logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-06 04:58:49 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Read the first edition of the Ideohazard

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2005

  RE: virus: The game's afoot
previous next
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: RE: virus: The game's afoot  (Read 9584 times)
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« on: 2005-07-02 18:43:55 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Here we go.
Best Regards.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1
000972839
<snip>
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame
Case

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET updated 1:00 PM Saturday

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court,
presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his
source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the
name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night,
on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence
O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that
name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington
Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time
magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source.
I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that
would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites
have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much
impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be
pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet
another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It
should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's
Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow." </snip>




---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #1 on: 2005-07-03 14:22:57 »
Reply with quote

he doesnt work for the CIA, so he isnt the leak. *someone* from the Big C must have leaked it to him. who is that? that is the question. why the Rove front?

something smells fishy.

btw, I think that Times turning over the material is a bloody shame.
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #2 on: 2005-07-07 06:27:34 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6981.shtml

Jul 6, 2005, 05:55
White House Scrambles to Stop Criminal Indictment of Rove
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
<snip>
The Bush Administration is scrambling behind the scenes to stop a
criminal indictment against Presidential advisor Karl Rove for
disclosing classified information to reporters in an attempt to
discredit a White House critic. </snip>

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index1.html

All eyes on Turd Blossom
<snip>
O'Donnell is standing by his statement, which set off a flurry of "Is it
Rove?" stories and blog posts over the weekend. On Arianna Huffington's
Huffington Post, O'Donnell has continued to blog about "breaking" the
story that Rove was Cooper's source, and likely Novak's as well. After
naming Rove on the PBS program "Friday," O'Donnell proceeded to say,
"When [Bush] finds out it's Karl Rove, the question becomes, What does
the president do then?"

"It was a deliberate act that I was planning for months," O'Donnell told
Salon. "What I've been doing with the HuffingtonPost is simply staying
abreast of the story while it was evolving, and it turns out that a blog
is an absolutely perfect way to do that," he said. When asked about his
sourcing, O'Donnell replied: "I will not characterize my sourcing in
anyway." Then he added, "After my public revelation of it, I obtained
yet another highly authoritative source on this matter, on the same
thing. That Rove is the person Matt Cooper is protecting -- had been
protecting up until today." </snip>


http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=bfaf5e4a-
e473-4f52-933e-abf55e7fa112

Court jails N.Y. Times reporter
Refuses to name source: No right to promise confidentiality, prosecutor
says
 
Sheldon Alberts
CanWest News Service
Thursday, July 07, 2005
<snip> 
WASHINGTON - In a court ruling that has cast a chill over the White
House press corps, a U.S. judge ordered a New York Times reporter jailed
yesterday for refusing to reveal the Bush administration source who
leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent. </snip>






---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #3 on: 2005-07-12 10:02:36 »
Reply with quote

Two links

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/12/BL2005071200330.html

Frog-Marching Time for Rove?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 12, 2005; 7:57 AM

The liberal blogosphere is aflame with animosity toward Karl Rove, now that he's been sucked deeper into the Plame probe.

Some folks out there think he should just be thrown in the jail cell next to Judy Miller's, no indictment or trial necessary.
[..]
Chicago Tribune : "Sensing vulnerability on the part of a formidable political adversary, Democrats on Monday urged hearings into the conduct of presidential adviser Karl Rove and demanded his security clearance be revoked as the White House grew close-mouthed about allegations that Rove played a role in revealing a CIA employee's identity."

WP columnist Dana Milbank captures the tone:
   

"'This is ridiculous!'

"'You're in a bad spot here, Scott.'

"'Have you consulted a personal attorney?'

"The 32-minute pummeling was perhaps the worst McClellan received since he got the job two years ago. His eyes were red and tired. He wiggled his foot nervously behind the lectern and robotically refused to answer no fewer than 35 questions about Rove and the outing of the CIA's Valerie Plame. Twenty-two times McClellan repeated that an 'ongoing' investigation prevented him from explaining the gap between his past statements and the facts."

