I’m sure we’ll get exactly that, but the problem for the Pubbies is, it isn’t gonna fly with anybody but partisans when it’s perfectly obvious that Rove DID out Plame. See, there’s the rub … the fundamental FACTS are not really in dispute. If Pubbies call Dems “hysterical ninnies” for complaining about the outing of a CIA agent, it’s the Pubs who’ll look bad, not the Dems. To most folks, outing a CIA agent is betrayal/traitorous/treason. The one goes with the other. As it should.
Give us Democrats some time, this is all new to us.
You still don’t get it. The Pubs won’t call the Dems “hysterical ninnies” for complaining about the outing of a CIA agent. They call them ninnies for claiming it’s treason.
Look at this thread. You put “treason” in the tittle and what is the bulk of the debate* about? Not Rove and whether he outed an agent, but whether or not it’s treason.
*please note that I said “bulk of the debate” and don’t come back and point to the few posts that might have addressed whether Rove actually outed an agent or not.
giggling.
So that is what passes for “information” at Fox news these days?
Hmmmm. She bought tickets toi the show. Last I heard, government employees can buy tickets to shows. She made a contribution? Last I heard, we are allowed to do that too. We just can’t speak for the government, represent the govenment or use any job title/description to stump for candidates. It’s all in the Hatch Act. Considering what the White House did to her, I’m shocked shocked it wasn’t a bigger contribution. I also noted that this communistic activity happened what 2 years or more after the CIA outing incident.
The above link is a pretty good nonreport of absolutely nothing. Thanks, it made my day 
You are absolutely right. Treason in court does not mean what we mean in “general street language” and would never stick. The proofs required are too strict (for good reason). The espionage acts, and any laws against the handling of classified info are probably what should be used.
It’s certainly something to think about, coupled with John Mace’s concerns. No sense filing charges that will not apply legally, only to see the case tossed out or spectacularly lost. Better to go with charges that will apply.
The problem is politician types leak information all the time. Afaik, they are NEVER charged with treason, even if what they do is incredibly stupid and ends up harming our country (think of the Senators or Congressmen, can’t remember which, who leaked the information that we were tracking Bin Laden’s cell phone usage a few years ago and how harmful that is). Since most American’s are well aware that the politician types leak info like a shit through a goose, its a hard sell for any but the already converted to try and pin treason on Rove. A better tactic is to go after him for what he did, and see about getting him for violating the security agreement he must have had to sign to get even a secret clearance instead of mentally masturbating about seeing him tried for treason.
But by all means carry on. I’m sure Rove is loving the muddying of the waters by coaching the debate in terms of ‘treason’ instead of simply focusing on whether or not a crime was committed.
-XT
Or instead of simply whether or not it was conduct becoming an Administration official.
Certainly. But I do think a crime was committed here if it can be proved (seems it can but not sure if any of that is admissable in a court of law…not being a lawyer and all). I seem to recall signing all kinds of forms when I got my Top Secret clearence foretelling dire things that would happen to me if I violated the agreement and revealed classified information. I’m sure Rove had to sign similar things not to disclose classified information, so if it can be proved he did I’d say nail him to the wall. I just take acception to the whole treason thing.
-XT
I personally doubt he could be found guilty under the epsionage acts, but I would agree that a legitimate case could be made at least to begin a prosecution. There’s some grounding in reality there, as opposed to “treason” which is demonstrably not applicable.
[nitpick]
You likely mean exception.
acception means “a receiving” -(and yes, I just learned that now).
[/nitpick]
I think you, PatriotX, John, and even Shodan have got about the right take on pushing “treason” now. Things will come out as they come out; when Fitzgerald talks. While a low murmer of “is it treason?” can be useful, going full bore now is just asking for trouble down the road; especially if obstruction of justice or some other real charge comes to the fore.
Obstruction of justice or something similar, like perjury, will get it done. But of course there has to be something larger at stake for either of these two to come into play. The statute on uncovering CIA agents is a good crowbar to use for opening the door to either one. Treason is obviously a non-starter legally.
