see link for this story
no indictment, no charges filed, merely a “claim/allegation” of wrongdoing and this guy’s name/reputation is fair game and the accuser’s is protected?
until something is proven in a court of law, shouldn’t the papers refrain from publishing any name?
.
until something is proven in a court of law, shouldn’t the papers refrain from publishing any name?
Uh, no. Newspapers print the names of suspects/subjects of investigations all the time. Be serious.
I realize that. Suspects on trial I can fathom publicizing names. Allegations being investigatedsseems premature to print names. It just doesn’t seem right to me, is all.
If the “claim” turns out to be unsubstantiated, will the paper print that? If so, does it get buried?
This guy may have a wife/girlfriend/children he has to explain this to.
There is not even an allegation of wrongdoing by Rove, yet he has been dragged through the mud. There is a free press and this article looks legitimate.
If the guy is innocent, he has been badly damaged. That is just the way life is – unfair.
If the “claim” turns out to be unsubstantiated, will the paper print that? If so, does it get buried?
If the claim turns out to be unsubstantiated, the claimant will likely be facing criminal charges and a civil suit, and yes, I expect it will get reported.
This guy may have a wife/girlfriend/children he has to explain this to.
And if he’s innocent, he really should not find it all that difficult to explain it to his wife/girlfriend/etc.
There is not even an allegation of wrongdoing by Rove, yet he has been dragged through the mud.
I’m sorry for playing along with the hijacking, but what are you talking about? There IS an allegation of wrongdoing by Rove, and more than that, there’s been an admission of wrongdoing by Rove. He’s being “dragged through the mud” because he’s been living in a mud puddle.
Not sure what wrongdoing you are talking about. There doesn’t appear to be any allegation of a crime, though obviously that could change. It looks like he received information from one reporter and passed it on to another. No crime there.
Maybe you could say he erred when he said he had nothing to do with the leak when he should have said he didn’t think he had anything to do with it.
More facts may prove all of the above wrong, but I don’t see wrongdoing here.
Clearly the NY Times reporter might have done something wrong. She may have been the one who actually started the story via inquiries with CIA sources. If that is right, the CIA source did something seriously wrong. I am guessing that is why the Times reporter is in jail protecting him.
Innocent people get slimmed all the time. That is the price of a free press. Please don’t interprete this as whining about Rove’s treatment. He is a big boy. He can handle it. If he can’t, he shouldn’t be in the job.
Not sure what wrongdoing you are talking about. There doesn’t appear to be any allegation of a crime
In the first place, I thought that was what a grand jury investigation was all about- determining whether or not a crime has been committed.
In the second place, and more importantly, I know you’re not so morally bankrupt as to assert seriously that if no crime was committed, there was no wrongdoing.
Innocent people get slimmed all the time. <> Please don’t interprete this as whining about Rove’s treatment.
You can rest completely assured that I didn’t associate Rove with an innocent person getting slimed, Art, because he isn’t innocent. By any stretch of the imagination. I say again, the man LEAKED THE IDENTITY OF A CIA AGENT TO THE PRESS. Surely we can agree that that qualifies as wrongdoing, especially at this point in our history, regardless of the technicalities of the law. Please say yes.
I am not sure he leaked the identity to the Press. That has not been established at all, though I grant it is possible. I think he passed a rumor on from one reporter to another. His source was not classified, and he apparently didn’t think the agent was covert in any way. It is not clear that she is.
You are right that further investigation and information is required. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that the instigator of the story is the NY Times reporter. I am guessing she gathered information based on illegal leaks from the CIA and passed the information on to create a story. Note that she never wrote a story and apparently never planned on writing one.
When Wilson used her position at CIA to get her husband a job and when he proceeded to use that post for the purpose of a political hatchet job, Ms. Plume forfeited any rights not specifically protected by the law and probably those rights that otherwise would be protected.
Given all the circumstances, I am not sure there was anything wrong with leaking her name. I grant I don’t know all the circumstances.
I certainly wouldn’t accuse Rove, or anyone else of wrongdoing in this matter, with the exception of the Times reporter. She is sitting in jail for a reason.
Not withstanding anything above, this investigation should have died a natural death nearly two years ago. Absent mistaken reactions to the investigation, I am betting there is no crime here.
If you want to find corruption, just start a corruption investigation. Improper reactions to the process will generate as many indictments as you need to justify the salary of the investigators. Just ask Martha Stewart.
I am not sure he leaked the identity to the Press.
Laughable. Right along with the rest of your “argument.”
When Wilson used her position at CIA to get her husband a job and when he proceeded to use that post for the purpose of a political hatchet job, Ms. Plume forfeited any rights not specifically protected by the law and probably those rights that otherwise would be protected.
Really? I must have missed that part when I learned about classification levels and national security and stuff. How about CIA agents whose spouses don’t vote the right way? Expose them!
Art, please. I was just the other day saying to the resident leftists that reasonable people on the right could be persuaded that Rove has to go because deliberately blowing a CIA agent’s cover is an offense odious to every patriot. And here you are saying, well, it might not be illegal, and anyway, she deserved it. You’re making me look bad.
I was saying that it was hopeless. Guess I was right.
Yeah, well, you just shut up.
If he deliberately blew a CIA agent’s identity cover in order to attack Wilson or for other political reasons, I agree that there should be ramifications. Note that no one is saying that happened. Yes, there are lots of people wishing that happened, but that is a different matter entirely.
It is not laughable that he did not leak the identity. Confirming the common knowledge of the association in a phone call with a reporter on a seperate subject does not constitute leaking. I grant that may not state the facts accurately, but it is my best guess based on available information.
Sorry, Ms. Wilson is not going to get away with arguably using her post for a partisan political purpose and then hide behind that post. Life doesn’t work that way.
My best guess is that a Times source at the CIA is the person who started the leak. The Times reporter is in jail protecting that source. Why are you not upset with that source? I haven’t heard anyone suggest that the story would not have run but for Rove’s comments. Do you so suggest?
Confirming the common knowledge of the association in a phone call with a reporter on a seperate subject does not constitute leaking.
Excluding the adjective “common” in the above sentence (because it wasn’t common knowledge, or it would need confirming), that’s EXACTLY what constitutes a leak. If a reporter calls you up with some classified tidbit, and you confirm it, you’re a leaker. Don’t be obtuse, Art, it doesn’t suit you.
Sorry, Ms. Wilson is not going to get away with arguably using her post for a partisan political purpose and then hide behind that post. Life doesn’t work that way.
Not when Rove’s around, anyway, cause he’ll just make sure you get outed.
The Times reporter is in jail protecting that source. Why are you not upset with that source?
As I’ve said, I am. When I find out who it is, I’ll lay into them just like I’m laying into Rove, because he’ll deserve it equally. (this a particularly tiresome attempt at deflection, though.)
I haven’t heard anyone suggest that the story would not have run but for Rove’s comments. Do you so suggest?
I have no idea, so I suggest no such thing. It’s completely irrelevent.
I suppose you are right in that the operative word in the sentence is common. I believe that accurately describes the situation. Again, I grant I could be proven incorrect as more facts emerge.
Passing information gathered from one reporter to another reporter just doesn’t qualify as a leak in my book. The comment “I heard that too” when he heard it from another reporter doesn’t meet the threshold. Maybe you have a different book.
Had he called Novak in the wake of the Wilson story and done a dump including this information, my opinion would be different.
I am guessing that the Times reporter is in jail because she was not acting as a reporter at all, but rather as a political operative who was a big part of creating this story rather than just reporting on it. I hope we find out eventually, though I am guessing not.