The Wall Street Journal notes: "In an email message to supporters, Mr. Bush's defeated 2004 election rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, wrote: 'It's perfectly clear that Rove -- the person at the center of the slash-and-burn, smear-and-divide tactics that have come to characterize the Bush administration -- has to go.'"



more anti-rove posts in the first link

This > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002374617_leak12.html

addresses the q/a session with scott mc.clellan

both interesting reads.
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #4 on: 2005-07-12 15:04:00 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Now that's what I call disassembly!
Best Regards.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_con
tent_id=1000977098

Press Batters McClellan on Rove/Plame Link 

By E&P Staff

Published: July 11, 2005 3:30 PM ET

NEW YORK At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter
asked White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top
presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time
magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case. Then on Sunday,
Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that showed that Rove
indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA employment, although he
apparently did not mention that she worked under cover.

This development apparently freed the journalists to hit McClellan hard
at this afternoon's briefing. In September and October 2003, McClellan
had rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in
the Plame leak. Today, Rove didn't quite get off "Scott free."

Here is a full transcript of the Rove-related queries today.

***

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a
leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being
asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing
criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is
something that continues at this point.

And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the
White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the
investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation,
we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is
ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn't talking about any investigation. But in June of
2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in
this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that
still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this
ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues
to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal
investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference
to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on
it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on
September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly
commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody
from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on
June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this
investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would
fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you
commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past,
but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement
of, 'We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to
get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more
than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most
helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing
investigation. And that's something that the people overseeing the
investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.

And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point,
I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation
is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was
OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it's
not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference
to Terry's question at the beginning. There came a point, when the
investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation
asked that it would be - or said that it would be their preference that
we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that's the way to be most helpful to help them advance the
investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing
investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation.
And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're
going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were
asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and
you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me
they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the
investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get
into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time
as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand
before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell
people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got
a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium
or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I
will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate
time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at
that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find
out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the
American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not?
Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed
talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the
time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the
investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way --
you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove,
Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they
were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal
investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this
information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the
criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you
are well aware of that.....

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this.
Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president
of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was
said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it.
But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from
that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and
since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an
ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to
them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin
down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he
not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but
you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn
that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the
involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to
Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent
with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved
will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to
talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has
spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation,
that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of
Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?


MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a
preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation
while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House.
And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are
following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an
ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has
confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing
investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm
simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's
portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....

***

Q: There's a difference between commenting publicly on an action and
taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail
saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a
reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the
president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I
presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that
if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the
president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether
there's an investigation or not.

So are you saying that he's not going to do anything about this until
the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to
get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.
And we're just not going to have more to say on it until that
investigation is complete.

***
Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe
it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White
House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as
part of the investigation, so the American public could see what
transpired inside the White House at the time?

MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special
prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special
prosecutor.

Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal
to release as much information and make it as open.

MCCLELLAN: It's the same type of question. You're asking me to comment
on an ongoing investigation and I'm not going to do that.

Q: I'd like you to talk about the communications strategies just a
little bit there.

MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to
cooperate fully with the investigation, and that's what he expects
people in the White House to do.

Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully
with.

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've already responded.

Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House
not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald?
Did he make a request of you specifically?

MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I
think probably more than one individual who's involved in overseeing the
investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting
on the investigation while it's ongoing.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Bill Mackinnon
Neophyte
**

Posts: 43
Reputation: 0.00



I love YaBB SE!

View Profile
Re: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #5 on: 2005-07-12 17:38:09 »
Reply with quote

[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #6 on: 2005-07-20 07:52:07 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] 'Legally, we are putting ourselves hopelessly in the wrong,
but I think that it is worth it.' (Sherlock Holmes in 'The Yellow
Face'.)

Or is it?

Best Regards.

