[ptmusic]

Here is what you wrote at the top of your post with the article:

"here's a blurb from Powerline regarding why Rove is probably not guilty of anything."

My points are:

- The only facts in the article are Rove's job title and the legal wording of the law in question, which alone do not say anything about Rove's guilt or innocence.
- Your source is biased, so I won't trust any opinions; his pro-Rove bias weakens his credibility.
- EVEN if you believe his biased opinions, the author has presented a weak argument that "Rove is probably not guilty of anything" because some of his assumptions are completely unfounded.

Yes, he was trying to poke holes in someone else's argument, but while doing so, he created plenty of holes of his own. That makes for a weak argument.

He does raise the interesting question of clearance, although that wasn't his intention. But even if Rove didn't have clearance, that certainly doesn't make him automatically innocent, and that is my point. Even if everything the author said is true, Rove could still be guilty.

I'll toss out one (of many) scenarios: what if Cheney showed Rove the classified information, and said "Hey, Karl, what can we do with this?" This is not an accident at some cocktail party, this is in Cheney's office with the actual documents.

That ought to get you writing.

-ptmusic