Did Karl Rove out the CIA Agent?

[Squink]

Time magazine talked to Bush’s guru for Plame story.(Newsweek July 11 issue)

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

[Ludovic]

darnit luci, beat me to it

[danceswithcats]

@Squink

Ratchet what back? I’ve not even accused Rove of farting in public. On the other hand, someone did treasonously out an undercover cia agent, and I’m not about to go all soft on that crime just because it appears that whoever it was worked in the white house. Is that what you’re asking for? Your plea for patience is just fucking baffling. It’s been two years. This is not rocket science. We should have had answers in 2004.

Could you lay aside your zeal to roast someone for a fucking moment? If Rove is indeed shown to be the party responsible, then I’ll offer nothing regarding excuses on his behalf. My point is that it’s been a while, and although I agree that we should have had answers a while ago, it shouldn’t kill you to sit tight until the truth is known.

[Guinastasia]

BTW, where is Plame now? Did she get out safely?

[elucidator]

@Ludovic

darnit luci, beat me to it

Great minds think alike. Ours too, it would seem. Probably means something. You got any idea what?

[elucidator]

@Guinastasia

BTW, where is Plame now? Did she get out safely?

Well, if I read this right, its not like Ms Plame was any threat to Natasha Badenov. Her covert status was more a matter of legitimate cover of an academic sort, such that her contacts with bueracrats and scientists would have a plausible explanation. She didn’t carry a cyanide capsule next to her lipstick, or anything like that.

Richard Sorbel, the Red Orchestra, the fictitious Karla are from another era, humint these days is a much more discreet and genteel pursuit.

So nobody got killed for this revelation, nor was there any likelihood anyone might. But by revealing her status, nasty people might be inclined to check up on who she talked to, when. Which puts them at risk, not her. And, of course, makes potential informants more wary about assurances from Americans. Like the old joke about how “Trust me” is Californian for “Fuck you.”

Bad enough, Badenov.

[Guinastasia]

Ah, I see. Thank you.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

“If the President does it, its not illegal” - Richard M. Nixon

Did he really say that? Can we have a cite? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just have never heard that before.

[Reeder]

@John Mace

Did he really say that? Can we have a cite? I’m not saying you’re wrong, I just have never heard that before.

Watergate Scrapbook: What Do You Remember? | History News Network

[jayjay]

A more provenanced quote:

From LandmarkCases.org, from an interview with David Frost, aired May 19, 1977:

FROST: So what in a sense, you’re saying is that there are certain situations, and the Huston Plan or that part of it was one of them, where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation or something, and do something illegal.

NIXON: Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal.

[elucidator]

Kids these days, huh, Reeder? Think “Parrot’s Beak” is a Monty Python riff… Glad you got home, troop. We need you.

[Miller]

@danceswithcats

@Squink

Apparently Rove testified to the grand jury that he was not involved in blowing Plame’s cover. If that statement was false, “blow cover perjury” fits the situation to a T.
Of course everything is a long ways from proven yet.

Would it seriously chap your nads to wait until the facts are known, or is your desire to tar and feather anything Republican so irresistable? Like Airman Doors has said, if it comes out that Rove is the guilty party, then he deserves to be punished. Would cooling your jets for a short space be possible?

You know, if you were going to accuse someone in this thread of rushing to judgement, it’s possible that you could have found a worst example. But I’ll be damned if I can think of one.

[marshmallow]

Does anyone think it’s a little weird that the OP was started yesterday and then all the sudden Rove is in the news concerning this very subject?

[elucidator]

We’re the Dopers. The “cutting edge” is usually about half a step behind us.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@This Year's Model

By what definition can the President not be a spy?

We spent some time some 30-odd years ago demonstrating that the President of the United States is NOT above the law. He must follow the law just as all his fellow citizens must.

This concept of yours is terrifying.

It may be terrifying, but it’s the truth. Nixon got nailed for obstructing justice. However, if Nixon had given the order AND claimed that he had done so he probably would not have been impeached, especially if he could justify it.

Apples and oranges. A President is permitted, historically, to make some rules up as he goes along. That’s what executive orders are. He is not allowed to participate in the cover-up of laws that are broken on his behalf, though, if he didn’t order it.

[BobLibDem]

How delicious, if true. Obviously this has a long way to play out and Mr. Rove is entitled to his day in court, but the possibilities are so intriguing. Suppose Rove cuts a deal with prosecutors- they drop the charges if Rove would testify against Dick Cheney as the source of the leak. Felony charges get filed against Cheney, his impeachment dominates the news just as the midterm elections approach. It doesn’t get any better than this.

[wring]

@Airman Doors

especially if he could justify it.

u in te rrent example, what is the possible (non political) justification?

[wring]

@wring

but in the current example, what is the possible (non political) justification?

:smack: :smack: :smack:

[Frank]

@Airman Doors

It may be terrifying, but it’s the truth. Nixon got nailed for obstructing justice. However, if Nixon had given the order AND claimed that he had done so he probably would not have been impeached, especially if he could justify it.

Apples and oranges. A President is permitted, historically, to make some rules up as he goes along. That’s what executive orders are. He is not allowed to participate in the cover-up of laws that are broken on his behalf, though, if he didn’t order it.

Oh, come now, Airman, this is treading dangerously close to complete nonsense. The President is not allowed to break the law, even in the pursuit of his duties. Executive orders are in addition to law, not instead of law, and not overriding law. “L’etat, c’est moi” is not applicable in this country.

[Guinastasia]

@Airman Doors

It may be terrifying, but it’s the truth. Nixon got nailed for obstructing justice. However, if Nixon had given the order AND claimed that he had done so he probably would not have been impeached, especially if he could justify it.

Apples and oranges. A President is permitted, historically, to make some rules up as he goes along. That’s what executive orders are. He is not allowed to participate in the cover-up of laws that are broken on his behalf, though, if he didn’t order it.

So what if the president issues an “executive order” allowing himself to be declared Dictator For Life?