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publish/article_22864.shtml

Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement

By: Rep. Waxman
Published: July 15, 2005 at 11:30

A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the
nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from
confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters.
Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order,
even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of
a security clearance or dismissal.

Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy
Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the
identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak
on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in
a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious
relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the
Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a
criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA
official.

Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr.
Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for:
(1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified
Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House
violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the
nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be
subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for
"negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.

KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security
clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was
last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it
has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order
applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into
possession of classified information, including the White House. It
requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain
training on how to protect classified information, and sign a
"Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a
SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The
nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove
states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is
not authorized to receive it.2

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is
a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not
authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from
someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction
under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.

One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is
that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm
classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation
is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance
recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:
Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the
signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that
the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not,
confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.3

THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION

Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's
identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference
in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The
executive order states: "Classified information shall not be
declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of
identical or similar information."4

Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have
learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to
determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating
it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before
disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312
must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in
fact, been declassified."5

"NEGLIGENT" DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be
at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's
covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive
order require sanctions against security clearance holders who
"knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information.6
The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without
pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of
access to classified information, or other sanctions."7

THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation
to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any
ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically
provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate
and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether
individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to
classified information.

The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are
not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and
employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to
appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ...
disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."9

There is no evidence that the White House complied with these
requirements.

ENDNOTES

1 Executive Order No. 12958, Classified National Security Information
(as amended), sec. 4.1(a) (Mar. 28, 2003) (online at
www.archives.gov/isoo/policy_documents/executive_order_12958_amendment.h
tml).
2 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, Standard Form 312
(Prescribed by NARA/ISOO) (32 C.F.R. 2003, E.O. 12958) (online at
http://contacts.gsa.gov/webforms.nsf/
0/03A78F16A522716785256A69004E23F6/$file/SF312.pdf).
3 Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records
Administration, Briefing Booklet: Classified Information Nondisclosure
Agreement (Standard Form 312), at 73 (emphasis added) (online at
www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard_form_312.pdf).
4 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 1.1(b).
5 Briefing Booklet, supra note 3, at 73.
6 Executive Order No. 12958, sec. 5.5(b) (emphasis added).
7 Id. at 5.5(c). 8 Id. at 5.5(e)(1). 9 Id. at 5.5(b).


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #7 on: 2005-09-30 10:09:33 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Tom Delay, Frist, Jack Abramoff; the first rotten apples are
dropping as the cradle begins to rock. And now the Miller will tell her
tale. Arianna Huffington wonders: why now?
Best Regards.


Arianna Huffington

09.30.2005
Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens
It's time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking
points.

The claim that Miller "has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver"
is laughable. and, indeed, has already been laughed at by 1) my increasingly
frustrated sources within the Times 2) a chorus of voices in the blogosphere
(see here, here, and here) and 3) (and much more significantly) Joseph Tate,
Scooter Libby's lawyer, who told the Washington Post yesterday that he
informed Miller's attorney, Floyd Abrams, a year ago that Libby's waiver
"was voluntary and that Miller was free to testify".

So it defies credulity for Miller, Sulzberger, and Bill Keller to keep
insisting that Libby's earlier waiver was coerced when Libby says that it
wasn't. I don't have much good to say about the vice president's chief of
staff, but I don't doubt that he knows the difference between being coerced
and acting on his own free will. How deep is the Times' contempt for its
readers that they really think they'll buy the "Oh, Judy finally has the
right waiver" line?

The truth of the matter is there is no way that the New York Times editorial
claiming "it should be clear.that Ms. Miller is not going to change her
mind" can be squared with Ms. Miller changing her mind. And there is no way
to accept at face value Miller's grandstanding about "fighting for the cause
of the free flow of information." Who is she still trying to convince?
Herself?

