Skip to comments.Lawrence O'Donnell: No Crime in Plame Case
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 ...
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.
That creepy liar is enough to make anyone puke!
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.
If Rove did what O'Donnell charges, then it was a crime. So obviously O'Donnell doesn't believe his own claim.
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.
I thought O'Donnell said there were e-mails.
Looks like he flubbed his own hit job.
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I still don't like O'Donnell's answer, but I do believe he hasn't withdrawn his false statement that Rove leaked the name.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.
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.
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?
""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"
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.
O'Donnell won't tell us where he got his info, he just has it. I guess he must have bugged Rove's telephone.
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.
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.
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.
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.