS) OF THIS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION THAT HELPED COOPER, MILLER, AND NOVAK OUT VALERIE PLAME AS POLITICAL PAYBACK TO THE WORDS OF HER HUSBAND, JOSEPH WILSON.

whew...alright. Settle down, have a glass of lemonade, breathe deeply. According to your theory (MSM would sell their children to bring down this administration), these journalists would have outed Hobie Jones, administrative coffee-fetcher to the person who works under the manager of the white house bathroom cleaning staff, if it meant bringing down this administration. However, we do have two things: (1) perjury, and (2) no leakie of the sourcie. How can we reconcile these facts? Your theory is basically this: "It is impossible for what is currently happening to have happened because the media is liberal." Given that these people have refused to reveal their sources, your argument denies the very reality of what has actually happened since Novak, douchebag of liberty, outed Plame.

Enjoy that lemonade. We look forward to your nonresponse, just like we did in the Fox News ratings post you started. ;)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Until my theory is proven false that's what I'm rolling with.

So take this non-response, grease it up and give yourself a good spinchter massage with it because your theory isn't holding up under examination.

[mykevermin]

Until my theory is proven false that's what I'm rolling with.

So take this non-response, grease it up and give yourself a good spinchter massage with it because your theory isn't holding up under examination.

*sigh*

The very fact that these people are witholding their sources, sources who are ostensibly administration official(s) (despite what little he's said, Bob Novak seems to indicate that it was more than one person), refutes your theory.

You remind me of a sportscaster, whose job is to speculate what might have happened if the circumstances that happened in the past did not happen (e.g., if the Reds hadn't left seven men standing on base during the game, they might have won). Your argument is simply denying what has actually transpired. You're welcome to stick with your argument, but I'm just helping you become aware that you'd be closer to the truth arguing that 2+2=5.

Rove's lawyer has already begun what many to be his criminal defense, saying that his client never "knowingly" divulged such information. The speculation is that Rove did this under the guise of an innocent buffoon who didn't know he was committing treason by ruining the work of an undercover CIA operative working on antiproliferation.

On another tangent, I'm frankly surprised (full disclosure: no, of course I'm not surprised people are towing the party line) that more people aren't upset or concerned about (1) a leak in our government, (2) administration members who are politically vindictive enough to ruin the work done by a CIA operative whose job was to find information and work to prevent the development of WMDs, in particular in this day and age. Why no furor over that?

[E-Z-B]

A picture of events to come:

http://www.bartcop.com/rove6-arrest.jpg

[E-Z-B]

Looks like Judith Miller is on her way to jail right now. CNN breaking right now.

[alonzomourning23]

Looks like Judith Miller is on her way to jail right now. CNN breaking right now.

Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.

[mykevermin]

Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.

That's true to a degree. While I hope this doesn't set a political precedent, the information she was given is perjury. It is imperative that we investigate it.

If she wants to keep quiet, I respect her decision at the same time that I want to know whodunnit.

That slug Cooper opened his craw. Let the crucifixion of Rove commence!

[Drocket]

That's why you mail documents anonymously to news organizations :P

[E-Z-B]

Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.

Those whistleblowers are exposing government corruption and will be protected under the Constitution. Judith Miller is covering for someone who not only broke the law by exposing a CIA operative, but also betrayed the country. Protecting government corruption is totally different.

[alonzomourning23]

That's true to a degree. While I hope this doesn't set a political precedent, the information she was given is perjury. It is imperative that we investigate it.

If she wants to keep quiet, I respect her decision at the same time that I want to know whodunnit.

That slug Cooper opened his craw. Let the crucifixion of Rove commence!

Who cares who they're protecting, these things shouldn't be thrown out as soon as they become inconvenient. If you can find another way to find out then go for it, it should not come from her or that guy who's taking the stand.

[mykevermin]

Who cares who they're protecting, these things shouldn't be thrown out as soon as they become inconvenient. If you can find another way to find out then go for it, it should not come from her or that guy who's taking the stand.

What EZB said.

[alonzomourning23]

What EZB said.

His argument has a point, but it's simply not one I agree with.

[E-Z-B]

His argument has a point, but it's simply not one I agree with.

I work with Classified Info everyday. If I exposed "information" to a reporter about some of our defense systems, and was published in a manner that damaged our national security, should the reporter not be held in contempt for revealing who the traitor was that betrayed our national security? Are I and that reporter both protected?

[CheapyD]

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a New York Times reporter jailed after she refused to name her source to a grand jury probing the leak of an undercover CIA agent.

Separately, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source Wednesday morning, in a "very sudden development" consented.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B9F727F3D-5F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE%7D&siteid=google

[alonzomourning23]

I work with Classified Info everyday. If I exposed "information" to a reporter about some of our defense systems, and was published in a manner that damaged our national security, should the reporter not be held in contempt for revealing who the traitor was that betrayed our national security? Are I and that reporter both protected?

There are some things that should be protected, this is one of those areas in my mind. Here I'd say the same thing, the reporter should have no obligation to reveal who the source was, and, as a journalist, she shouldn't reveal it.

Though, if the source really did consent to have it released, then it's safe to assume that karl rove wasn't the source.

[rumblebear]

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a New York Times reporter jailed after she refused to name her source to a grand jury probing the leak of an undercover CIA agent.

Separately, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source Wednesday morning, in a "very sudden development" consented.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B9F727F3D-5F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE%7D&siteid=google

That won't be Karl Rove then. There's no way he would openly allow cooper to reveal him. He probably had cooper pin it on some lessor administrative official.

[Mr.Answer]

This is a deeper issue than I think many want to see. 1) Freedom of the press--it pains me to see a judge order a reporter to jail for failing to reveal her sources. 2) Yet a federal crime has taken place with the revelation of an undercover agent. This leak MUST be found as it is against the law to reveal confidential information.

I can see the point of view of the prosecutor... as the gov't cannot have CIA operatives identities made known..

But I can also see the point of view of the reporter (which in this case NOVACK, and not the people threatened with jail time) should have known better and not released the operative's name. But a confidential source can help to reveal ultimate corruption in government which must be reported.

[Drocket]

Yes, I don't particularly understand the 'principle' in this case. If we were talking about a case where somebody in the goverment wanted to find and punish a whistleblower, that's one thing. In cases like that, the press definitely deserves protection in order to protect their sources. That's not even remotely what the case is about.

The case is about a source who leaked classified information in order to cause problems for a political opponent. It isn't just that a source like that doesn't deserve any protection: its that in a just world, the reporters who made this information public should be on trial for treason. I believe in freedom of the press and all that, but reporters simply should NOT be publicizing information that damages national security, and no matter how you slice it, revealing the identity of an undercover agent qualifies as damaging national security.

[MrBadExample]

Licked? Hardly.

The whole idea that Rove is behind this is completely laughable. This story was one that broke in 2003. The fact that Time employees sat on Rove as a "confidential source" is a complete fallacy. If the media was willing to air forged documents, fail to look into the Swift Boat Veterans claims do you honestly think a couple of mainstream reporters would fail to nail Karl Rove over Valerie Palme on something so trivial as..... principle?

Yeah, Time has such high journalistic standards that they sat on this fact through the election and their employees are willing to serve jail time to protect a much maligned Republican advisor. Principle and honesty protecting a Bush White House staffer was much more important to these reporters than being hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein that may have played a part in bringing down a presidency.

Oh, and monkeys are currently exiting my spinchter at a rapid rate.

The latest on Karl (http://news.yahoo.com/s/washpost/20050711/pl_washpost/rove_told_reporter_of_plame_s_role_but_didn_t_name _her__attorney_says)

Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.

PAD, are you going to name all the monkeys and dress them up in little suits? :lol:

[E-Z-B]

I read that Rove claims he never revealed a name. And when he said "Wilson's wife", it could be ANY one of his wives. :lol:

EDIT: MBE's link must've been where I read this.

[RedvsBlue]

WOOOHOOO

Finally the Bush Administration is going to have their very own scandal!

While I don't like the fact that this whole case brings into question the freedom of press. I don't feel that the reporter can claim to be completely innocent in this case. Why, in this day and age, would you reveal an undercover CIA agent? That's just irresponsible and a sad attempt to gain attention. That's expecially true if this really was just as a way to payback Wilson for his report that Iraq never tried to buy nuclear material from Nigeria.

I hope Rove does jail time for this, if he is reponsible. That damn Bush will probably pardon him on the way out though so that Rove can run Jeb's campaign at some point in the future.

Fuckin politics. Its ALL garbage

[RedvsBlue]

Oh, and by the way I read on the wikipedia listing for Valeria Plame that the front company that she worked for was Brewster Jennings & Associates. I didn't realize that the CIA really did have front companies, I thought that was just something that shows like Alias made up.

[MrBadExample]

While I don't like the fact that this whole case brings into question the freedom of press. I don't feel that the reporter can claim to be completely innocent in this case. Why, in this day and age, would you reveal an undercover CIA agent? That's just irresponsible and a sad attempt to gain attention. That's expecially true if this really was just as a way to payback Wilson for his report that Iraq never tried to buy nuclear material from Nigeria.
Let's remember that Novak is the one who first "outed" Plame in a report. Miller and Cooper received the tip from the "White House Source" (Turd Blossom) but didn't report it. Miller only wrote her story after Novak had outed Plame. Cooper never wrote a story.

In 1992 Karl Rove was kicked off of Bush Sr.'s campaign for leaking a story to...Robert Novak. Dubya has a bad habit of hiring the worst of his father's old employees.

[mykevermin]

I was under the impression that Cooper *did* write an article naming Mrs. Wilson, but Miller did *not.* Am I wrong?

[camoor]

Oh, and by the way I read on the wikipedia listing for Valeria Plame that the front company that she worked for was Brewster Jennings & Associates. I didn't realize that the CIA really did have front companies, I thought that was just something that shows like Alias made up.

The CIA/FBI have done some crazy stuff.

Inventing LSD and getting Tim Leary hooked, having a blackmailing cross-dresser as chief, and training Osama and troops back in the day come to mind.

[MrBadExample]

I was under the impression that Cooper *did* write an article naming Mrs. Wilson, but Miller did *not.* Am I wrong?
My bad. I got Miller's and Cooper's roles switched.

Here's a link with all the info (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/06/reporters.contempt/index.html)

[CheapyD]

Look out Karl, the fridge is falling! :fridge:
White House won't comment on Rove, leak inquiry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-11-white-house-rove_x.htm)

[MrBadExample]

So in the two years since this story broke, Bush has promised to find out who the leak was. Did he never ask Karl or did Karl lie the whole time? Either way, he's toast.

[mykevermin]

So in the two years since this story broke, Bush has promised to find out who the leak was. Did he never ask Karl or did Karl lie the whole time? Either way, he's toast.

I'm convinced that Rove will ride the "unknowingly" defense all the way to an acquittal. No way will he serve time.

[MrBadExample]

I'm convinced that Rove will ride the "unknowingly" defense all the way to an acquittal. No way will he serve time.
Even if he is convicted, Dubya will pardon him January 19, 2009 when he has nothing to lose politically. That's Dubya's big thing - loyalty - loyalty to crooks, liars and incompetents.

[Dr Mario Kart]

I havent really been following much, but it seems this Rove guy gets blamed for a lot.

I blame him for cancer!

[Drocket]

I blame him for cancer!
Considering the amount of scientific research the White House is 'editing' to cover up for the benefit of their rich corporate buddies, this accusation is most likely at least partially correct.

[E-Z-B]

From DU/Rawstory: Here's Scotty's Bad Briefing in it's Bloody Entirety just for laughs

snippet:

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Much, much more of the transcript here, including the video: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/TRANSCRIPT_WHITE_HOUSE_GRILLED_0711.html

Looks like Scotty refused to answer the question 23 times!

[evilmax17]

Yeah EZB, I just finished watching this snippet:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov

Sounds like the press is finally speaking up and calling people on things. Do you think anything will really come of this? Will justice be served, or will this be swept under the carpet?

[RedvsBlue]

So in the two years since this story broke, Bush has promised to find out who the leak was. Did he never ask Karl or did Karl lie the whole time? Either way, he's toast.


No, he didn't ask Karl because Karl didn't tell him to ask...

[mykevermin]

Yeah EZB, I just finished watching this snippet:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov

Sounds like the press is finally speaking up and calling people on things. Do you think anything will really come of this? Will justice be served, or will this be swept under the carpet?

That video clip, as they say, is comedy gold.

I said above that Rove will ride the "unknowing" defense into acquital. Even though I'll admit that I'm thrilled at the potential of Rove's criminal skewering, there were more white house sources, and the press should continue their inquiries, but also try to find out who the other(s) are.

Someone wrote an op-ed a few weeks ago, saying that in this current political climate, partisan protectionism would ensure that a scandal the size of Watergate would not have been investigated or followed up on. I agree with that entirely, even though we're dealing with a criminal investigation here.

OTOH, many analysts have pointed out that it isn't the crime that makes a scandal, but the cover-up. If that is true, then (and only then) will we be onto something.

[E-Z-B]

As coffman pointed out, Rove never had access to classified information. There's still a bigger fish to fry - Rumsfeld or Cheney, perhaps?

[E-Z-B]

Yeah EZB, I just finished watching this snippet:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov

Sounds like the press is finally speaking up and calling people on things. Do you think anything will really come of this? Will justice be served, or will this be swept under the carpet?

I think that depends on the prosecutor.

[E-Z-B]

So you don't have to venture over there yourself, here's some interesting info from the Drudge Report:

NY TIMES FIGHTS BACK: PLANS FRONT SPLASH ON ROVE; REPORTER SITS IN JAIL
Top editors of the NY TIMES made the decision Monday afternoon to turn up the heat on White House adviser Karl Rove.

The TIMES is planning to lead Tuesday editions with growing calls for Rove's resignation, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT, a powerplay in this summer's DC all-star game of high stakes finger pointing and intrigue.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3kr.htm

[camoor]

Much, much more of the transcript here, including the video: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/TRANSCRIPT_WHITE_HOUSE_GRILLED_0711.html

Looks like Scotty refused to answer the question 23 times!

I want to know what the rest of America wants to know.

What does Jeff Gannon think??

[RedvsBlue]

It was amusing to listen to talk radio this afternoon. One host thought it ridiculous to compare this to Clinton's scandal because Rove didn't use specific names and Clinton specifically lied. Failing to mention the fact that he mentioned that an undercover agent was someone's wife... Not only that but lying about an affair is one hell of a lot less dangerous than revealing undercover CIA agents.

[RedvsBlue]

I want to know what the rest of America wants to know.

What does Jeff Gannon think??


F that, I wanna know what PAD thinks now that Rove has admitted that he mentioned her but not by name.

[mykevermin]

I want to know what the rest of America wants to know.

What does Jeff Gannon think??

Mr McClellan, how does it feel to be asked the same question over and over when you've already given the press a clear and concise answer? Also, how does it feel to be so incredibly awesome?

Did I mention that I'm 8" cut?

[rumblebear]

F that, I wanna know what PAD thinks now that Rove has admitted that he mentioned her but not by name.

Probably will say that Karl Rove and the rest of the Republicans can do no wrong because they were appointed by Jesus; therefore, anyone of us that believes this liberal media conspiracy is a sinner and should be sent to a death concentration camp along with the rest of our innocent family and friends.

[E-Z-B]

It's funny how the right's been eerily quiet on this thread.

http://www.dubyasworld.com/not-so-fantastic-4.jpg

[vherub]

perhaps the pain train needs to visit the whitehouse

[Quackzilla]

Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.
This isn't protecting a source to a story.

It is an act of treason, a name of an undercover CIA operative was leaked as an act of revenge and several journalists willfully cooperated for personal gain.

People should be going to jail.

[E-Z-B]

This isn't protecting a source to a story.

It is an act of treason, a name of an undercover CIA operative was leaked as an act of revenge and several journalists willfully cooperated for personal gain.

People should be going to jail.

Also, alonzo, the whistle-blower was .... Wilson. Wilson was not protected for coming forward. Those journalists assisted the White House by retaliating against him. To protect future whistleblowers, justice must now be served.

[CheapyD]

I would just like to add that Karl Rove hates freedom and is an enemy of democracy.
He also keeps waffling on the issue of whether or not he is a traitor.
Freedom is on the march...we are turning a corner.

[Admiral Ackbar]

I find this whole Plame leak quite facinating. It's liek something from Sherlock Holmes. Piecing togetgher who knew what and when. At fiorst I didn't think Rove was involved because he couldn't be that stupid. But maybe I was wrong. Here's my take on it.

First, Rove appears to be Matt Cooper's primary source. This is what Matt wrote that Rove said.

"it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

So that leads to four questions.

1) Did Rove give away the agents Identity? Obviously yes.
2) Did Rove state that Plame worked for the CIA? Yes. It could be argued that the agency could be any agency in Washington, I'm sure their were a lot of them. But earlier they were referring tio the CIA so that is definately the agency Rove is mentioning.
3) Did Rove reveal what Plame was doing as an agent? Yes. That she was working in cases involving WMD. It's not a detailed explanation of her job but it does reveal the sensitivity of her work.
4) Did Rive reveal that she was an undercover agent? No. And that's a big factor because it's leads to question number five, a big question still unasnwered.
5) Did Rove know Plame was an undercover agent? There are three possible answers.

Answer A) No he did not know she worked undercover. And had absolutely no prior knowledge or notification in any form (briefing, email, memo, etc.) that she was an undercover agent.
Answer B) Maybe. He had recieved prior information that she was an agent, but either forgot or did not noticed she was undercover. For example, maybe there was a memo that passed by his desk detailing that she worked for the CIA and what she does, But he only skimmed it and remembered that she worked for the CIA and gave Wilson approval. Not any of the particulars. In that way, it would be carelessness which caused the "leak." An unhappy accident due.
Answer C) Yes, he did know she was an undercover agent and revealed this info anyway. Either because he was stupid, didn't think it would be printed, or was attempting to be intenionally malicious.

Now, intent is a big factor. For example, it's been mentioned that Cooper called Rove, not Rove calling cooper. That's important. If rove had called cooper up and said, "Hey, the reason Wilson is full of BS is because his wife okayed the triop and they have a grudge and yada, yada, yada," then it would definately appear malicious. But from my reading of things over the past two days, It appears that Cooper called, rove, theyw ere just talkign, about other things, and Plame was one of the last things to come up in their conversation. Almost as an afterthought. Which leads me to believe it was an unintenional slip by Karl Rove. Giving him the benefit of the doubt it is.

But then why the cover-up? And this is a cover-up. The Wh ahs been stalling. Intentionally. It's obvious now. So teh question is, what did the White House know? Did the president know about Rove's involvement? Probably yes. And how do they view it? If it was an accident, and Rove just mispoke carelessly, then why not the White House just come out and say so. Especially after all their lip serive to harsh justice on the leaker.

I guess criminality is a large part. From what I've read of the legal issues, as long as the leak wasn't intentional (and there is no where enough evidence right now to prove it an intentional malicious act) the law has not been broken. It was a mistake, an unfortunate accident, but Rove would not be legally liable for outing Plame. So, assuming it wasn't intentional it would have been in the best interest iof the WH to realase the info ASAP just to get it over and done.

But then again, they may see it as an untintentional accidnet, and they don't want Rove to be hurt by any fallout from a small and simple mistake with larger consequences than he may have realized at the time he said that sentence. Therefore, that's why the cover-up. To prevent a friend of teh White House from being cruicified for an innocent mistake he didn't mean and that anyone at the WH could have done. Why out the info when it could jeapordize his job. Instead, stall as long as you can, hope the story blows over, and luckily dodge the bullet of an unfortunate mistake.

By having a cover-up, and the cover-up is always worse than the crime, that puts things in a more suspicious light. It lends greater creedence that the "leak" was intentional, and that teh WH and Rove did not want to get caught. But that alone isn't proof that when he made the leak he intentionally wanted to out an undercover agent. It's just circumstancial evidence.

And what about Judith Miller, currently in jail. It's quick to assume that Rove was also her source. But we don't know that. If Rove was her source, then that's evidence that Rove revealed the info to two people. And depending on how he revealed that info to Miller, it could give much greater insight into if the leak was intentional or not. And that appears to be key. But it's perfectly possible that Miller has a separate source, not Rove, who revealed the same information. If there was a second source, who was that? And was that someone else in the White House? And if they were in the White House does that mean there was a conspiracy to leak the information if the second source appears to have done so more intentionally.

All and all it's a really thick and interesting plot. But right now, with the information we know, it appears that Rove accidentally spoke carelessly and revealed something he shouldn't. And the White House is covering his ass because they know it was an accident and don't want to a good man (in their eyes a good man, I'm not passing judgement) lose his job over somethign anyoen could have done in teh White House by mistake.

But the WH, the President, shoudl really come forward and shed some light on the subject. The more they cover up, the more suspicious it becomes. And this "ongoing investigation" crap isn't going to cut it, because for months now they've been pleading Rove's innocence. And now when it gets shown that the WH wasn't being truthful then they clam up. Of course, it's also possible nobody at the WH knew and this is as much a suprise to them. That seems unlikely though.

Anyway, it's getting thicker and thicker.

[E-Z-B]

Quick question - isn't the penalty for treason death? Not that I support the death penalty. Kinda ironic since the president is a staunch supporter of the death penalty.

[E-Z-B]

President Bush, at an Oval Office photo opportunity Tuesday, was asked directly whether he would fire Rove — in keeping with a pledge in June, 2004, to dismiss any leakers in the case. The president did not respond.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050712/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AqwepHU9SK5mJnb5JypyYs RAw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

Tim Russert: If this was a Democratic White House, we'd have Congressional hearings in a Second.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/12.html#a3881

[mykevermin]

Russert was citing a Republican congressperson. Regardless, Russert still rules the universe, and is by far my favorite news personality.

[usickenme]

But then why the cover-up? And this is a cover-up. The Wh ahs been stalling. Intentionally. It's obvious now. So teh question is, what did the White House know?



My personal take is that Rove's isnt the original "leaker" but he knows who is and whomever it is, needs protecting (Cheney?)

I think Rove freely spoke of Wilson's wife because he thought it was already out there.

[CheapyD]

I think Rove freely spoke of Wilson's wife because he thought it was already out there.Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rove was just trying to organize a bake sale for a local school. He is SO misunderstood.

[E-Z-B]

lol, read Scotty get grilled again today on the Rove scandal. Here's a snippet:

QUESTION: You say you won’t discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working obviously on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like: Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story.

QUESTION: And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as: Cooper, the Time reporter, called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this.

So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?

MCCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I’ll let them speak to that. What I know is that the president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion.

And that means not commenting on it from this podium.

QUESTION: Well…

MCCLELLAN: And, no, I understand your question.

QUESTION: … Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They’re getting that information from here, from Karl Rove.

MCCLELLAN: And, again, you’re asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you’ve had my response on that…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement of September 29th, 2003, that it’s simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA operative?

Can you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it’s not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.

QUESTION: Can we take that as a yes or a no?

QUESTION: This was a statement you made on the record 21 months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Another_day_Press_savages_White_House_over_Rove_07 12.html

[MrBadExample]

Man, I almost feel sorry for McClellan right now. Almost.

[CheapyD]

How psyched is Ari Flietcher (sp?) that he got out before this all went down?

[camoor]

Therefore, that's why the cover-up. To prevent a friend of teh White House [Rove] from being cruicified for an innocent mistake he didn't mean and that anyone at the WH could have done.

Rove being crucified. What delicious irony.

[usickenme]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Rove was just trying to organize a bake sale for a local school. He is SO misunderstood.

Don't get me wrong..I still think Rove is a piece of garbage and his act of trying to discredit a white house critic with lies is disgusting. That's been the guys MO for years.

[CheapyD]

Ok...you can come to the bake sale. ;)

[Admiral Ackbar]

Here's yesterday's WH briefing. I haven't watched it yet. I will tonight. But it supposed to be more entertaining than the written transcript.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.v.html

"...a mischievous April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks tried to get McClellan to say something -- anything -- about Rove. 'Who is Karl Rove as it relates to this administration?' she asked.

'I think I've responded,' McClellan answered."

It's official, the White House has no idea who Karl Rove is or what he does. :rofl:

[rumblebear]

lol, read Scotty get grilled again today on the Rove scandal. Here's a snippet:

QUESTION: You say you won’t discuss it, but the Republican National Committee and others working obviously on behalf of the White House, they put out this Wilson-Rove research and talking points, distributed to Republican surrogates, which include things like: Karl Rove discouraged a reporter from writing a false story.

QUESTION: And then other Republican surrogates are getting information such as: Cooper, the Time reporter, called Rove on the pretense of discussing welfare reform. Bill Kristol on Fox News, a friendly news channel to you, said that the conversation lasted for two minutes and it was just at the end that Rove discussed this.

