Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case
Newsmax ^ | 07/04/05 | Newsmax

Posted on 07/04/2005 3:54:05 PM PDT by Pikamax

Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case

MSNBC commentator Lawrence O'Donnell, who broke the news Friday that notes taken by Time magazine's Matthew Cooper indictate that top Bush adviser Karl Rove leaked the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame to columnist Robert Novak, said Sunday it's likely that Rove broke no laws.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledged on Saturday that his client had indeed spoken to Cooper before the Novak column hit in July 2003. But Luskin insisted that Rove never revealed Plame's identity.

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
O'Donnell making himself a name on the talk circuit again,playing both sides of the audience. Smart.
1 posted on 07/04/2005 3:54:05 PM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: Pikamax

Wait, I thought it was emails but no matter, had Rove leaked
this it wouldn't have been worth going to jail for....only
a high ranking democrat would be worth that.


3 posted on 07/04/2005 3:57:49 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

That creepy liar is enough to make anyone puke!


4 posted on 07/04/2005 3:58:06 PM PDT by dc-zoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

The "creepy liar" doesn't play too well on this side of the conversation. He says the source Miller was protecting is Karl Rove. But Rove voluntarily signed a waiver of confidentiality requesting that reporters NOT conceal his statements to them. If Miller was protecting a source, it is not Karl Rove.


5 posted on 07/04/2005 3:58:21 PM PDT by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Lawrence "I put the anal in pMSNBC analyst" O'Donnel is a steaming turd...
6 posted on 07/04/2005 4:01:36 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Life's a beach - and Liberals are like the sand that gets in your swimsuit...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

If Rove did what O'Donnell charges, then it was a crime. So obviously O'Donnell doesn't believe his own claim.


7 posted on 07/04/2005 4:05:04 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Basically, O'Donnell's argument assumes that Rove's lawyer engages in the same "what's the meaning of is" shenanigans that Democrats engage in. That's a big assumption, but not surprising.


8 posted on 07/04/2005 4:10:02 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

I thought O'Donnell said there were e-mails.

Looks like he flubbed his own hit job.


9 posted on 07/04/2005 4:10:17 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud (McCain, you'll never be President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Or .. a certain lawyer made a certain phone call to O'Donnell - giving him the news - tell the truth or we'll sue you into oblivian.

I still don't like O'Donnell's answer, but I do believe he hasn't withdrawn his false statement that Rove leaked the name. All he's done is say, "no crime was committed". Does that mean that O'Donnell has info showing that Rove did out Pflame but it wasn't a crime for him to do so ..??

I would want a retraction of the statement and an admission that it was false - or I'd see the guy in court.


10 posted on 07/04/2005 4:10:50 PM PDT by CyberAnt (President Bush: "America is the greatest nation on the face of the earth")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

No. It wouldn't. You might want to google Victoria Toensig's analysis of the Agee Act which she drated. The whole thing is a dog and pony show. Even the press in its papers to the Court (now that the election is over and their rears on the line) concedes, no law was broken.No mastter who leaked Plame's name.


11 posted on 07/04/2005 4:11:55 PM PDT by the Real fifi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Without regard to accuracy, where did O'Donnel get his info? I thought these people were willing to go to jail to protect their sources, but somehow somebody spilled the beans to this POS?


12 posted on 07/04/2005 4:12:25 PM PDT by umgud (Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax; Howlin; Quilla; Mo1; kcvl; Txsleuth

""That could simply mean he did not use the words 'Valerie Plame.'"


....O'donut head followed with..."he could have said purple midgets....ya know....like the ones that walk inside my head"


13 posted on 07/04/2005 4:13:47 PM PDT by ArmyBratproud (McCain, you'll never be President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the Real fifi

Well of course the press is going to "concede" that. If no law was broken, then there is no basis for disclosing their source.

But the fact that the media argues that no law was broken does not mean it's so. It just means the media is making every argument it can to avoid disclosing its source.

According to Lawrence O'Donnell, Rove called Cooper and disclosed the name of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. If that is true, then a law was broken.


14 posted on 07/04/2005 4:17:30 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: umgud

O'Donnell won't tell us where he got his info, he just has it. I guess he must have bugged Rove's telephone.


15 posted on 07/04/2005 4:19:24 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

It's hard to get a fix on Laurence O'Donnell, is he nuts, or does he just like to be the subject of conversations?

Either way, sometimes his reasoning defies logic, or even a specious coherence. First he goes in for sophistry, then he backs off, and claims he didn't mean what he so plainly said.


16 posted on 07/04/2005 4:24:03 PM PDT by alloysteel ("Master of the painfully obvious.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Liar.....Liar.....Liar.....Liar.....Liar.....Liar!


17 posted on 07/04/2005 4:29:24 PM PDT by Road Warrior 04 (Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Lawrence O'Donnell: Graduating FIRST in his class @ The Dan Rather School of jOuRnaLIsm.........:^)
18 posted on 07/04/2005 4:44:40 PM PDT by soozla (How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Rove called Cooper and disclosed the name of a covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame. If that is true, then a law was broken.

What is your source for saying that Plame was a covert CIA operative? I've seen that allegation posted, but I've never seen it confirmed in a sourced article.

19 posted on 07/04/2005 4:55:55 PM PDT by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: speekinout
Here is one source:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer.

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

The ambiguity is that she was not covert at the time of the disclosure. But under the law, that does not matter, and it shouldn't matter. The purpose of the law is not just to protect the particular operative, but to protect the CIA in general, and to protect her contacts.

Personally, I think that what Wilson did was dispicable, but if I were Bush, I'd figure out who leaked, and fire him for stupidity.

20 posted on 07/04/2005 5:07:59 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson