The White House: Explain ourselves? Why? We can do whatever the fuck we want!

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=Homebrew]
Of course this statment comes from Rove’s attorney and not from Fitzgerald, so who knows if it’s even true. This administration has lied so many times I don’t believe a thing they say now.
[/QUOTE]

Once again, we find someone not a part of the administration to be tossed in with those dogs. Robert Luskin is Rove’s personal attorney; he’s a partner in the firm, Patton Boggs, LLP. Definitely not a member of the Bush administration.

Some a youse guys yourselves seem to have a problem with facts.

22

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

Some a youse guys yourselves seem to have a problem with facts.
[/QUOTE]

Are you honestly going to argue that a lawyer for a member of the administration wouldn’t, ever, make public statements on behalf of the administration?

Problems with the facts indeed.

23

[QUOTE=Biggirl]
Treason? You can’t prove it! Illegal wire tapping?
[/quote]

There’s already a thread on this, but even if Rove were guilty of leaking Plame’s name, that wouldn’t be treason. For someone so bent at getting at the truth, why do you make such an absurd allegation? “Treason” plays well with the rabidly anti-Bush crowd, but it makes for a piss-poor argument in anyone else’s eyes.

OK, I’m with you this one. That’s just slimy. We have every right to demand that the administration make its case and I see no reason that it can’t do so without compromising national security. I think Bush’s argument is something like “it’s necessary to fight terror, therfore it’s legal”. Bull-Fucking-Shit.

Problem is, the politics are on his side. Even the Democrats are afraid to touch this one…

24

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Are you honestly going to argue that a lawyer for a member of the administration wouldn’t, ever, make public statements on behalf of the administration?
[/quote]

Ever? No. But I do think most laywers are more prudent than to make statements on behalf of entities by which they aren’t employed as you suggest is the case here. Contrary to pop-speak, lawyers are overall a pretty ethical bunch and will go to great extremes to make certain what they’re saying, and who they’re saying for, is quite clear. They can get awful wordy when describing the limitations they’re placing on their statements. Probably because lawyers know intimately the price for failing to do so can be extremely high.

Looks like you can join the gang on the bench. You’re attempting to offer your uninformed opinion as fact.

Regarding the cause for my posting that:

  1. Homebrew’s statement about the lying liars in the current presidential administration. This is clearly not factual; Rove’s attorney is not employed by the administration. Therefore, his statement is not factual.
  2. tdn’s clear implication that grand juries are an arm of the executive branch. This also is clearly not factual. The friggin’ fifth amendment to the Constitution deals explicitly with grand juries. Another error of fact. Which to his credit, he re-canted and offered an acceptable opinion.

The only two statements of fact I’ve made in this thread are to show where others have made such errors in their statements. The facts I’ve presented here are not contestable. I’ve no problem at all with the facts in my statements; they have the highest attainable level of truthiness.

25

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
Ever? No. But I do think most laywers are more prudent than to make statements on behalf of entities by which they aren’t employed as you suggest is the case here.
[/quote]

What on earth are you talking about? Rove’s lawyer isn’t Rove’s lawyer? Rove isn’t a member of Bush’s administration? A statement made on his behalf as to his part in the Plame leak isn’t made on behalf of a member of the adminstration?
Come on, do you honestly even believe this?

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

Contrary to pop-speak, lawyers are overall a pretty ethical bunch and will go to great extremes to make certain what they’re saying, and who they’re saying for, is quite clear. They can get awful wordy when describing the limitations they’re placing on their statements. Probably because lawyers know intimately the price for failing to do so can be extremely high.
[/quote]

I don’t know what this has to do with anything. I’ve got three lawyers in my neuclear family, so it’s not like I buy into the “Lawyer Jokes” mentality… but still. You can’t honestly expect people to believe that a lawyer on behalf of the administration’s main PR man wouldn’t have checked his statement with his client?

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

Looks like you can join the gang on the bench. You’re attempting to offer your uninformed opinion as fact.
[/quote]

Yeah… my “uninformed” opinion that Rove’s lawyer is, in fact, Rove’s lawyer.
Boy, you sure showed me up.

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

  1. Homebrew’s statement about the lying liars in the current presidential administration. This is clearly not factual; Rove’s attorney is not employed by the administration. Therefore, his statement is not factual.
    [/quote]

How obfuscatory do you plan on being, exactly?
Rove is a member of the adminstration, indeed, their top PR man. Rove’s lawyer is speaking on his behalf as to his part in the administration’s actions. It takes some pretty disingenuous argumentation to claim that the lawyer doesn’t represent the adminstration. Or if you’re insisting on being anal, represents Rove who is a member of the administration.

