Karl Rove is going to jail...if he's lucky

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That position is somewhat justifiable in "whistleblower" cases. This isn't a whistleblower case, though. The person who "leaked" the info wasn't letting the reporters know about some wrongdoing, the act of telling the reporter Wilson's wife's identity was the wrongdoing itself (I use the word "wrongdoing" instead of "crime" intentionally, since the identity of the leaker may determine if this is or is not a crime). Why, in this case, does the leaker deserve anonymity?

If Rove leaked to someone else and then that someone told the reporters, why wouldn't they name Rove while still protecting their source?

[ QUOTE ]
To think that they would blow the cover of such a source -- be it Karl Rove or anyone else -- for any reason, political or otherwise, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Assuming you are, the answer is because then nobody will give confidential information anonymously for fear of being identified. I would think this would be obvious.

[shots]

Rove isn't going to go down but it'll be fun to see how pissed the left is when the investigation is over and Rove isn't convicted of anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Rove isn't going to go down but it'll be fun to see how pissed the left is when the investigation is over and Rove isn't convicted of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bunch of crap. "The left" are Americans, just as "the right" are. Americans want to see this guy punished if he exposed the agent's identity. Americans don't want to see him punished if he didn't. Period. Are there people who want to see bad things happen to Mr. Rove no matter what? I'm sure there are. But to say that "the left" wants that to happen? Baloney.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To think that they would blow the cover of such a source -- be it Karl Rove or anyone else -- for any reason, political or otherwise, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Assuming you are, the answer is because then nobody will give confidential information anonymously for fear of being identified. I would think this would be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

But like I said, the leaker in this case didn't blow the whistle on anything. There's no reason to protect him or her. What the leaker leaked isn't really the story, it's the identity of the leaker. It's the complete opposite of the traditional whistleblower situation.

On top of that, I don't believe for one minute that the people invovled in this situation (besides Novak, who apparently DID cooperate with the grand jury) would hesitate at all given the opportunity to blow Rove out of the water.

[mmbt0ne]

Fixed your title

[mmbt0ne]

Oooooooooooooooooh

Matthew Cooper gave up his source to the grand jury after getting personal consent to do so. He's not going to jail. Unfortunately, he won't talk about it outside of the courtroom though.

Is there anyway to find out who he implicated? When/How will we ever know this?

[Exsubmariner]

A little quote from one of my favorite Liberal Elite Socialist Worker Legal Professor Media Complex basher....
[ QUOTE ]

RUSH: Let me say one thing about this Karl Rove business. Let me tell you how I know. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rove is not the leaker. If Karl Rove were the leaker to Matthew Cooper of TIME Magazine, do you think they'd have kept that news private during the 2004 presidential campaign? This leak occurred in 2003. If Karl Rove engaged in criminal activity, do you not think that the media -- who claimed to know it all now -- would have not released that information during the campaign, given it to John Kerry or something and made it a huge campaign issue that the president's chief political advisor is a criminal?

We have all kinds of stuff leaked all over newspapers, folks. The war plan for Iraq was leaked for the New York Times and the Washington Post. We had all kinds of things leaked during the first term of the Bush administration. All kinds of secrets were let go that were intended to harm Bush. We had forged documents from CBS that were intended to affect the outcome of the election. Do you think if they really had proof that it was Rove that was the leaker of Valerie Plame's name, that the press would have kept that secret during the 2004 campaign? I don't. Why keep that secret? Why go to the trouble of making up and forging documents when you've got the one story here that could really rally people, maybe? Maybe it can't. I don't know how many people really care about this, that Valerie Plame's name was leaked, and I don't know how many people actually consider it a crime, but that was just my first reaction.


[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like Cooper is about to disappoint everybody with the truth....Apparently, the real leaker didn't like Karl getting all the credit and has given Cooper permission to reveal their identity.

Love,
X

[mmbt0ne]

Way to be 12 minutes late [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Exsubmariner]

OK, you got me, but your post didn't include any rhetoric from anybody the lib's dispise intended to get them all rowled up, so nah nah nah nah nah..... [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

been waiting a long time to see the scalywag go down - this'll be fun..



[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is about all you have left. Enjoy.