Rove treason coverup investigation widens to include Gonzalez

Keep dreaming, bubelah. I understand how hard it must be.

I agree that it is indeed treason. It is treason to give enemy forces the location and makep of defensive forces, because doing so endangers US government agents, namely the soldiers. Similarly, to blow the cover of a secret agent endangers that agent’s life plus that of his/her family.

Although she was a covert agent (whose exposure can definitely lead to the exposing of sources’ names, by association) Plame wasn’t a source.

God, I’m starting to parse sentences like Rove!

You will be delighted to observe our absolute consistency as this goes along. (BTW: Can you show me where someone was convicted of perjury? I hadn’t heard about that…) We will continue to say the same things we said about Clinton: * Context Matters. The details matter. What the lie was about matters. What the results of the lies are matters. * Lying about sex is completely unimportant. Laughably. We said exactly this then, and we say exactly this now.

Will you and your ilk be as consistent in your views? Quite obviously not. For you and your ilk, truth, honor, integrity…even reality itself is molded to suit what you need in the moment.

I understand, if revile, the motives of the people who are actually in power. What is it * you *, and other regular Joes like you are after that is worth that kind of sacrifice, I cannot begin to imagine.

It looks like Rove violated the law against revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, sure, although it’s hard to be sure. He certainly blew her cover, but it isn’t clear that he violated the law when doing so.

You seem sure that violating that law would be treason. But it isn’t treason, no matter how much you wish it was. Again, blowing the cover of a CIA agent isn’t treason, ladyfoxfyre posted the definition of treason. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Did Rove levy war against the US? No. Did he adhere to the Enemies of the US, giving them Aid and Comfort? No. Therefore, he didn’t commit treason. Open and shut case.

You could argue that what he did was treason by the everyday definition of treason, but it certainly wasn’t legally treasonous. Do you really want to use Ann Coulter’s definition of treason? Is that the precedent you want to set? Or would you rather argue that Ann Coulter is an idiot, and that Rove violated the law for partisan purposes but it wasn’t treason?

In other words, the only way Karl Rove is guilty of treason is if Ann Coulter is right. Sure it might be satisfying to attempt to judge Karl Rove by the same standards we imagine he might judge others, however that doesn’t make either case right.

Not to imply anything, but did you have a reliable cite for this? I ask because I am reminded of the “atheists aren’t citizens” quote also attributed to Bush Sr., but which to my knowledge has not been independently confirmed.

Regards,
Shodan

Saying nothing will happen to the leakers is truly missing the point, the fact remains that what the left and the Democrats said about the Bush administration was the truth and the failings of it are just popping out in the open (WMD, torture, misguided war against terror actions, rotten picks for cabinet positions (good bye Mr. Bolton!)), if it becomes reality that very little will happen to the leakers then it becomes a common shame for the entire Republican party, IOW: that is the recipe for making an administration lame 3 years ahead of time. If you don’t think so, look at what happened to the Bolton nomination.

And indeed like **Stoid ** mentions, this scandal exists in the context of the manipulation of the intelligence to gets us to Iraq, this scandal is only a piece of the puzzle. Recently the New Yorker found evidence that torture was one of the reasons FALSE connections between Saddam to Al-qeada were found, together with the false yellow cake report, cuddling to criminals for intelligence like Chalabi, the OSP, and the Downing street minutes, if not treason, what we have here is gross incompetence, choose your poison.

The fact remains that if this had been the Clinton administration 4 or more independent investigations and hearings would have happened already. The charge of hypocrisy launched against the Republican Party is a valid one.

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

The CIA to the rescue again:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html

You don’t think blowing an agent’s cover is giving aid and comfort? I beg to differ.

Did someone die and make her queen? She’s about as un-credible as one can get. Who cares what loony Ann says?

That would make a nice change.

Unless by “absolute consistency” you mean “It doesn’t count for a Democrat”, then, yes, I expect you will continue to be consistent.