After she answers Patrick Fitzgerald's questions today, Judy Miller needs to
start answering some of the obvious questions raised by her head-scratching
stance:

What made her refuse Libby's waiver when it was first offered but accept it
now? (Especially since Judge Hogan had told Miller that "she was mistaken in
her belief that she was defending a free press, stressing that the
government source she 'alleges she is protecting' had already released her
from her promise of confidentiality.")

Was Miller's sudden eagerness to find a get-out-of-jail excuse prompted by
Fitzgerald's planning to ask for an extension of the grand jury?

Or was it prompted by Fitzgerald's gearing up to charge her with criminal
contempt?

If all it took for Miller to feel properly released was a phone call, why
did she wait 85 days to make it?

And so we don't forget what this story is really about, and given that the
aluminum tubes crap that Miller put on the front page of the New York Times
was being heavily promoted by Cheney, how much of that bogus information
came to Miller via Libby?

And here are a few questions for the Times:

Had a Plame/Wilson story been assigned to Miller or not?

What, if anything, did she say about the story to anyone at the paper at the
time. and what did they say back?

Why did the Times hold back the story about Miller's release and let
multiple other news sources scoop them? Were they trying to miss the evening
news cycle and avoid the overnight thrashing their spin has rightly
received?

So, as the image of Judy as a principled, conscience-driven defender of the
First Amendment gives way to the image of Judy wearing her "new" waiver as a
fig leaf allowing her to get out and sing, the big question remains: What is
she hiding?


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
rhinoceros
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.42
Rate rhinoceros



My point is ...

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #8 on: 2005-09-30 17:43:01 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Blunderov on 2005-09-30 10:09:33   

[Blunderov] Tom Delay, Frist, Jack Abramoff; the first rotten apples are
dropping as the cradle begins to rock. And now the Miller will tell her
tale. Arianna Huffington wonders: why now?
Best Regards.

Arianna Huffington
09.30.2005
Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens
It's time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking
points.


[rhinoceros]
I can't solve the mystery, but something does smell funny with Judy Miller becoming a martyr of journalistic integrity after having published those stories about the... aluminum tubes of mass destruction.

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #9 on: 2005-09-30 19:02:27 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Some are saying that she didn't want to be questioned about
'other sources' and that this was part of the deal she has made with
Fitzgerald. Why she should worry about being questioned about sources
unrelated to the Plame affair is not clear to me. Or did yet other persons
also inform her that Wilson's wife was a spook? Who else did she speak to in
this connection I wonder?

Interestingly, John Bolton visited her in prison, twice I think, shortly
before her release. A courier? From Libby? Why Bolton?

I'm wondering whether she wasn't, in part, attempting to aid the
administrations attempts to slow march the whole business in the hope that
other events would outrun it. It seems unlikely to me that a disgraced war
pimpette should suddenly sprout actual journalistic principles in the middle
of the night. Perhaps she was told that there was no further point in
keeping her finger in the dike? Something must have changed. Maybe (Occam's
razor) prison simply became too much for her?

Let the games begin.

Best regards.

rhinoceros
Sent: 30 September 2005 23:43

[quote from: Blunderov on 2005-09-30 at 08:09:33]
[Blunderov] Tom Delay, Frist, Jack Abramoff; the first rotten apples are
dropping as the cradle begins to rock. And now the Miller will tell her
tale. Arianna Huffington wonders: why now?
Best Regards.

Arianna Huffington
09.30.2005
Miller Walks: The Plot Thickens
It's time for Judy Miller and Arthur Sulzberger to change their talking
points.

[rhinoceros]
I can't solve the mystery, but something does smell funny with Judy Miller
becoming a martyr of journalistic integrity after having published those
stories about the... aluminum tubes of mass destruction.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: The game's afoot
« Reply #10 on: 2005-10-02 16:19:23 »
Reply with quote

[MIA]...warm. Warmer. Disco.

http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Pulp-Fiction.html

"Then came the surprise revelation from George Stephanopoulos that is
guaranteed to make waves - and headlines on tonight's network news shows: "I
wonder, George Will, do you think it's a manageable one for the White House,
especially if we don't know whether Fitzgerald is going to write a report or
have indictments, but if he is able to show - as a source close to this told
me this week - that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually
involved in some of these discussions?"

