About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Scarborough again denies Rove's role as Novak source in Plame leak

February 03, 2008 12:35 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: In again refusing to acknowledge that former White House senior political adviser Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough falsely suggested that Rove was not a source for Novak.

80 Comments

On the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough again refused to acknowledge that former White House senior political adviser Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, again falsely suggesting that Rove was not a source for Novak. Scarborough asserted that "liberals have spent the past 30 years calling Bob Novak a liar. And every time liberals call Bob Novak a liar, they're the ones who end up with egg on their face." As an example, Scarborough claimed that Novak "told us from the beginning, 'This wasn't an ideologue that gave me the name. This wasn't Karl -- this wasn't a Bush operation.' And liberals, 'Oh, he's lying, da da da da da.' " Scarborough later added: "[A]nd, of course, Novak was right. The liberals were wrong." In fact, Novak attributed his information about Plame to "[t]wo senior administration officials," whom he later publicly identified as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Rove.

During an interview with Novak on the July 18, 2007, edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough suggested that Rove had played no role in the leaking of Plame's identity, saying that the press "followed [the CIA leak investigation] like a pack of dogs talking about was it Rove, is it [Vice President Dick] Cheney, is it [President] Bush, who was it, who was it, and when they found out it was [then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage, everybody kind of yawned and went on."

The next day, after Media Matters for America pointed out that Scarborough had falsely suggested that Rove was not involved, Scarborough claimed that Media Matters was "very upset because of my interview yesterday with Bob Novak, talking about the narrative that the left wing had for a very long time that this whole Valerie Plame leak was a diabolical plot hatched by Karl Rove." Scarborough later introduced Novak -- appearing for the second straight day on the show -- and said he was "[h]ere to clear that up and talk about his book, Prince of Darkness [Crown Forum, July 2007]." In response to questioning from Scarborough, Novak explained that Rove was his confirming source.

As Media Matters has noted, Rove also allegedly leaked Plame's identity to then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.

From the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: That he also -- it's just broke. The Wall Street Journal has written a story about how John McCain complained to conservative lawyers that Samuel Alito was too conservative to be on the Supreme Court. Bob Novak wrote a follow-up article and said the same thing, that people that were in that meeting said John McCain was complaining that Sam Alito was too conservative to be chief -- to be a Supreme Court nominee.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, now, you said that earlier in the show, and we actually did get a comment from the McCain campaign about that, saying that what you're saying, in terms of quoting those articles, is "absolutely absurd. Both Novak and The Wall Street Journal stories were based on a blind quote. McCain never made that comment about Alito, and it was widely reported that he declared the report absolutely false."

SCARBOROUGH: You know what I love? OK, so --

BRZEZINSKI: "You'd be hard-pressed to find a Republican who fought harder than John McCain to get Alito on the bench, and the White House recognized it. "

SCARBOROUGH: All right, so here we have John McCain proving once again that he's a liberal, and I'll tell you why. Because liberals have spent the past 30 years calling Bob Novak a liar. And every time liberals call Bob Novak a liar, they're the ones who end up with egg on their face. I remember during the Valerie Plame episode. Remember, Bob Novak told us from the beginning, "This wasn't an ideologue that gave me the name. This wasn't Karl -- this wasn't a Bush operation." And liberals, "Oh, he's lying, da da da da da." And then remember earlier this year, Bob Novak -- and, of course, Novak was right. The liberals were wrong. And then earlier this year, you had Bob Novak talking about how the Clintons were shopping dirt on Obama.

BRZEZINSKI: Well --

SCARBOROUGH: Now, hold on. I've got a point to make here. Everybody called Bob Novak a liar. "Oh, what's Bob Novak? He's not a respectable source." I had somebody on my show, while I was on vacation, saying, "Bob Novak is not a respectable source." I nearly jumped off the couch and ran up to the studio. And so now we have McCain and McCain's camp saying, "Bob Novak is a liar. The Wall Street Journal is lying." Despite the fact that if you read Bob Novak's article, Mika, Bob Novak called several of these lawyers that were in the meeting blind. They did not know that Novak was calling. And Novak said what? They said the same exact thing; their jaws dropped. That John McCain said that this man, Samuel Alito, was too conservative to sit on the Supreme Court. So, they don't have to attack me.

BRZEZINSKI: They're not.