So someone is providing this information. Are you, behind the scenes, directing a response to this story?

MCCLELLAN: You can talk to the RNC about what they put out. I’ll let them speak to that. What I know is that the president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with that investigation, that means supporting the efforts by the investigators to come to a successful conclusion.

And that means not commenting on it from this podium.

QUESTION: Well…

MCCLELLAN: And, no, I understand your question.

QUESTION: … Fox News and other Republican surrogates are essentially saying that the conversation lasted for two minutes and that the subject was ostensibly welfare reform. They’re getting that information from here, from Karl Rove.

MCCLELLAN: And, again, you’re asking questions that are related to news reports about an ongoing, continuing investigation. And you’ve had my response on that…

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: At the very least, though, Scott, could you say whether or not you stand by your statement of September 29th, 2003, that it’s simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA operative?

Can you stand by that statement?

MCCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about this at some point, but it’s not the appropriate time to talk about those questions while the investigation is continuing.

QUESTION: Can we take that as a yes or a no?

QUESTION: This was a statement you made on the record 21 months ago. You very confidently asserted to us and to the American people that Rove told you he had nothing to do with it. Can you stand by that statement now?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, and I responded to these questions yesterday.


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Another_day_Press_savages_White_House_over_Rove_07 12.html

Video here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050712-4.html#

[RedvsBlue]

This isn't protecting a source to a story.

It is an act of treason, a name of an undercover CIA operative was leaked as an act of revenge and several journalists willfully cooperated for personal gain.

People should be going to jail.


You're absolutely right. I think there's certain times when journalists should be compelled to reveal their sources. When national security is at stake and people's lives could be in danger is definetly one of those times. I mean who's to say that this is the only classified information that this individual has revealed (or will reveal in the future). When classified information is being leaked it is a very serious situation that needs to be solved as soon as possible.

[rumblebear]

have you guys see the RNC chairman interview on wolfblitzer? Throughout the interview he was trying to smear Hillary Cinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean and saying how they're part of the moveon.org angry left. Then wolfblitzer showed him a short clip of Sen. Biden saying how it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who Wilson's wife is, and immeditetly the RNC chairman added Sen. Biden's name to Cinton, kerry, and Dean list. It's funny how many times he was repeatingly naming these people as the angry left.

[mykevermin]

have you guys see the RNC chairman interview on wolfblitzer? Throughout the interview he was trying to smear Hillary Cinton, John Kerry, and Howard Dean and saying how they're part of the moveon.org angry left. Then wolfblitzer showed him a short clip of Sen. Biden saying how it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who Wilson's wife is, and immeditetly the RNC chairman added Sen. Biden's name to Cinton, kerry, and Dean list. It's funny how many times he was repeatingly naming these people as the angry left.

Mehlman is simply doing his job. People who find the label "(R)" next to someone's name comforting will believe *anything* he says. Likewise with Dean (his (D) counterpart). His job is to bullshit anything and everything into making it look like the Republicans are under attack, to spin the issues to the point of general incoherence, and that the Republicans are doing absolutely everything right. Considering the past two days of WHPC briefings with McClellan, and that now even Bush himself has ignored questions, Mehlman has a *very* tough job to do. Here's to him.

Also, you're beyond oblivious if you think, even for a fleeting moment, that Mehlman has ever had anything resembling a heterosexual interest in his life. He's such a fucking queen screaming to be let out, it's not funny. I'm not criticizing, just pointing out the obvious. He's a fantastic bullshit artist, so once he comes out, the Dems will gladly take him under our wing.

[CheapyD]

Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame
Wednesday, July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON — Journalist Matt Cooper (search) on Wednesday confirmed to a grand jury that White House aide Karl Rove was his source for a story about a CIA operative that has investigators deciding whether any laws were broken by the leak of the agent's identity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162406,00.html

[MrBadExample]

Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame
Wednesday, July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON — Journalist Matt Cooper (search) on Wednesday confirmed to a grand jury that White House aide Karl Rove was his source for a story about a CIA operative that has investigators deciding whether any laws were broken by the leak of the agent's identity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162406,00.html
DAMN LIBERAL MEDIA!!! Oh wait, it's Fox News. :lol:

[Derwood43]

Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame
Wednesday, July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON — Journalist Matt Cooper (search) on Wednesday confirmed to a grand jury that White House aide Karl Rove was his source for a story about a CIA operative that has investigators deciding whether any laws were broken by the leak of the agent's identity.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162406,00.html


Hmmm, a Fox news article that is damaging to a Republican. Well I never... :lol:
Edit: you beat me to it MBE


On a serious note, I want to make sure that I'm reading it right.

The reporter said that his source gave him the ok to release his name. He said that he wouldn't release the source due to their agreement. Now that the source has given the ok, he'll release it. He is saying that Rove is his source. So doesn't that mean that Rove gave him the ok to reveal the source (Rove)?:-k

[Admiral Ackbar]

What I find most ironic is the main defense that is being taken by Rove supporters to defend what he did. "Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday."

The funny thing was, the storry wasn't innacurate. Wilson was absolutely spot on correct and it was the White House that was wrong about Uranium. So extemists are still arguing that what Wilson said was untrue even though it was wholy accurate. It's just funny, that the main defense of Rove, is that he was trying to paint an accurate story as being innacturate.

Look, I think the guy made a stupid mistake, but that's still high incompetence and deserves some type of sanction. It may not be a fireable offense, but that's because, and lets be honest about this, it was a minimal but avoidable security breach.

[rumblebear]

Pretty lame how the GOP spin machine (ordered by Rove) keep pointing out it was a reasonable mistake. What I like to know is how did other reporters (Novak and Miller) got the same info as well (whom they also cited top administrative sources). I bet the only reason Rove let Cooper talk is because their conversation give the grand jury a reasonable doubt. Miller's and Novak's would indicate otherwise.

[CaseyRyback]

What I find most ironic is the main defense that is being taken by Rove supporters to defend what he did. "Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday."

The funny thing was, the storry wasn't innacurate. Wilson was absolutely spot on correct and it was the White House that was wrong about Uranium. So extemists are still arguing that what Wilson said was untrue even though it was wholy accurate. It's just funny, that the main defense of Rove, is that he was trying to paint an accurate story as being innacturate.

Look, I think the guy made a stupid mistake, but that's still high incompetence and deserves some type of sanction. It may not be a fireable offense, but that's because, and lets be honest about this, it was a minimal but avoidable security breach.

the Bush administration put itself in the position to make it a firable offense though when it made the remarks about the leak a while back. Also Rove lied and like it was pointed out on TV the other day, Bush tries to play a straight shooter with the American public so him lying damages the credibility of the administration

also don't remember the quote exactly but someone should definately try and find the quote on what Bush 1 said about those who out CIA agents

[E-Z-B]

also don't remember the quote exactly but someone should definately try and find the quote on what Bush 1 said about those who out CIA agents

You're thinking of George H.W. Bush:

Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html

[alonzomourning23]

Look, I think the guy made a stupid mistake, but that's still high incompetence and deserves some type of sanction. It may not be a fireable offense, but that's because, and lets be honest about this, it was a minimal but avoidable security breach.

In a world where lying about blowjobs means impeachment, this is definately a fireable offense.

[1modernboy]

In a world where lying about blowjobs means impeachment, this is definately a fireable offense.

But, 'lonzo, you have to undestand those... those blowjobs... they were... BLOWJOBS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! :D

[E-Z-B]

Breaking news on http://www.rawstory.com/

Husband of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame tells Raw he believes Bush Administration, senior Bush aides had larger role in leak, political attack: 1130 ET...

No link yet. I think some of these guys that run this site work in Washington, as congressional aides, I believe.

[E-Z-B]

Here's the rawstory interview with Joseph Wilson:

Wilson: Well, my view of this is based on what people have told me. It is not so much my theory but what others have told me about this.

Shortly after Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei (Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency) announced to the UN Security Council in March, 2003 that the documents that the State Department provided him were forgeries, I went on CNN and said that I thought the government new more about this than it was letting on.

My understanding is that shortly thereafter, a meeting was held - sometime in March of 2003 - in the offices of the Vice President at which it was decided to do a “work up” on me. A work up means to run an intel op to glean all the information you can about “me.” My understanding is that at a minimum, [Cheney's chief of staff] Scooter Libby was at this meeting.

