Of course. Given the way these guys toss the word “traitor” around, it would only b fitting that they be convicted of exactly that, and get the traditional punishment.
From the other Karl Rove thread in GD: a link to this article, with this quote (emphasis mine):
*Also, Rove’s pride in his knowledge of politics is so great that he has an evidently irresistible impulse to dispute, correct, or improve upon virtually anything anybody says on the subject, in a tone that’s half rehearsed lecture, half teasing one-upmanship. Mention that West Texas is conservative, and Rove will come right back and say no, there are actually four subregions in West Texas, each with its own distinct history and ideology, **and then he’ll give detailed, decades-old election results in each one from memory. ** *
And this is a guy who can’t recall who told him who was a CIA agent? :dubious:
According to today’s Washington Post, Rove’s attorney once had to return more than $500,000 in legal fees paid to him. The client was a drug cartel member from South America who was convicted and the Justice Department determined that money used to pay the fee was “drug money.” Half of it was paid in gold bars.
“Say, buddy, do you have change for a gold brick? I’d like to buy a newspaper.”
Get hired to defend a drug dealer, and your fee will very likely be drug money. That’s true whether your client is a drug lord or a street hood who can afford to hire someone rather than depend on a PD.
My own attorney is a good buddy of mine, an old neighbor. He helped me with a speeding ticket and is now helping me revise my will. He’s a devout Mormon, very active in our community, has a nice family. I trust him implicitly.
He also, in his criminal practice, defends some not very nice people. This is his job, and their right.
Now, nobody in his right mind would accuse me of nefarious activity, just because my attorney defends wife beaters and car thieves, would they?
Wonder if Bolton is the guy who leaked Val to Karl? That’d explain why the White House has been stonewalling on Congressional requests for his papers, anyay – incriminating evidence up the wazoo…
Good lord. The reports this morning came from the New York Times (login required) and the Washington Post. The Times apparently came first, but the Post further identified their source as “a lawyer involved in the case”.
Hmm, two major newspapers break a story based on anonymous sources (which could be the same person), and the story, if true, exonerates Karl Rove.
I call BULLSHIT. “The source of today’s news” could easily be Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer. He probably shopped it around/fed it to two stupid news organizations who just don’t care if they’re being used, an attitude which got Judith Miller tossed in jail.