SCARBOROUGH: They can attack Bob Novak and call Bob Novak a liar --

BRZEZINSKI: Well, no, they're flatly denying --

SCARBOROUGH: Because you know what? There is a great history of liberals in America calling Bob Novak a liar. So if they want to call Bob Novak a liar, they can. It just proves conservatives' point once again.

BRZEZINSKI: Well, all I'm doing is reporting the fact that the campaign flatly denies this --

SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure.

BRZEZINSKI: -- whether it's from The Wall Street Journal, Bob Novak, or you. And I think that, you know, there's interesting questions about his conservative credentials. I think you're absolutely right about that. I think there's another narrative at play here, too, and that is John McCain is an interesting candidate, especially up against Hillary Clinton.

SCARBOROUGH: Right.

BRZEZINSKI: And John McCain does have a great personal story, and he does have a lot of things about him that make him an attractive candidate. The question is can he bridge the gap between him, himself, and the conservative base?

SCARBOROUGH: And the conservative movement. And I'll tell you one way you don't do that is by being like Joe Wilson and calling Bob Novak a liar. One way you aren't like that is being like the left wing and calling The Wall Street Journal a bunch of liars. This is what liberals have done for years. He will not bridge that divide by saying that Bob Novak's a liar. That's all I'm saying.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 12:56 pm ET)
         
      who cares?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 1:19 pm ET)
           
        apparently you, my good patriotic american, do not care that the bush administration went out of it's way to out an undercover agent and destroy her entire spy network, in a world where a tip could save us from an attack.  you do not care that the white house denied any involvement by rove or libby, and you do not care that bush vowed to fire anyone "involved". 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The Stranger (February 03, 2008 6:57 pm ET)
             

          There was no involvement by Rove or Libby. The one who originally spilled the beans about Plame was her fat idiot of a husband Joe Wilson.

          Andrea Mitchell said that everyone in town knew she was CIA.

          This whole thing is just another smear by the lying left to cover their own malfeasance..

          .

          Report Abuse
          • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (February 03, 2008 7:17 pm ET)
               

            That is a profoundly stupid comment.

            Joe Wilson DID NOT reveal his wife's identity:

            In fact, Wilson's statement during a July 14 interview on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports merely emphasized that his wife's cover was blown the moment Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column.

            It is simply NOT TRUE to state that "everyone knew" Valerie Wilson was covert:

            As I finished reading the column, Joe ventured out onto his deck and offered a neighborly hello. I held up the paper and yelled over, "I had no idea about Valerie!" Joe looked stricken and gestured to me to keep my voice down.

            You need to start reading and quit spreading what I must characterize as either misinformation or outright lies, depending on your motives. 

            Report Abuse
            • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 7:31 pm ET)
                 

              That is a profoundly stupid comment.

              Joe Wilson DID NOT reveal his wife's identity:

              In fact, Wilson's statement during a July 14 interview on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports merely emphasized that his wife's cover was blown the moment Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column.

              *****AHEM.. regarding the stupid statement  above:

               A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

              When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

              It is simply NOT TRUE to state that "everyone knew" Valerie Wilson was covert:

              As I finished reading the column, Joe ventured out onto his deck and offered a neighborly hello. I held up the paper and yelled over, "I had no idea about Valerie!" Joe looked stricken and gestured to me to keep my voice down.

              Just another lie from that fat idiot Joe

              You need to start reading and quit spreading what I must characterize as either misinformation or outright lies, depending on your motives

              The only liars...and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...are Val and her fat idiot husband Joe. They both should be rotting in jail

              Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 04, 2008 9:49 pm ET)
                   
                No hiveminder YOU are a liar and a fool. There has been no credible report of Wilson telling ANYONE his wife was a CIA agent by anyone NOT involved in the leak. Keep bailing you are a fool. This argument is long over and you are flat out wrong. You just regurgitate the hivemind propaganda no matter how far past its sell by date it is, no matter how completely debunked it is, you just regurgitate it like the demented propaganda parrot you are.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (February 04, 2008 10:58 pm ET)
                     
                  Thanks Solon.  There's a limit to the number of times I can go through a battle of wits with someone who's unarmed.  I appreciate the backup.
                  Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 7:55 pm ET)
               
            You are an idiot AND a liar. Rove and Libbys lawyers BOTH admitted they were sources to reporters. Her neighbors didnt know. You just repeat the lies and never have any idea what you are talking about.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (February 04, 2008 7:03 am ET)
               
            andrea mitchell subsequently took that statement back.  her credibility is a little suspect anyway.  she blasted kerry on camera after one of the debates for his negative remarks about fed chairman alan greenspan.  the only problem is she did not reveal she's mrs. greenspan.  no one has produced any credible person in the general public who knew plame was undercover.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 7:33 pm ET)
                 

              andrea mitchell subsequently took that statement back.