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20051002punditpap.html

[Blunderov] It's almost too much to hope.
Best Regards.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #11 on: 2005-10-06 07:34:04 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] This just in.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Rove_missing_from_events_Word_on_1005.html

Rove missing from White House events; Word on Hill is that he has been told
he's target of probe
RAW STORY

Update: Rove's lawyer will no longer deny client a target

President Bush's most trusted adviser, Karl Rove, has been absent from
recent White House events, leading those close to a CIA outing case to
speculate that he has been told he is the target of an investigation, RAW
STORY can confirm.

The buzz on Capitol Hill is that Rove has received what sources called a
"target letter," or a letter from the prosecutor investigating the outing of
CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson telling him that he is now a target in the
investigation. To date, no reporters have been able to confirm this account.
One lawyer says that at this point in the investigation it would be more
likely any letters would normally be notifications of an indictment.

Late Wednesday, Reuters added a new element, saying Rove's attorney, Robert
Luskin, declined to say whether his client had been contacted by the
prosecutor in the case.

"In the past, Luskin has said that Rove was assured that he was not a
target," Reuters notes.

Rove disappeared from the scene around the time he was diagnosed with kidney
stones in mid-September, sources close to the White House tell RAW STORY. At
first, the belief was that he was off the beat to recover from his illness.

But his absence at President Bush's press conference Monday where Bush
announced that he had chosen Harriet Miers to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on
the Supreme Court raised eyebrows. Rove is usually present at such events.

President Bush has declined to say whether he would fire Rove if he were
indicted. He has said that he would fire any White House staff that was
found guilty in the case.

Others, noticing seeming Administration slip-ups -- the response to Katrina
and the unexpected groundswell of discontent from conservatives over Miers
-- suggest the White House may be distracted with something else.

Rove's absence was first noted by AmericaBLOG.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #12 on: 2005-10-06 12:45:05 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] I'm curious about the picture of Rove on this page. He is
looking toward the camera and waving, but his hand is not open with all the
fingers extended as might usually be expected. Instead the pinky and thumb
are held together at the tips and the other three fingers are extended
forwards. (It could almost be described as the converse of the
double-thumbed Gonzo fist.)

Plainly this signifies something. Would somebody please clue me in?

Best Regards. 

<snip>"Regarding all the buzz about grand jury "target letters" supposedly
making the rounds now, attorney and TalkLeft proprietor Jeralyn Merritt
files this note of clarification. She concludes:

[I]t sounds like this grand jury is complete, and notifications are going
out to various lawyers that their clients are being or have been indicted,
and as a courtesy, they can bring their clients in rather than face the
humiliation of an arrest at home or work.
Posted by Steve Perry at October 6, 2005 08:25 AM</snip>

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2005/10/roveplame_indic.asp



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus:The game's afoot
« Reply #13 on: 2005-10-06 12:49:33 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] <blushes> OK, I get it now. Dubya,right? Silly me.
Best Regards.


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: Re:The game's afoot
« Reply #14 on: 2005-10-08 17:08:02 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] Speculation is running at fever pitch about what the
volunteering by Rove of additional testimony to the federal grand jury might
mean. This is considered by some experts to be a risky move.

Attention is also converging on the Espionage Act which has amongst its
provisions that:

"(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or
being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument,
appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating
to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to
believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage
of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes
to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate,
deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the
same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same
and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United
States entitled to receive it; or"...

[Bl.](my personal favorite)

"(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing
provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to
effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy
shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the
object of such conspiracy."

[Bl.] It seems telling to me that, in spite of the recent roosting of many
nasty chickens, the Whitehouse appears to really have had eyes only for this
one.

Best Regards.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed