I heard on Air America today that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez is the latest suspect to be implicated in the investigation of the Rove treason case. Seems that Gonzalez, in his role as White House counsel, was notified of the investigation into the Plame case back in 2003. His job as counsel was to formally notify his clients, the White House, that they were under investigation, which also put them on legal notice to hang onto all documents relating to the Plame case so they could be studies.
According to various sources, Gonzalez delayed giving the White House formal notice for 12 hours. But he DID immediately call White House chief of staff Andrew Card and tell him about the investigation. Giving Card and his buddies a 12-hour window to shred and otherwise destroy and remove incriminating documents before they would have been guilty of obstruction of justice by doing so.
Now Gonzalez may be on the hook for obstruction of justice. Now, I don’t know how you go about prosecuting the US Attorney General for a crime, but I’m looking forward to watching.
It would seem that a whole gaggle of folks in this administration felt that they were above the law. I guess this comes down to how Fitz defines obstruction of justice. I suspect that alot of what he is investigating doesn’t surround the original leak, but the cover up that followed.
And herein lies the problem. Any of you folks who immediately dismiss anything you hear on “right wing” media should make sure you apply the same standards elsewhere.
Feel free to haunt me with this post in the future if possible, but “Rovegate” Will turn out to be nothing more than liberal porn.
Could you please stop with the “treason” thing? Yeah, I understand why you’re trying to stick Rove with “treason”. Except even if they can prove he did everything he’s accused of, it isn’t treason.
Treason sets the bar too high. The higher you set the bar the easier it is for Rove to limbo under that bar. Keep talking about treason, and when Rove is nailed then all they have to do is say, “See, he didn’t commit treason, just a small technical violation of the rules. Since he’s been cleared of treason he is certainly fit to retain his job.”
Rove didn’t commit treason, blowing the cover of a CIA operative isn’t treason. You know it, I know it, the American people know it. Read the constitution for a definition of treason. I know, I know, you wanna paint Rove in as bad a light as possible. But is that really wise? Reminds me of the old saying about the Jesuits…if accused of torturing to death seven men and a dog the Jesuits would invariably produce the dog, alive and happy.
You’re right. If Rove is found guilty of perjury, for example, we can excuse him. We can say that he’s doing a good job otherwise and that the stink is being raised for no good reason by people who don’t like him anyway.
The dislcosure of that clasified info may be a lot of things, but I don’t think it rises to the level of treason. Coulter-style treason maybe, but real treason, no.
That’s bullshit, and you know it. The “giving them aid and comfort” bit modifies “adhering to their Enemies”, it doesn’t stand by itself. Otherwise under that standard anything the government doesn’t like could be construed as treason…attend an anti-war rally? That aids the terrorists, you’ve committed treason. Criticize the president? Treason. Fail to produce your quota of the People’s shoes? Treason.
It isn’t treason to reveal secret information to the public, it that was the standard then thousands of Washington insiders and journalists would be in jail right now.
Don’t you get it? If you try to nail Rove for “treason” you’re going to fail, and Rove will keep his job. Did Rove levy war against the United States? No. Did Rove adhere to our Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort? No. He didn’t commit treason, and pretending to believe that he did is supremely counterproductive since under your standard ROVE IS GOING TO GET AWAY WITH HIS SLIMY ACTIONS. Now do you understand?
I don’t know if Captor left the following from the Post article out of the OP on purpose or not.
“I specifically had our lawyers go back to the Department of Justice lawyers and ask them, ‘Do you want us to notify the staff now, immediately, or would it be okay to notify the staff early in the morning?’ And we were advised, go ahead and notify the staff early in the morning, that would be okay.” He said most of the staff had left by the time the Justice Department called and that “no one knew about the investigation.”
But he acknowledged telling one person: “the chief of staff. And immediately the next morning, I told the president. And shortly thereafter, there was notification sent out to all the members of the White House staff,” Gonzales said."
Listen guys. If the law was broken here, I want to see the perps dealt with accordingly. But regardless of what happens, it’ll be too much for some folks and not enough for others.