              She was just covering her ass to avoid prosecution and to protect the fat idiot Joe Wilson

              Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (February 04, 2008 8:12 pm ET)
                   
                and what exactly would she have been prosecuted for?  if as you claim, plame's status was common knowledge, then mitchell could not have been revealing anything.  try to at least make a little sense.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 11:26 pm ET)
                     

                  Umm...so Rove's saying that  "he had heard that too" when it was Matt Cooper who had actually brought it up actually means he outed Plame?

                  ...amazing

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 04, 2008 9:50 pm ET)
                   
                My GOD you are stupid. And a liar to boot. You have my vote as the most ignorant and worthless poster on the site.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 11:28 pm ET)
                 
              Skip on over to the next page to see explanation of how the fat idiot Wilson outed his wife years ago
              Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (February 04, 2008 12:50 pm ET)
               

            Stranger:

            Novak's own comments contradict yours.  Why do you disregard anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality?

            Report Abuse
        • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 11:38 pm ET)
             

          apparently you, my good patriotic american, do not care that the bush administration went out of it's way to out an undercover agent and destroy her entire spy network, in

          Actually it was that fat idiot husband of hers and his lifelong buddy and co-worker at the State Dept. Marc Grossman that outed Plame and Brewster Jennings back in 2001.

          http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece

          Grossman, Plame and her fat idiot of a husband should be rotting in jail

          Report Abuse
    • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 03, 2008 12:59 pm ET)
         

      Aside from picking on the Maverick, Joe's right. Armitage leaked the name to Novak.  It's indisputable that Novak claims to have had the info before talking to Rove. Whether Rove leaked to cooper is a distinction which Joe does not address.  But at any rate, the leftwing was set ablaze when Novak so disappointed their expectations

      Report Abuse
      • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 03, 2008 1:11 pm ET)
           

        I don't think NOvak disappointed anyone's expectations. Everyone who's paying attention expected him to lie. It was also expected that many people would react by asking "who cares?" and many more would be satisfied with the lie.

        Don't worry, expectations for the media and those who believe them are very low.Nice job,Joe, No-Facts, and the posters who love them.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 03, 2008 1:22 pm ET)
             
          How did he lie?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (February 03, 2008 1:36 pm ET)
               

            very consistently. Pay close attention to the part where his lips are moving.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 2:55 pm ET)
                 
              Wow, that clip is amazing. Nearly everything that comes out of Novak's mouth is demonstrably false.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (February 03, 2008 3:30 pm ET)
                 
              Sorry Col.

              I tried to watch the whole thing, but I'm on the low bullsh_t diet.

              2 disgraced Americans eating up the lies, must see TV indeed.

              I'm not surprised that Ollie's working for Fox. I wonder if they pay his salary in snow tires and home security products.
              Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 1:25 pm ET)
           
        rove was a confirming source for novak, in violation of his security oath.  and rove and libby outright gave  plame's identity to other reporters, just in case the prince of darkness did not do the job.  rove and libby should have had their security clearances removed immediately because they not only had a duty not to release classified info,  they had a duty to make sure it was declassified before they gave it out. 
        Report Abuse
        • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 03, 2008 1:27 pm ET)
             
          Okay, but I don't think Novak denied that Rove was the "confirming' source. However, he said that he learned the info from Armitage.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 1:35 pm ET)
               
            novak originally said his info came from "two senior administration officials".  that would be armitage and rove.  so the liberals were not "lying", as scarborough claimed.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 03, 2008 1:53 pm ET)
                 

              novak originally said his info came from "two senior administration officials". 

              My intention isn't to defend Joe, rove . . . . But I haven't seen proof of Novak's lie.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 3:05 pm ET)
                   
                Maybe you're operating under the false assumption that there can only be one person who leaked the information about Plame? Even if Rove only confirmed what Novak had already heard about Plame, Rove still broke the law by leaking information about a covert agent. And he did it before Novak published his column.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 03, 2008 3:08 pm ET)
                     

                  Yeah you're right. Any way it's put, Rove disclosed her identity as a CIA op without legal authority. That Novak may have already known beforehand doesn't make it any less sleazy on Rove's part.

                  Report Abuse
              • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 3:11 pm ET)
                   
                maybe we are getting mixed up in the interpretation of who said what.  joe claims that novak did not lie when he said he did not get the name from rove.  but he did  get it from rove as a confirming source. 
                Report Abuse
                • Author by thomp.steve9098 (February 03, 2008 3:12 pm ET)
                     

                  I thought Novak stated that Rove was his confirming source all along; I mean after he disclosed Armitage

                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 3:51 pm ET)
                       
                    yes three years later, novak admitted rove was a confirming source.  here is what scarborough said that novak claimed: "this wasn't an ideologue that gave me the name. this wasn't karl, this wasn't a bush operation".  and i do remember rove making some remarks to that effect, about it wasn't an ideoloque that gave me the name.  but he seemed to be implying no rove involvement at that point.  so joe is saying that liberals made a false charge, accusing novak of lying. 
                    Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (February 03, 2008 1:26 pm ET)
         

       Brewster Jennings was outed two years pior to protect the black market selling of nuclear bomb info to Trukey and Pakistan, which somehow put North Korea and Iran in possesion of this same information.

      MSN is studiously ignoring this story.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by The Stranger (February 04, 2008 8:11 pm ET)
           

         Bthis storyrewster Jennings was outed two years pior to protect the black market selling of nuclear bomb info to Trukey and Pakistan, which somehow put North Korea and Iran in possesion of this same information.

        MSN is studiously ignoring

        Jesus...did you actually read the story? The reason the MSM is ignoring it is because it shows how the fat idiot Joe outed his wife years ago.

        Here's the link, but let me break it down for the non-too-bright at MMfA.

        http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece

        Marc Grossman, the #3 man at State...who also was was the fat idiot Joe's good friend since they went to college together at UC Santa Barbara and all through their time at State together...actually tipped off the Turks who were working to get nuclear technology from North Korea that Valerie Plame and  her front company Brewster Jennings were CIA.

        ...and where did Grossman get this info?

        ...from his friend of 30 years, the fat idiot Joe Wilson.

        it was the fat idiot who outed his wife...

        How did Armitage know about the fat idiot's wife? ...from the fat idiot himself, that's who...

        When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them.

        I've said this many times before...the easiest job in the history of the world is that of the left wing propagandist...morons will believe anything

        Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (February 03, 2008 2:39 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      I agree, Robert Novak is a idealogue nut case, not a liar.

      Joe Scarborough is a LIAR, and a idealogue nut case.

      Robert Novak testified to a grand jury that Karl Rove confirmed the account of Richard Armitage's disclosure, and that Karl Rove was part of the process of disclosing this classified imformation to Scooter to pass to the press. This is a matter of public record. After 5 appearances before the Grand Jury Karl Rove finally admitted it under oath, only after yanking the prosecutor's chain for 18months first.

      Since Scooter had his conviction of purgery, and obstructions of justice commuted by the very source of the leak, we'll never have their testimony to prosecute these men. They knew from the start that Scooter was not going to jail for them, thus we would have his song sung for all to hear which Dick Cheney, and George Bush could not allow. Obstrution of justice from the President himself under the constitutional power of commutation.

      Give me Bill Clinton and a dirty dress any day!

      Welcome to the definition of justice in America with a Republican Congress & President in power!

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse
    • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 3:30 pm ET)
         

      apparently you, my good patriotic american, do not care that the bush administration went out of it's way to out an undercover agent and destroy her entire spy network, in a world where a tip could save us from an attack

       get a grip.  she wasn't undercover and had no network.  she was just a paper pusher at that point in her career.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 3:39 pm ET)
           
        Well, that's obviously a lie. The CIA confirmed that she was covert at the time of her outing, and you know it.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 3:42 pm ET)
             
          not true.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 3:53 pm ET)
               
            you are denying that the cia said she was covert?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 4:05 pm ET)
               
            http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/05/30/cia-plame-was-covert.htm

            http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnQAZxqZqbc

            http://rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 8:02 pm ET)
               
            Yes it IS true. You dont know what you are talking about.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Handsome Pete (February 03, 2008 8:45 pm ET)
               

            Yeah, didn't you guys know?  Some anonymous guy on an internet site, knows WAY more about Valerie Plame's status than the agency that trained and employed her.

             

            Please, if you don't know something, stop denying it, it just doesn't work here.  We have functioning brains and Google, we can bust you in under 30 seconds.