The point is still and always to uncover as much of the deliberate lying and the unbelievable stupidity and cupidity that went into killing our soldiers for nothing in Iraq as possible. For me, getting Rove is a sideshow; the real action is in laying bare, in unambiguous terms, the truly outstanding venality, amorality and incompetence that define this Administration.
I haven’t seen anyone comment on this, although I may have missed it, but the larger irony here is that Bush fils is being hoist on the petard of Bush pere. Bush The First insisted on passing the statute making it illegal to uncover CIA agents to stop Philip Agee, a former agent, and a publication he was either working for or had started. That quote cited above about people informing on sources being traitors was specifically aimed at Philip Agee. I’m a little weirded out at the idea that no such law existed prior, since I have a hard time imagining a more treasonous act (apologies to the legal and Constitutional definition, OK?), short of pulling a Fox News/Geraldo Rivera and handing over positions and battle plans in the middle of a battle. (wonderful how forgiving the Fox audience has been for that, isn’t it? Hmm. It never ceases to amaze me what you can get away with by wrapping yourself in the flag, no matter how scandalous what you’ve done is.) Now, we have the spectacle of Bush the Second and his apologists squirming to get out from under the illegality of what they’ve done under this selfsame statute. It doesn’t get any better than this.
What goes around does indeed come around.
Is this that there Gaudere’s Law thing I’ve heard tell of? 
Ecen if it turned out that no law, as it is written, can be used to convict (worst case), there are still ways of justifying “You’re Fired” for simply violating security procedures - possibly with a proviso that he never work in government again. A conviction would send a stronger and message, that the govenment is serious about these things, but a firing and blacklisting (debarred) would at least be something.
Technically speaking, no. To fall fully under Gaudere’s Law, the misspelling/misusage would have to occur simultaneously with the correction.
This instance is merely funny as hell. :g:
IIRC, XT’s not a native speaker.
You’re talking as if we were the ones who’ll decide what charges to file. That’s not us, that’s Fitzgerald. What we as citizens can and will do is debate the merits from the sidelines.
I really don’t think you guys are getting what the conservatives would like to do in the Rove case. If they can get it down to "Did Rove violate some obscure law relating to espionage then they can FRAME that as just being a matter of minor bureaucratic rule-breaking – hardly a thing to get excited or concerned about.
What we have to do is keep the heat on by asking: Did Karl Rove commit TREASON? To what extent did his behavior BETRAY the United States? Is he a TRAITOR to his country? These are EXACTLY the kinds of words that Rove, Gingrich and assorted other Republican spinmeisters have used on Dems in the past – I think two of them are on the list of words Repubicans should use in describing Democrats that Gingrich circulated back in the early 90s.
Dems and liberals who say, “I dunno, we oughtta back off from treason if it can’t be proved in a court of law eventually” are being chumps. I don’t know if he’ll get nailed for treason or not – I doubt it – but if we can FRAME the debate in terms of treason, betrayal, etc., that keeps the Pubbies on the defensive, endlessly forced to explain that all he did was out a covert CIA agent – which most people think of as treason, betrayal, traitorous, etc.
I thought you guys were smarter than that.
Nope. As a proud member of the reality based community I don’t think that shouting treason from the rooftops is the way to go, unless the facts warrant it.
Help me out here.
Why would you choose to frame the debate in terms that’ll cause you to lose the debate?
Why wouldn’t you choose to frame the debate in terms you can win with?
Like simply whether or not it was conduct unbecoming an Administration official.
Explain why losing the debate is the “smarter” alternative.
I agree. If it’s there and it can be proven then it should be done.
In the mean time I think that the conduct unbecoming charge is amply supported by the current info available. Either Rove or McClellan were playing funny with the truth with their categorical denials of Rove’s involvement.
In most of the world the bar for firing someone is a whole heck of a lot lower than committing a crime.