I see. So, if it cannot be shown that anyone actually died, then the whole matter becomes completely trivial and you will drop it at once. Right, oh model of consistency?

Nope. You think only one side gets to play that game? 'Fraid not. We’ve seen Evil Captor being fairly upfront that he would like to change the subject everytime he gets caught in a contradiction. You wanna let him get away with it? Feel free.

We had eight years of the Most Ethical White House in History[sup]TM[/sup] shoveling out the shit, and the Usual Suspects lapping it up like rosewater. Now all of a sudden I’m supposed to pretend they have any right to the moral high ground? Not Gonna Happen.

Sorry.

Regards,
Shodan

I don’t think you’re getting the full lameness of Lemur’s argument.

Here it is in a nutshell:

Ann Coulter says giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. Therefore, any citizen who has ever challenged the rationale for war or the justness of a war after the fact is committing treason.

We now say that outing a CIA agent is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Therefore, challenging the rationale for war equals outing a CIA agent.

There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world …

An attempted hijack and a gratuitous swipe at me, all in one go. WTG Shodan!

Thanks.

Regards,
Shodan

Treason or not, can we at least agree that revealing top secret information (such as, oh, the identity of a covert agent) is the kind of crime that should be rewarded by having the criminal sent to a federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison?

Hmm, not exactly. OK, scroll up a bit. Treason isn’t “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” If that were the definition of treason, then anything that harms the war or helps the enemy would be treason. I don’t think you’ve actually read the quote from the Constitution, so I’m gonna repeat it for the third time:

If “giving the enemy aid and comfort” were the standard, then we could lock up just about anyone. Maybe Al Qaida was aided and comforted by outing Valerie Plame, although as far as I know no one has alleged any actual harm to the United States or help to Al Qaida. But even if outing Valerie Plame’s secret identity got people killed and ruined hundreds of sources and jeopardized the war, it still wouldn’t be treason. Why? Read the constitution. Unless he “adhered to the Enemies” of the US, he didn’t commit treason. He didn’t give the information to an enemy of the US, he gave it to American journalists.

Publishing or leaking secret information isn’t treason. It may violate other laws, it may be grounds to revoke someone’s security clearance, it may be grounds to kick someone out of government service forever, it may be grounds for disgrace and ignomy, it may mark the leaker as a petty vindictive asshole who would compromise the safety of the US for partisan advantage (or it might mark the leaker as a brave steadfast whistleblower) (bonus points of you can identify which category I believe Karl Rove should be place in). But it isn’t and shouldn’t be treason.

The point of the Ann Coulter reference was to point out that just because some idiots think treason is any old thing that hurts the US and helps the “enemy” that doesn’t make it so. Decide what YOU think treason should be, and argue for that. I know, it is sport to see the engineer hoist on his own petard. But see, that’s Karl Rove thinking. Honestly, you don’t care much about the Plame affair, you’re really pissed at Rove and Bush for 99 other things, it’s just that in the current scandal it appears that Rove actually broke this obscure law.

Why do I say the law is obscure? How many other people have been indicted and convicted under the law since it was enacted? And I don’t agree that rape should be the punishment, even if someone did commit treason, even if revealing that information was a crime. Revealing secret information isn’t even a crime in many cases, just a career-ender.

For real style treason, Rove’d have to be involved in the yellowcake forgery, Iran, AIPAC, Ghorbanifar affair. Has the President, or McClellan assured us that he wasn’t yet? :wink:

BTW, just in the faint chance that you are putting the leakers in the category of whistleblowers: they can only be if they did blow on Jeff Gannon’s whistle. :slight_smile:

Thought this might be helpful as generally Factcheck.org is pretty reliable:

While I was there I figured I’d post Factchecks take on this, just because I’m sick of seeing this yellowcake thing. From Factcheck:

-XT

Crap, I meant to post the actual timeline (or some of it anway so as not to violate the rules of the board) but somehow it got chopped off: