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

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And again (for the third time in this thread), you are stating something wrong about me: I never said I refused to read the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you could comment on the facts within the argument made rather than disparage the titles of irrelevant articles at the site. If you can't, then simply say so and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can: there are two facts in the article. One is Karl Rove's official title, and the other is the wording of the law someone may have broken. It seems they got those facts right (although Rove has been promoted to a new title, but I won't quibble about that).

But the vast majority of the piece is opinion and argument. It presents one argument, then rebuts it. Both the presentation of the opposing argument and the rebuttal are suspect because of the source, as we have discussed.

For instance, "Karl Rove... who almost certainly does not have access to any classified information that explicitly or implicitly identifies Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent; his official title of Director, Office of Political Affairs certainly does not give him carte blanche to rummaged around in the CIA's personnel files."

Is rummaging around the CIA's personnel files the only way Karl Rove could have access to classified material? And how does the author know what the clearance is for the position Karl Rove holds? He doesn't even address these issues; he just makes assumptions (and bad assumptions in my opinion).

Ok, that's enough. You asked me to comment on the facts in the argument, and I did.

-ptmusic

[ChristinaB]

[BCPVP]

Ah, much better.

[ QUOTE ]
Is rummaging around the CIA's personnel files the only way Karl Rove could have access to classified material?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know of others? Simply hearing it from someone else is not good enough. He would have had to have access to the classified material listing Plame as a covert agent.

[ QUOTE ]
And how does the author know what the clearance is for the position Karl Rove holds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not ask him, not me? It doesn't make much sense for a political advisor to have access to NOC agents in the CIA. I could be wrong though. A few minutes of google have turned up inconclusive on whether or not Rove does have enough clearance.

Another thing to keep in mind (from wikipedia):
Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 ) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ro...rie_Plame_leak

If Karl Rove is the leak, why would he release all reporters of their confidentiality regarding any interviews with him? Why would he be cooperating with the investigation if he was the leaker?

Anyway, I appreciate that you decided to actually comment on the content of the article instead of disparging irrelevant articles.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, much better.

[ QUOTE ]
Is rummaging around the CIA's personnel files the only way Karl Rove could have access to classified material?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know of others? Simply hearing it from someone else is not good enough. He would have had to have access to the classified material listing Plame as a covert agent.

[ QUOTE ]
And how does the author know what the clearance is for the position Karl Rove holds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not ask him, not me? It doesn't make much sense for a political advisor to have access to NOC agents in the CIA. I could be wrong though. A few minutes of google have turned up inconclusive on whether or not Rove does have enough clearance.

Another thing to keep in mind (from wikipedia):
Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 ) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ro...rie_Plame_leak

If Karl Rove is the leak, why would he release all reporters of their confidentiality regarding any interviews with him? Why would he be cooperating with the investigation if he was the leaker?

Anyway, I appreciate that you decided to actually comment on the content of the article instead of disparging irrelevant articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible Rove was given access to the classified information illegally (perhaps he didn't know it was illegal in this scenario); it's also possible he had the clearance for this classified information.

As for why would release the reporters of their confidentiality and cooperate with the investigation? One possibility is so that this doesn't turn into a worse crime of a Watergate-like cover up, or so that it doesn't even have the appearance of a cover up.

All the above are just some of the possibilities that the author's argument didn't address.

Personally, I think the gauntlet is lowering on him, and he is simply trying to help himself from getting his head chopped off. I'm not sure if he committed a crime, but I am not convinced he didn't based on the article you posted. I am not convinced because the argument is flawed, and because of the source, which we have discussed.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It's possible Rove was given access to the classified information illegally (perhaps he didn't know it was illegal in this scenario); it's also possible he had the clearance for this classified information.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we go around throwing out accusations (especially of treason), perhaps you'd like a stronger case than "it's possible..."? Isn't it possible that Rove kicked in the door at Langley with an M-60 around his shoulder and demanded the files? I suppose, but that doesn't mean it happened, and the onus is on the accusers to show that Rove committed some wrongdoing.

[ QUOTE ]
As for why would release the reporters of their confidentiality and cooperate with the investigation? One possibility is so that this doesn't turn into a worse crime of a Watergate-like cover up, or so that it doesn't even have the appearance of a cover up.

[/ QUOTE ]
More "possibilites". The thing is, we don't know. So to accuse Rove as the leaker with nothing but "it's possible" is fairly dumb, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
All the above are just some of the possibilities that the author's argument didn't address.

[/ QUOTE ]
The author was trying to poke holes in someone else's argument. The fact that he didn't mention every "possiblity" is hardly grounds to disqualify the substance of his argument.

But you have to admit, the author raised an interesting question. The "does Rove have security clearance high enough to grant him access to CIA personnel files (especially of NOC agents)" question should be answered before Rove is accused of a crime.

[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