But in retrospect looking at this, the natural group [of people] who would meet to discuss something like this would be the White House Iraq Group (WHIG).

Raw Story: Right, and the group includes Karl Rove as part of that main group of six.

Wilson: Yes, that would include Rove. I believe it is Rove, Karen Hughes, Libby, and others.

Raw Story: Also: Andrew Card, Mary Matlin and James Wilkinson as well as others who advised then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley.

Wilson: That would be the natural group because they were constituted to spin the war, so they would be naturally the ones to try to deflect criticism. Now, some of those people would have very high security clearances.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Interview_Ambassador_Wilson_husband_of_outed_CIA_a gent_sees_larger_Administration_ro_0713.html

He's always maintained that Scoot Libby from Cheney's office had something to do with this.

[E-Z-B]

Get this - Ari Fleischer's last day was the same day that Plame was exposed:

Ari's last day was 7/14: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2003/07/14/aris_last_day.html

The article on the same day: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030714.shtml


Coincidence? Or did he get out because he knew shit was going to hit the fan?

[evilmax17]

Breaking news on http://www.rawstory.com/

Husband of outed CIA agent Valerie Plame tells Raw he believes Bush Administration, senior Bush aides had larger role in leak, political attack: 1130 ET...

No link yet. I think some of these guys that run this site work in Washington, as congressional aides, I believe.
CNN's got it too (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/14/cia.leaks.ap/index.html)

[CheapyD]

Quick, somebody raise the terror alert....we need to change subjects fast!

[Scrubking]

*Cue pimp music

[ZarathosNY]

Since Karl Rove's job is political advisor to Bush, why does he need to know who is working for the CIA?

[E-Z-B]

Since Karl Rove's job is political advisor to Bush, why does he need to know who is working for the CIA?

Excellent point. You don't tell someone classified information unless the have a "Need to Know", which Rove didn't have.

[CheapyD]

Time reporter: Rove was first source on CIA agent
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-07-17T144407Z_01_N17556266_RTRIDST_0_POLITICS-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

[E-Z-B]

Now Rove ever-shifting defense team is claiming that he learned about Plame through Novak, not the other way around. And now the smear game starts with reports that Cooper's wife was once Hillary's press secretary. They're really getting desperate. Must be a common procedure for republicans to bring up wives for partisan gain.

[MrBadExample]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/07/18/tomo/story.jpg

[E-Z-B]

lol, good one, MBE.

Here's further proof that CNN is run by right-wing conservative idiots:

CNN's "That's Bullshit" Coverage

Lou Dobbs Tonight, (7/15/05) as Lou was introducing a piece on the Rove story.

Lou says, "...Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor. Danna Bash reports." Immediately after that you can clearly hear a female voice on mic whispering "that's bullshit". Then Dana Bash continues with her report.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/15.html#a3964

[mykevermin]

How is that right-wing?

[E-Z-B]

How is that right-wing?

Because the right-wing talking points on this scandal are trying to convince the american public that Rove and Libby outing a CIA agent is a non-issue, and that if anything, they should get "a medal" for doing so. It's obvious that CNN and Fox are buying into this.

[MrBadExample]

lol, good one, MBE.

Here's further proof that CNN is run by right-wing conservative idiots:

CNN's "That's Bullshit" Coverage

Lou Dobbs Tonight, (7/15/05) as Lou was introducing a piece on the Rove story.

Lou says, "...Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor. Danna Bash reports." Immediately after that you can clearly hear a female voice on mic whispering "that's bullshit". Then Dana Bash continues with her report.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/15.html#a3964
I listened to the clip and it seems too ambiguous as to what she menat by "bullshit" - that Rove learned about Plame from Novak, that a fellow CNN reporter might have outed Plame, that Rove may not be to blame, that Rove may be totally guilty.

[mykevermin]

Because the right-wing talking points on this scandal are trying to convince the american public that Rove and Libby outing a CIA agent is a non-issue, and that if anything, they should get "a medal" for doing so. It's obvious that CNN and Fox are buying into this.

You've got a point, I suppose, if the reporters are actually treating the "Novak told Rove" story as even remotely plausible.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Sounds like you're all crying that this non-story is losing any kind of traction. I'll have to get out my violin and play a sad sad song for you.

[mykevermin]

Sounds like you're all crying that this non-story is losing any kind of traction. I'll have to get out my violin and play a sad sad song for you.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[E-Z-B]

Sounds like you're all crying that this non-story is losing any kind of traction. I'll have to get out my violin and play a sad sad song for you.

It's still on MSNBC's homepage: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

This will really hit the fan once the prosecutor announces some indictments. Rove and Libby are first.

[E-Z-B]

lol, now Bush is starting to backpeddle:

President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." His statement represented a shift from a previous comment, when he said that he would fire anyone shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of a CIA officer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/

So much for being a "straight-shooter".

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.

With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA establishes new depths of mainstream-media hypocrisy. A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant. But it is not too early to assess the performance of the press. It's been appalling.

Is that hyperbole? You be the judge. Have you heard that the CIA is actually the source responsible for exposing Plame's covert status? Not Karl Rove, not Bob Novak, not the sinister administration cabal du jour of Fourth Estate fantasy, but the CIA itself? Had you heard that Plame's cover has actually been blown for a decade — i.e., since about seven years before Novak ever wrote a syllable about her? Had you heard not only that no crime was committed in the communication of information between Bush administration officials and Novak, but that no crime could have been committed because the governing law gives a person a complete defense if an agent's status has already been compromised by the government?

No, you say, you hadn't heard any of that. You heard that this was the crime of the century. A sort of Robert-Hanssen-meets-Watergate in which Rove is already cooked and we're all just waiting for the other shoe — or shoes — to drop on the den of corruption we know as the Bush administration. That, after all, is the inescapable impression from all the media coverage. So who is saying different?

The organized media, that's who. How come you haven't heard? Because they've decided not to tell you. Because they say one thing — one dark, transparently partisan thing — when they're talking to you in their news coverage, but they say something completely different when they think you're not listening.

You see, if you really want to know what the media think of the Plame case — if you want to discover what a comparative trifle they actually believe it to be — you need to close the paper and turn off the TV. You need, instead, to have a peek at what they write when they're talking to a court. It's a mind-bendingly different tale.

SPUN FROM THE START

My colleague Cliff May has already demonstrated the bankruptcy of the narrative the media relentlessly spouts for Bush-bashing public consumption: to wit, that Valerie Wilson, nee Plame, was identified as a covert CIA agent by the columnist Robert Novak, to whom she was compromised by an administration official. In fact, it appears Plame was first outed to the general public as a result of a consciously loaded and slyly hypothetical piece by the journalist David Corn. Corn's source appears to have been none other than Plame's own husband, former ambassador and current Democratic-party operative Joseph Wilson — that same pillar of national security rectitude whose notion of discretion, upon being dispatched by the CIA for a sensitive mission to Niger, was to write a highly public op-ed about his trip in the New York Times. This isn't news to the media; they have simply chosen not to report it.

The hypocrisy, though, only starts there. It turns out that the media believe Plame was outed long before either Novak or Corn took pen to paper. And not by an ambiguous confirmation from Rove or a nod-and-a-wink from Ambassador Hubby. No, the media think Plame was previously compromised by a disclosure from the intelligence community itself — although it may be questionable whether there was anything of her covert status left to salvage at that point, for reasons that will become clear momentarily.

This CIA disclosure, moreover, is said to have been made not to Americans at large but to Fidel Castro's anti-American regime in Cuba, whose palpable incentive would have been to "compromise[] every operation, every relationship, every network with which [Plame] had been associated in her entire career" — to borrow from the diatribe in which Wilson risibly compared his wife's straits to the national security catastrophes wrought by Aldrich Ames and Kim Philby.

THE MEDIA GOES TO COURT ... AND SINGS A DIFFERENT TUNE

Just four months ago, 36 news organizations confederated to file a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington. At the time, Bush-bashing was (no doubt reluctantly) confined to an unusual backseat. The press had no choice — it was time to close ranks around two of its own, namely, the Times's Judith Miller and Time's Matthew Cooper, who were threatened with jail for defying grand jury subpoenas from the special prosecutor.

The media's brief, fairly short and extremely illuminating, is available here. The Times, which is currently spearheading the campaign against Rove and the Bush administration, encouraged its submission. It was joined by a "who's who" of the current Plame stokers, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post, the Tribune Company (which publishes the Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun, among other papers), and the White House Correspondents (the organization which represents the White House press corps in its dealings with the executive branch).

The thrust of the brief was that reporters should not be held in contempt or forced to reveal their sources in the Plame investigation. Why? Because, the media organizations confidently asserted, no crime had been committed. Now, that is stunning enough given the baleful shroud the press has consciously cast over this story. Even more remarkable, though, were the key details these self-styled guardians of the public's right to know stressed as being of the utmost importance for the court to grasp — details those same guardians have assiduously suppressed from the coverage actually presented to the public.

Though you would not know it from watching the news, you learn from reading the news agencies' brief that the 1982 law prohibiting disclosure of undercover agents' identities explicitly sets forth a complete defense to this crime. It is contained in Section 422 (of Title 50, U.S. Code), and it provides that an accused leaker is in the clear if, sometime before the leak, "the United States ha[s] publicly acknowledged or revealed" the covert agent's "intelligence relationship to the United States[.]"

As it happens, the media organizations informed the court that long before the Novak revelation (which, as noted above, did not disclose Plame's classified relationship with the CIA), Plame's cover was blown not once but twice. The media based this contention on reporting by the indefatigable Bill Gertz — an old-school, "let's find out what really happened" kind of journalist. Gertz's relevant article, published a year ago in the Washington Times, can be found here.

THE MEDIA TELLS THE COURT: PLAME'S COVER WAS BLOWN IN THE MID-1990s

As the media alleged to the judges (in Footnote 7, page 8, of their brief), Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a spy in Moscow. Of course, the press and its attorneys were smart enough not to argue that such a disclosure would trigger the defense prescribed in Section 422 because it was evidently made by a foreign-intelligence operative, not by a U.S. agency as the statute literally requires.

But neither did they mention the incident idly. For if, as he has famously suggested, President Bush has peered into the soul of Vladimir Putin, what he has no doubt seen is the thriving spirit of the KGB, of which the Russian president was a hardcore agent. The Kremlin still spies on the United States. It remains in the business of compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

Thus, the media's purpose in highlighting this incident is blatant: If Plame was outed to the former Soviet Union a decade ago, there can have been little, if anything, left of actual intelligence value in her "every operation, every relationship, every network" by the time anyone spoke with Novak (or, of course, Corn).

THE CIA OUTS PLAME TO FIDEL CASTRO

Of greater moment to the criminal investigation is the second disclosure urged by the media organizations on the court. They don't place a precise date on this one, but inform the judges that it was "more recent" than the Russian outing but "prior to Novak's publication."

And it is priceless. The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

Thus, the same media now stampeding on Rove has told a federal court that, to the contrary, they believe the CIA itself blew Plame's cover before Rove or anyone else in the Bush administration ever spoke to Novak about her. Of course, they don't contend the CIA did it on purpose or with malice. But neither did Rove — who, unlike the CIA, appears neither to have known about nor disclosed Plame's classified status. Yet, although the Times and its cohort have a bull's eye on Rove's back, they are breathtakingly silent about an apparent CIA embarrassment — one that seems to be just the type of juicy story they routinely covet.

A COMPLETE DEFENSE?

The defense in Section 422 requires that the revelation by the United States have been done "publicly." At least one U.S. official who spoke to Gertz speculated that because the Havana snafu was not "publicized" — i.e., because the classified information about Plame was mistakenly communicated to Cuba rather than broadcast to the general public — it would not available as a defense to whomever spoke with Novak. But that seems clearly wrong.

First, the theory under which the media have gleefully pursued Rove, among other Bush officials, holds that if a disclosure offense was committed here it was complete at the moment the leak was made to Novak. Whether Novak then proceeded to report the leak to the general public is beside the point — the violation supposedly lies in identifying Plame to Novak. (Indeed, it has frequently been observed that Judy Miller of the Times is in contempt for protecting one or more sources even though she never wrote an article about Plame.)

Perhaps more significantly, the whole point of discouraging public disclosure of covert agents is to prevent America's enemies from degrading our national security. It is not, after all, the public we are worried about. Rather, it is the likes of Fidel Castro and his regime who pose a threat to Valerie Plame and her network of U.S. intelligence relationships. The government must still be said to have "publicized" the classified relationship — i.e., to have blown the cover of an intelligence agent — if it leaves out the middleman by communicating directly with an enemy government rather than indirectly through a media outlet.

LINGERING QUESTIONS

All this raises several readily apparent questions. We know that at the time of the Novak and Corn articles, Plame was not serving as an intelligence agent outside the United States. Instead, she had for years been working, for all to see, at CIA headquarters in Langley. Did her assignment to headquarters have anything to do with her effectiveness as a covert agent having already been nullified by disclosure to the Russians and the Cubans — and to whomever else the Russians and Cubans could be expected to tell if they thought it harmful to American interests or advantageous to their own?

If Plame's cover was blown, as Gertz reports, how much did Plame know about that? It's likely that she would have been fully apprised — after all, as we have been told repeatedly in recent weeks, the personal security of a covert agent and her family can be a major concern when secrecy is pierced. Assuming she knew, did her husband, Wilson, also know? At the time he was ludicrously comparing the Novak article to the Ames and Philby debacles, did he actually have reason to believe his wife had been compromised years earlier?

And could the possibility that Plame's cover has long been blown explain why the CIA was unconcerned about assigning a one-time covert agent to a job that had her walking in and out of CIA headquarters every day? Could it explain why the Wilsons were sufficiently indiscrete to pose in Vanity Fair, and, indeed, to permit Joseph Wilson to pen a highly public op-ed regarding a sensitive mission to which his wife — the covert agent — energetically advocated his assignment? Did they fail to take commonsense precautions because they knew there really was nothing left to protect?

We'd probably know the answers to these and other questions by now if the media had given a tenth of the effort spent manufacturing a scandal to reporting professionally on the underlying facts. And if they deigned to share with their readers and viewers all the news that's fit to print ... in a brief to a federal court.
Link (http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp)

[CheapyD]

Sounds like you're all crying that this non-story is losing any kind of traction. I'll have to get out my violin and play a sad sad song for you.It's on the front page of www.NYTimes.com (http://www.NYTimes.com) as well as www.Foxnews.com (http://www.Foxnews.com)

Maybe we just have different definitions of "losing any kind traction". It could be related to Cheney's definition of "last throes (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/)" as in "I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."

[MrBadExample]

[b] Did the CIA “Out” Valerie Plame?
What the mainstream media tells the court ... but won’t tell you.

With each passing day, the manufactured "scandal" over the publication of Valerie Plame's relationship with the CIA ...yada, yada, yada, spin, spin, spin, blather, blather, blather
Andrew C. McCarthy?!? Why should we care what the guy from Weekend at Bernie's thinks? :lol:

[CheapyD]

David Letterman: "You folks following the scandal with Karl Rove? Earlier today, President Bush says that he doesn't want to act too quickly. And does not want to act before he has all of the facts. And I was thinking, 'Jeez, this doesn't sound like the President Bush I know.'

[E-Z-B]

David Letterman: "You folks following the scandal with Karl Rove? Earlier today, President Bush says that he doesn't want to act too quickly. And does not want to act before he has all of the facts. And I was thinking, 'Jeez, this doesn't sound like the President Bush I know.'

He's alllllmost done with My Pet Goat...

[MrBadExample]

He's alllllmost done with My Pet Goat...
Reading or coloring? :)

[E-Z-B]

Reading or coloring? :)

Well, he still holds it upside-down, so it must be coloring.

[rumblebear]

anyone think Bush and Rove have a much closer relationship than we all think? .... perhaps sexually? Just look at what Rove said in an interview about when he first saw George W. Bush.

[mykevermin]

anyone think Bush and Rove have a much closer relationship than we all think? .... perhaps sexually? Just look at what Rove said in an interview about when he first saw George W. Bush.

nope.

[MrBadExample]

anyone think Bush and Rove have a much closer relationship than we all think? .... perhaps sexually? Just look at what Rove said in an interview about when he first saw George W. Bush.
There needs to be an NSFW on that thought. Yeesh!

[camoor]

David Letterman: "You folks following the scandal with Karl Rove? Earlier today, President Bush says that he doesn't want to act too quickly. And does not want to act before he has all of the facts. And I was thinking, 'Jeez, this doesn't sound like the President Bush I know.'

:lol:

[E-Z-B]

LA TIMES TO SPLASH WORD 'PERJURY' WITH REGARD TO ROVE; WASH. POST MOVES IN PAGE ONE: DEVELOPING...

WASHINGTON -- The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status, the LOS ANGELES TIMES will report Saturday, RAW STORY has learned.

The LA Times piece is titled: "CIA Probe Moves from Leak Source to Perjury, Obstruction."

EXCERPTS FOLLOW. THE WASHINGTON POST will move a similar page one story Saturday as well.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/LA_TIMES_MOVES_WORD_ROVE_PERJURY_TO_FRONT_PA_0722. html

And treasongate continues to unfold...

[E-Z-B]

http://www.dubyasworld.com/rove-novak-devils-rejects.jpg

[E-Z-B]

Today's white house transcript:

Q On the leak investigation, does President Bush feel that it was appropriate for there to be an 11 or 12-hour time gap from the time that Chief of Staff Andy Card was notified that an investigation was underway to the time that staff here at the White House, including him --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has said that -- and the President directed the White House at the beginning of the investigation to cooperate fully with those overseeing the investigation. And that is exactly what we have done, and that's what we did in that context, as well. If you will recall, back on October 1st of 2003, these questions came up and I addressed it at that time. So you might want to go back and look at that discussion during that briefing.

Q But in the spirit of cooperation, and you had indicted on October 1, 2003, that the reason that the Justice Department was asked, is it okay to wait until the morning, and the answer was that it was okay, but in the spirit of cooperation, why did the notification not go out until 11 or 12 hours later?

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about that in that briefing, and addressed all those questions at that time. And the President has made it clear that we should cooperate fully with the investigation. That's what we have done, that's what we continue to do.

-----snip-----

Q Yes, thank you. There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in terms of decisions regarding the investigation, those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide.

Q Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAN: Thank you.

Apparently, Scotty scooted out of there pretty fast as soon as it was over.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050725-5.html

[MrBadExample]

21 Administration Officials Involved In Plame Leak (http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal)

Interesting to see how high this could go...

[RedvsBlue]

21 Administration Officials Involved In Plame Leak (http://www.thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal)

Interesting to see how high this could go...


Hmm for some reason the phrase "start from stratch" comes to mind...

[gamefreak]

Your theory simply cannot be true. I hope you'll be comfortable with the fact that you are absolutely, uneqivocally (I love that ultra-pretentious word) wrong. Ready?

Your theory is premised upon the insistence that in no way, shape, or form would the three people (two and a half, since Novak's hiding out in the shade at the moment) hold out on releasing a government source, in a Republican administration, given the potential career-making Woodward-and-Bernsteinian (?) kind of collegial kudos that these three would get for spilling the beans. In other words, our media is so frothing mad with liberals that Cooper and Miller would undoubtedly blow their proverbial wads with excitement at the opportunity to fuck up this administration severely, by outing a perjurer (perjurist?).

So, in a short sense, you think that, ceteris paribus in the MSM, nobody could withold information about this administration's wrongdoings for any period of time, correct?

Alright, you're going to have to live with a fact. Although I'm not angry, and I'm actually feeling very paternalistic at the moment, I'm going to type this in caps so that it comes out crystal clear.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT IT WAS A REPUBLICAN MEMBER (OR MEMBERS) OF THIS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION THAT HELPED COOPER, MILLER, AND NOVAK OUT VALERIE PLAME AS POLITICAL PAYBACK TO THE WORDS OF HER HUSBAND, JOSEPH WILSON.

whew...alright. Settle down, have a glass of lemonade, breathe deeply. According to your theory (MSM would sell their children to bring down this administration), these journalists would have outed Hobie Jones, administrative coffee-fetcher to the person who works under the manager of the white house bathroom cleaning staff, if it meant bringing down this administration. However, we do have two things: (1) perjury, and (2) no leakie of the sourcie. How can we reconcile these facts? Your theory is basically this: "It is impossible for what is currently happening to have happened because the media is liberal." Given that these people have refused to reveal their sources, your argument denies the very reality of what has actually happened since Novak, douchebag of liberty, outed Plame.

Enjoy that lemonade. We look forward to your nonresponse, just like we did in the Fox News ratings post you started. ;)

Take a breath and calm down man. Would it be possible to argue the facts without turning to insulting someone or resorting to slander? To me, these just serve to discredit what you're auctually trying to say and make you look like a rediculous radical. This leads me to believe that you're purpose arguing here with PAD isn't to convince him that he has a bogus theory, as you claim, but to score as many points with your liberal friends by putting down and making fun of people. You aren't the only one to be doing this (hell, many Repubs on here do it as well) but its kind of getting old.

[camoor]

Take a breath and calm down man. Would it be possible to argue the facts without turning to insulting someone or resorting to slander? To me, these just serve to discredit what you're auctually trying to say and make you look like a rediculous radical.

The PC crowd, the "I'm better then everyone else because I'm a moderate" steps in again. When did this nation become so wussified (probably about the same time that people started demanding fat rights and suing for spilling coffee on their selves)

Take some of your own advice, calm down, and stop trying to preach the way of the non-confrontationalist. Some of us want to see truth and change.

[alonzomourning23]

The PC crowd, the "I'm better then everyone else because I'm a moderate" steps in again. When did this nation become so wussified (probably about the same time that people started demanding fat rights and suing for spilling coffee on their selves)

Take some of your own advice, calm down, and stop trying to preach the way of the non-confrontationalist. Some of us want to see truth and change.

Yes, camoor, cause we all know far right people who stand up and scream what they believe are the ones who get all the respect and the first ones you listen to. No one gives a damn what the more moderate ones, like mccain, have to say.

There's a time for confrontation, but if you also go into it with that intention no one will listen.

Camoor, read this:


After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the vehicle or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims of people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonald's quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degree or above, and that McDonald's coffee, at the temperature at which it is poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur but testified that McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, would cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder", since the location of the writing would not readily notify customers of the hazard.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 or three times compensatory damages-even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remitting, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

http://www.siegfriedandjensen.com/cases.html

[mykevermin]

Take a breath and calm down man. Would it be possible to argue the facts without turning to insulting someone or resorting to slander? To me, these just serve to discredit what you're auctually trying to say and make you look like a rediculous radical. This leads me to believe that you're purpose arguing here with PAD isn't to convince him that he has a bogus theory, as you claim, but to score as many points with your liberal friends by putting down and making fun of people. You aren't the only one to be doing this (hell, many Repubs on here do it as well) but its kind of getting old.

So don't read what I have to say. It's not like you're tackling any of my substantive arguments anyway.

[gamefreak]

The PC crowd, the "I'm better then everyone else because I'm a moderate" steps in again. When did this nation become so wussified (probably about the same time that people started demanding fat rights and suing for spilling coffee on their selves)

Take some of your own advice, calm down, and stop trying to preach the way of the non-confrontationalist. Some of us want to see truth and change.

Non-confrontationalist? Uhhhh not quite. Confront all you want but keep in mind if your idea of confronting someone is through personal attacks that serve no purpose then keep in mind you're going to be dismissed from their mind. If you're going to argue a point or challenge someone, why is there a need to slander their person instead of attacking them on the basis of their ideals or actions?

So don't read what I have to say. It's not like you're tackling any of my substantive arguments anyway.

No, I'm not going to tackle any of your substantive arguments anyway in part because I don't feel like sifting through 6 pages of bickering and attacks to find your arguments. Futher, I'm not informed enough on this topic to argue one way or the other and would probably just make myself look like an idiot if I tried.

[camoor]

Alonzo, they provide hot water for tea/coffee at my work - the sign on the tap says that it's 180 degrees, I think it's probably accurate because it's always too hot to drink right out of the faucet.

Do they have to put a sign saying "do not spill on your genitals" so that they won't get sued now?

Ridiculous. And I could have substituted Janet's boobgate or Jack Thomson's crusade against Rockstar in this post - the fact is that Americans are starting to slide into being fat, complacent, and I am dismayed that the next step in the current descent may be laziness.

[ZarathosNY]

Alonzo, they provide hot water for tea/coffee at my work - the sign on the tap says that it's 180 degrees, I think it's probably accurate because it's always too hot to drink right out of the faucet.

Do they have to put a sign saying "do not spill on your genitals" so that they won't get sued now?

Ridiculous. And I could have substituted Janet's boobgate or Jack Thomson's crusade against Rockstar in this post - the fact is that Americans are starting to slide into being fat, complacent, and I am dismayed that the next step in the current descent may be laziness.

McDonalds was negligent because they provided evidence that they had reports of 700 people being burned by their coffee, and did nothing to lower the temp. It would be a different story if she was the first person burned by the coffee.

[mykevermin]

No, I'm not going to tackle any of your substantive arguments anyway in part because I don't feel like sifting through 6 pages of bickering and attacks to find your arguments. Futher, I'm not informed enough on this topic to argue one way or the other and would probably just make myself look like an idiot if I tried.

No need to sift through six pages. Go back to the post you quoted me on. If you're insightful enough to identify my statements as ad hominems, then the residual statements can be clearly identified as pure argument. Would you like a one sentence summary?

The likelihood that a Republican is responsible for a scandal prepetrated by the White House is higher when there is a Republican administration.

That's all I'm saying in that quote. It's not hard to decipher. I might as well say that christians are more likely to get run over by cars on the crosswalks near a church, because it's simply a saturation effect.

[camoor]

McDonalds was negligent because they provided evidence that they had reports of 700 people being burned by their coffee, and did nothing to lower the temp. It would be a different story if she was the first person burned by the coffee.

I'm going to bow out of this counter-productive coffee spill discussion.

Fact is, frivolous lawsuits are being filed day in and day out these days.

People need to step up and take responsibility for raising their kids, accepting that stuff happens in life, etc.

If a corporation is at fault, then yeah the government should demand restitutions according to the harm they caused (IE Exxon should clean up oil spills, Halliburton should return any payments for soldier food that was rotten, etc)

I don't know enough about coffee and the temp that it burns you at because I drink tea and I don't carry it around on my crotch. Last thing I'll say is that if you need a sign to tell you "dont carry hot coffee near your genitals", then maybe it's good if they get burned off, darwin's theory of evolution and all that.

A few more examples that this country is losing more brain cells every day:

On a container of lighter fluid: WARNING: Contents flammable!

On a box of household nails: CAUTION! - Do NOT swallow nails! May cause irritation!

On a hose nozzle: "Do not spray into electrical outlet."
:lol: :wall: :lol:

[alonzomourning23]

I'm going to bow out of this counter-productive coffee spill discussion.

Fact is, frivolous lawsuits are being filed day in and day out these days.

People need to step up and take responsibility for raising their kids, accepting that stuff happens in life, etc.

If a corporation is at fault, then yeah the government should demand restitutions according to the harm they caused (IE Exxon should clean up oil spills, Halliburton should return any payments for soldier food that was rotten, etc)

I don't know enough about coffee and the temp that it burns you at because I drink tea and I don't carry it around on my crotch. Last thing I'll say is that if you need a sign to tell you "dont carry hot coffee near your genitals", then maybe it's good if they get burned off, darwin's theory of evolution and all that.

A few more examples that this country is losing more brain cells every day:

On a container of lighter fluid: WARNING: Contents flammable!

On a box of household nails: CAUTION! - Do NOT swallow nails! May cause irritation!

On a hose nozzle: "Do not spray into electrical outlet."
:lol: :wall: :lol:

So wait, if you were in a passenger seat in a car, how would you pour the cream in your coffee (even if you wouldn't, just for arguments sake)? Most people would put it on there lap. But mcdonalds had multiple reports of burns similar to this one which also required hospitalization. Where she spilt it wasn't the issue, it's just part of the facts. The woman had to be hospitalized. I've spilt coffee on myself many times, and it's always "ow, that's hot". Not exactly "OH MY GOD!! THE COFFEE IS BURNING ME!! I NEED TO HAVE MY SKIN GRAFTED!!", which is what happened here, makes me glad I don't drink mcdonalds coffee. Also take into account this happened even though it had to go through clothes (which would provide some protection), it wasn't even bare skin. They used scalding water, no other chains did that, and mcdonalds had repeated warning that this was causing injuries. Mcdonalds restaurants actively enforced the policy of keeping it around 185 degrees. They refused to pay the womans medical bills and they stated they had no intention of lowering the temp, which came across as extremely arrogant and careless, aggravating both judge and jury (they lowered the temp, though quietly and unnanounced, after being forced to pay, so the lawsuit did it's job). There was the normal "hot" reminder on the cup, but no other place provided coffee that could cause severe burns if spilt. I surely wouldn't expect that a drink I'm holding in my hands could put me into the hospital if someone were to bump into me, but that's what could happen there. Hell, it was hot enough to burn your throat if drank.

There was a specific danger involved in possessing and drinking mcdonalds coffee that was not present with other coffees.

edit: just realized I was talking to camoor, nice new avatar.

[MrBadExample]

There was the normal "hot" reminder on the cup...
I just wish they'd put that warning on the bottom of the cup.

I don't know coffee because I drink tea. When I make it at home, I use boiling water (that's 212 degrees). I know better than to get that cup anywhere near my crotch. I'm no fan of McDonald's but they did seem to get a raw deal here. Of the 700 previous burn victims, how many spilled it on themselves vs. burned their mouths drinking it too soon? Unless the cups spontaneously exploded, I don't see any fault of McD's.

[mykevermin]

I don't know so much about the coffee lawsuit, although I do recognize that, after appeals and reduced compensations (not to even bring in attorney's fees), the notion that "people everywhere" are making a fuckton of money suing corporations for individual stupidity-based ignorance and oversight is way wrong. Not that either or you are arguing that, but it *is* one of the most common unproven remarks made in this kind of argument (by the kind of people who lack data and/or analytical skills, but want to say something).

All I want to add to the conversation is this: 2.7 MILLION ON TWO DAYS? IN FUCKING COFFEE?

Now, of course Starbucks and their ilk dwarf that amount, I'm sure; the thing is, McD's coffee is shite, it's gas station coffee. At least (and I suppose this is arguable, but I am a coffee snob) Starbucks coffee is damn tasty.

[alonzomourning23]

I just wish they'd put that warning on the bottom of the cup.

I don't know coffee because I drink tea. When I make it at home, I use boiling water (that's 212 degrees). I know better than to get that cup anywhere near my crotch. I'm no fan of McDonald's but they did seem to get a raw deal here. Of the 700 previous burn victims, how many spilled it on themselves vs. burned their mouths drinking it too soon? Unless the cups spontaneously exploded, I don't see any fault of McD's.

Well, of the 700 they many had similar injuries, the same would have happened if she spilt it elsewhere. If she spilt it on her arm she still would have had a problem. The whole thing is, there was a particular danger with mcdonalds coffee, one they ensured remained until the lost the lawsuit.

[MrBadExample]

Well, of the 700 they many had similar injuries, the same would have happened if she spilt it elsewhere. If she spilt it on her arm she still would have had a problem. The whole thing is, there was a particular danger with mcdonalds coffee, one they ensured remained until the lost the lawsuit.
My point was, wherever they spilt the coffee, it's their clumsiness at fault, not McDonald's. Unless the coffee was so hot that the cup was too hot to handle, McDonald's shouldn't be liable.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'm glad this went horribly OT. I'd hate to think that anyone here actually thought this story was going anywhere anymore.

[alonzomourning23]

My point was, wherever they spilt the coffee, it's their clumsiness at fault, not McDonald's. Unless the coffee was so hot that the cup was too hot to handle, McDonald's shouldn't be liable.

I disagree, but that's fine. My basic point is this isn't just one of those frivelous lawsuits like "I thought mcdonalds hamburgers were healthy cause they said 100% beef, so now I'm fat!". It's not the type of lawsuit that it has become the poster child for. And it did have a good result, mcdonalds lowered the coffee temp preventing future incidents.

[camoor]

I'm glad this went horribly OT. I'd hate to think that anyone here actually thought this story was going anywhere anymore.

LOL too true.

If Watergate happened today, all Fox news would have to do is to run Natalee Halloway coverage for two weeks straight or do another of those "OMFG sharks at the local beach" hard hitting journalist reports that they are famous for. The short attention span of the American majority, and their resulting weak and temporary demands for truth from the new government, are laughably tragic.

[MrBadExample]

I don't think the story's dead yet. There just hasn't been any new information to feed the machine. The investigator has been playing his cards very close to the vest which is smart.