Listen, I wasn’t disagreeing with what you said earlier. I understand your point about setting the sights too high and everything, as you have so clearly pointed out yet again. All I was intending to show was that there was basis for trying to nail him for treason, although as far as I know nobody has been charged with anything yet, treason has just kind of been floating out there as a possibility.
Fair enough. Therefore, you would have no objection to the prosecutor bringing W in to testify in this case, because of the involvement of his administration and close adviser? And, then, while he’s there, to widen the investigation and questions to anything that seems pertinent? MonicaGate began over Whitewater, remember? I’d like to see W testify under oath about WMDs and the Downing Street memo.
Well, to be honest, Evil One, lately every time someone says something bad about the Bush Admin., and the folks on the right dismiss it out of hand, it turns out to have been true.
Lying about Niger yellowcake and WMDs, Saddam and 911 lies, Swift Boat Liars, the Plame affair … it’s a very long list. Perhaps you should think long and hard before you dismiss this out of hand. Might come back and bite you, as so many, many things have for defenders of the Bush admin.
“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.” - I think President Bush will have a hard time denouncing this quote. It was said by his father when he was President.
Can we please stop with the “hypocracy” card? How about instead of gleefully pretending to use the “standards” of the other political party to point out the hypocracy of those evil scumbags, instead how about you apply your OWN standards to whatever scandal or misadventure is currently in the news?
It is fair to bring up the standards that specific posters used in past debates, and ask them why they are using different standards in a current debate. It isn’t fair to bring up standards that random other people who just happen to share their political affiliation and try to use that to point out how hypocritical they are.
If Michael Moore or Sean Hannity used one standard to judge the Bush administration, another to judge the Clinton administration, go ahead and criticize them, for all the good it will do. But you can’t use the statements of Michael Moore or Sean Hannity to accuse other people of hypocracy, you have to use a poster’s own statements to accuse them of hypocracy.
And the whole “hypocracy” charge is so stupid anyway, since everyone knows the problem isn’t hypocracy, but rather knee-jerk partisanship.
No, I will not lay off the Rove treason thing. Here’s why.
Rove deliberately blew the cover of a CIA secret op. He did it knowingly. His behavior is so close to actual, literal treason that it may be possible to get him on charges someday. The standard is, you have to have the security clearance – Rove did – you have to knowingly reveal the info – Rove did. The defenses I have seen of Rove have all been a matter of, “The prosecution hasn’t been able to cross all the “T’s” and dot all the “i’s” with sufficient thoroughness to warrant a conviction on charges of treason, even if what he did was almost, pretty much, for all practical purposes THE SAME AS treason.”
I would really love to force the Republicans to endlessly defend Rove on those grounds. Because nobody other than Republican partisans buy them. Most especially, independent voters and such will not buy them.
It’s kinda like the Clinton thing. The Pubbies kept saying, “Clinton committed perjury – an awful thing!” and the Dems would say, “What was the perjury about?” “It doesn’t matter, not important, no big deal, the important part is … perjury!” “It was about a blowjob, wasn’t it?” we Dems would ask. “A blowjob, right? Not anything to do with national security or governmental affairs, a blowjob … right?”
And the Pubbies would harp back on the “perjury” because it was all they had. A blowjob is not really that big of a deal for anyone who’s not a member of the Clinton family, and most people realized that, which is why the move to impeach Clinton had so little public support. Everyone knew what was going down, so to speak.
In the case of the Rove treason, it’s almost a mirror image – the Pubbies would LIKE us to focus on the perjury, because that’s a technical thing. The substance is the treason committed by Rove and his buddies, the perjury is just a cover-up.
Even the TV idjits know treason is a Bad Thing, and I would love to see Rove’s name linked with the word “treason” as much as is humanly possible in the next few years. Most folks aren’t going to buy a “didn’t cross all the T’s, didn’t dot all the i’s” defense when the charge is treason. Nope, they’ll convict Rove in the court of public opinion, and hang him there as he deserves.
I would love to see Rove become the albatross that brings down the Bush admin. and the Repubilcans in general in the next couple of elections. It would be nice to see Rove’s sorry ass in jail, but it’s more important to get the Pubbies out of power.