I suppose in your world that if Bush was being defended by the lawyer, then you could point to it not being on behalf of the administration too?

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

The only two statements of fact I’ve made in this thread are to show where others have made such errors in their statements. The facts I’ve presented here are not contestable.
[/QUOTE]

What certainly is not contestable is that Rove’s lawyer was speaking on behalf of Rove, who is a member of the administration. Which invalidates your nitpick.

26

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

  1. Homebrew’s statement about the lying liars in the current presidential administration. This is clearly not factual; Rove’s attorney is not employed by the administration. Therefore, his statement is not factual.
    [/QUOTE]

You’re a fucking prick. You are such a pathetic toady that you look for any semantic nit to pick to derail every fucking thread from the central topic of discussion. Instead of dealing with the real issues, on which you will lose, you bring up trivialities and irrelevant bullshit.

And in this case in particular it’s a complete failure of your reading comprehension. I made no claims that Rove’s attorney is a part of this administration. I only make their claim that this administration, of which Rove is a part, has lied so often that any statement made on their behalf, either directly by them or their hired attorney is suspect. It was a throw-away line and just expressing a cynical view of their truthfullness. It is irrelevant to the real topic of the OP whether Rove got away with breaking the law or my own point that the statement makes me wonder if Rove has received a deal in return for his cooperation.

I guess I shouldn’t have added the bon mot because you it gives you the opening for your distraction gambit.

27

[QUOTE=Clothahump]
Sigh.
AFter all, he’s Karl Rove, so he’s got to be guilty of something just because he’s breathing, right?
[/QUOTE]

Aw shit! He’s breathing?! Fuck!

28

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
What on earth are you talking about? Rove’s lawyer isn’t Rove’s lawyer?
[/quote]

That’s exactly right. Luskin is Rove’s personal attorney. He’s not employed by the administration and not entitled to speak for it in any official capacity.

Pardon me for attempting to introduce a few facts to the discussion. You can make your fucking argument entirely on your beliefs and feelings, if you want. But it is found that your beliefs are entirely based on non-facts, that calls into question those beliefs. Why the fuck am I dick for pointing out errors of fact? And supplying a correct answer? There’s a whole fucking forum on the boards for doing just such. The flagship forum, notably.

You said, “Of course this statment comes from Rove’s attorney and not from Fitzgerald, so who knows if it’s even true. This administration has lied so many times I don’t believe a thing they say now.” You made it very clear that you didn’t believe what Luskin said because he’s part of an administration that perpetually lies. Given that Luskin is conclusively not part of that lying administration, your conclusion, which is drawn errors of fact, then becomes suspect. It’s possible, of course, to draw the correct conclusion from incorrect facts, but it doesn’t happen too often. And even when it does, your reasoning processes and ultimate assement still requires revision.

Nice attempt at a recovery. But I don’t believe it. You’ve presented so many errors of fact around here, and so often introduced a biased opinion as objective truth, that I don’t believe a thing you say now.

And thus the circle of stupidity is closed.

29

[QUOTE=Homebrew]
I only make their claim that this administration, of which Rove is a part
[/QUOTE]

Is he still an official part of the administration? I thought he’d officially left.

Not that it’s salient: he was a part of the administration at the time he engaged in the activities in question.

Daniel

30

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Is he still an official part of the administration? I thought he’d officially left.
[/quote]

He’s still got an office in the White House. And a security clearance. And retains his titles. Only his domestic policy portfolio has been taken away. I’d say that makes him a member of the administration.

31

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
He’s still got an office in the White House. And a security clearance. And retains his titles. Only his domestic policy portfolio has been taken away. I’d say that makes him a member of the administration.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]

That’s exactly right. Luskin is Rove’s personal attorney. He’s not employed by the administration and not entitled to speak for it in any official capacity.
[/quote]

Which is it? Is he a lawyer speaking for a member of the administration about actions taken as a member of the administration, or does he have no right to speak for a member of the administation in an official capacity?

32

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Which is it? Is he a lawyer speaking for a member of the administration about actions taken as a member of the administration, or does he have no right to speak for a member of the administation in an official capacity?
[/QUOTE]

It’s neither. It has been made quite clear that several posters are basing their low opinion of the truthfullness of Luskin’s statement on (incorrect) fact that Luskin is a an official part of the Bush administration which has a rather obvious problem with truth. He ain’t. He’s Rove’s personal attorney.

If I hire an attorney defend me personally for something I’ve done incorrectly here at work (never mind for the moment that I’m not a professional engineer and hold no liability for such things), and get sued over, isn’t it patently obvious that my attorney would not be empowered to speak on behalf of my company?

33

[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Which is it? Is he a lawyer speaking for a member of the administration about actions taken as a member of the administration, or does he have no right to speak for a member of the administation in an official capacity?
[/QUOTE]

The first of your quotes is a reference to Rove, not Luskin.

34

[QUOTE=UncleBeer]
It has been made quite clear that several posters are basing their low opinion of the truthfullness of Luskin’s statement on (incorrect) fact that Luskin is a an official part of the Bush administration which has a rather obvious problem with truth.
[/QUOTE]

You’re a liar. The cynical attitude expressed towards Luskin’s statement is based on the fact that he’s making it on behalf of a member of the administration who has a poor history of truthfulness. And the distractions continues. In reality I believe Luskin’s statment is accurate; I was only expressing a bon mot about my cynicism and it detracts nothing from the salient point of whether Rove got away with breaking law or speculation that he is cooperating with an on-going investigation dealing with a more senior member of the administration. Now deal with the issues or shut the fuck up.

35

The reason I put both of these stories in my OP was because of an on-going pattern I see with the current administration. This pattern of snivelly, sneaky underhandedness that gets a nice covering of ‘because I can’ over it. And both these things happened today.

The truth is that a covert agent was outed without regard to the reprecussions of the action and American citizens are being spied on. I should be angrier than I am but, hey, why even bother? According to UncleBeer it’s me. I’m the one who just doesn’t understand the legal intricacies. Don’t worry. Be happy.

36

Biggirl, I’m already hearing rumors of a civil suit by Plame. That might prove interesting.

Anyone else think there’s a possibility or is he free and clear with no strings attached?

37

[QUOTE=Homebrew]
The cynical attitude expressed towards Luskin’s statement is based on the fact that he’s making it on behalf of a member of the administration who has a poor history of truthfulness.
[/quote]

Then why’d you say something different? Your qualifying remark specified the Bush administration as a whole. Not just one particular member of it.

Here’s that statement once again: “This administration has lied so many times I don’t believe a thing they say now.”

If you what you claim now was what you really meant, then your use of “they,” is extremely misleading. The manner in which you used “they,” can only mean the administration in whole. If you meant to refer to Luskin as the mouthpiece of Rove only, then who the heck could “they” possibly be?

You mean corrections of factual errors. And then further attempts to explain why those statements are errors. I ain’t trying to distract anyone from the real topic. I only attempted to provide accurate information where I found it to be lacking.

Already done. See my post #13 in this very thread.

Not at all. I entirely agree with your anger over both these two particular incidents and with the ongoing pattern of deceit we see coming out of the Whitehouse. It’s disgusting. I only entered this thread to attempt to correct a couple small errors of fact. I’ve said nothing even remotely dismissive of your (or anyone else’s) anger. I, in fact, believe it is fully justified.

38

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Biggirl, I’m already hearing rumors of a civil suit by Plame. That might prove interesting.

Anyone else think there’s a possibility or is he free and clear with no strings attached?
[/QUOTE]

The folks at FireDogLake seem to think he’s on the hook for testimony in the Libby case, if not more, and I agree with their reasoning.

Fitzgerald has not said anything regarding this (don’t know if he should- he’s the prosecutor, keping things confidential is part of his job) but Luskin certainly does have an interest in presenting any occurence as benefitting his client. The wording of his statemement, though, -“in this instance” particularly, seems to indicate that the letter does not put Rove absolutely ‘Free and clear’.

Based on the tactics Fitzgerald has shown to date, my suspicion is that he is looking for relatively big fish here, that he can prosecute with a good probability of conviction. So he is looking to flip a couple of people, and maybe Karl is one of those.

Is Karl off the hook? I hope not, I find his approach to politics distasteful, and think he, as much as anyone, is responsible for the deterioration of political discourse. But as has been pointed out, that doesn’t mean he won’t skate.

But I don’t think he should be lacing up those skates just yet.