            Report Abuse
          • Author by historygeek001 (February 04, 2008 12:55 pm ET)
               

            Buff:

            As I've said before, if you don't actually study history, don't call yourself a history buff.  Plame WAS undercover, the CIA has confirmed this, and claiming otherwise is ridiculous. 

            Report Abuse
      • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 3:43 pm ET)
           
        the cia said in an official crime report she was undercover, had taken trips overseas within the last five years to meet with contacts, under her name and assumed names, and that she was on official business.  you can claim she wasn't, but it's just more hot air.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 8:01 pm ET)
           
        You are a liar and a fool. The CIA gave her job summary to Congress. She WAS a covert agent. That rightwing lie has long since been refuted and put to bed.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 3:43 pm ET)
         
      elsewise, fitzgerald would have pursued that angle.  but he determined no law was broken by revealing her name.  no underlying crime.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 8:04 pm ET)
           
        He determined no such thing. Rather because he was LIED TO he couldnt PROVE an underlying crime. There are more aspects to the crime as the law is written than her being covert and exposed. The exposure had to be deliberate, that is they had to KNOW she was undercover. You are flat out wrong and doing nothing but repeating long ago debunked hivemind talking points.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (February 04, 2008 12:57 pm ET)
           

        Buff:

        1)  There was an underlying crime. 

        2)  Even if there was no "underlying crime" as you claim, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME IN AND OF ITSELF.  Libby was found GUILTY of obstruction of justice.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 4:31 pm ET)
         
      so why did fitzgerald not prosecute for this supposed crime?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 4:43 pm ET)
           
        OK, I can see your problem now. You don't know the first thing about this case apart from what Rush Limbaugh has told you. Do yourself a favor and do just a little bit of research before spouting off.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 4:49 pm ET)
             
          can you kindly answer my question?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 4:55 pm ET)
               
            I've already posted four links in order to enlighten you, and there's no evidence that you bothered to read those, so why should I keep doing your research for you? The Google is your friend. Use it. Debating this with you now is like going back in time to 2003. It's been covered. Time for you to catch up.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by historygeek001 (February 04, 2008 1:09 pm ET)
           

        Buff:

        Fitzgerald did not prosecute for the crime of exposing an undercover CIA agent and revealing a CIA front company because he could not gather enough information to build a complete case due to the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE on the part of people like Libby.  They lied so much and so often that Fitzgerald could not build a case, which is why Libby was convicted of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.  Remember that obstruction of justice is a crime itself, and the Republicans were happy enough to trumpet to the skies how horrible it was when Clinton was in front of Starr.  Unlike, Ken Starr, Fitzgerald actually did his job and prosecuted only when he had a case that clearly showed guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; remember that Starr has said that he should have recused himself from investigating Clinton.  Finally, remember that the CIA said that Plame was undercover and that Brewster Jennings was a cover company.  Revealing Brewster Jennings also revealed EVERY SINGLE AGENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.  If you can't even face these facts then you have raised denial from a psychological problem to almost an art form.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 5:06 pm ET)
         
      I'll answer it then.  Fitzgerald concluded no crime relating to revelation of her identity had been committed.  Therefore he did not prosecute.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 5:14 pm ET)
           
        And again, you're talking out of your butt. Please show us where Fitzgerald said that.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 5:16 pm ET)
             
          i can't give you a cite, but res ipsa loquitur.  the act speaks for itself.  he did not prosecute because there had been no crime.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
               
            More like Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You conservatives do love your logical fallacies, don't you? Some more reading for you:

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/what-the-libby-prosecutio_b_52860.html
            Report Abuse
            • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 5:48 pm ET)
                 
              I don't agree with your post hoc . . . proposition.  Arianna, what a joke.  I did legal work for her ex.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by clams casino (February 03, 2008 6:07 pm ET)
                   
                Well, then let me give it to you in English. Your statement, "[H]e did not prosecute because there had been no crime," is a logical fallacy. There are many crimes committed that escape prosecution. Just because a crime isn't prosecuted that doesn't mean that it never happened. This isn't something that you can disagree with. It's just a fact.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 04, 2008 11:52 am ET)
                     
                  a special prosecutor gets appointed to determine if a crime has been commited, and if so, he gets to prosecute.  now, no special prosecutor is going to turn a blind eye if there was a crime, so res ipsa, there was no crime.  your pro hoc logical fallacy is not the correct principle here.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by historygeek001 (February 04, 2008 1:14 pm ET)
                       

                    Buff:

                    Look at my previous posts.  And if you have a law degree from Stanford, as you have claimed, then you should understand that obstruction of justice is a crime.  Defending Plame and Brewster Jennings being exposed is disgusting.  Ignoring the CRIME of obstruction of justice and pretending that neither Plame nor Brewster Jennings was undercover is beyond ridiculous.  You clearly have no understanding of history, politics, or reality.

                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (February 04, 2008 2:03 pm ET)
                       

                    Thats just dumb. A prosecuter can think a crime was committed but that he cant prove it in court because of things like Libby obstructing justice. Anyone who watched a few Perry Mason episodes much less ANY lawyer would know that

                    Report Abuse
              • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 8:08 pm ET)
                   
                By that specious logic there was no underlying crime in the St Valentines Day Massacre.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 8:15 pm ET)
                     
                  heck, criminals killing criminals, all in a day's work.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by conleytgwinn (February 03, 2008 8:27 pm ET)
                       
                    Same sentence fragment works for "liars lie, all in a day's work." Why not try - slowly to read the replies your off-hand ignorance has laready elicited. Then parse your own for the (demonstrated) lies and (enumerated) fallacies.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 9:27 pm ET)
                       
                    Apparantly ignorant morons repeating ignorant moronic hivemind talking points long ago PROVEN FALSE is also all in a days work.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (February 03, 2008 5:27 pm ET)
           

        In fact, Fitzgerald has stated that he was unable to determine whether any laws were violated in the leaking of Plame's identity because his investigation was impeded by former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, whom he charged with perjury and obstructing the grand jury investigation.

        The obvious conclusion is that Libby wouldn't have lied and obstructed unless he had something to lie and obstruct about.  In other words, if Libby hadn't lied and obstructed, Fitzgerald would have prosecuted those who revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a CIA covert operative.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 5:30 pm ET)
             

          boy, that is some tortured reasoning.  you must be shapen like a pretzel.

          libby lied and got prosecuted, so the real perpetrators don't get prosecuted, but if he hadn't lied they would have been.  let me guess, you flunked geometry.

          here is the cite:  http://thehill.com/byron-york/no-reason-to-rush-libby-to-jail-2007-06-08.html

           

          give it a rest folks, you need some sleep.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by 1st Republic 14th Star (February 03, 2008 6:55 pm ET)
               

            The logic isn't hard to follow at all, except for the terminally stupid or the partisan hack who feigns ignorance or willfully remains unaware of facts that will detract from his already biased point of view.  The only question for you to answer is to which group do you belong?

            What did Libby lie about and obstruct justice over?  The name of the person who revealed to him Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a CIA covert operative:

            "Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame’s identity and whom he told."

            Why did he refuse to divulge this information?  Because if that person's identity became known, and it could be proved that he or she had definite knowledge of Plame's covert status, he or she could be prosecuted for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

            Those are FACTS that cannot be controverted.

            Simple logic and deductive reasoning told Fitzgerald and should tell you that if Libby was willing to lie and obstruct justice to cover for others, those others must have been higher than him in the White House hierarchy.  It's absolutely factual that those higher than Libby, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President and Counselor to the President were President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Bush's then-Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Card's deputy, Karl Rove.

            We KNOW Card talked about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity.  We KNOW Rove did, too.  Guess what -- Cheney and Bush also talked about Valerie Wilson's status as an undercover operative.

            Since we know that these individuals divulged Valerie Wilson's CIA status, what did Libby try to obfuscate by his lies and obstruction?  Logically, Libby's secret was whether these individuals KNEW that Valerie Wilson was covert.  Deductive reasoning tells you that they must have known.  But since definite knowledge of her status would have been necessary to prosecute under the IIPA, Fitzgerald would have had to PROVE that the leakers definitely knew, which he couldn't do unless one or more of them admitted it.  If Libby talked, Bush, Cheney, Card and Rove, and possibly others, would have been prosecuted and could have faced impeachment, jail time and/or fines.  THAT's the secret Libby was willing to commit perjury and obstruct justice to protect.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by tex (February 04, 2008 4:04 am ET)
                 

              Of course, Bush could tell Libby just to keep his mouth shut, and if he was prosecuted, he'd never serve time ... he'd get a commutation.

              And that's how it worked. A criminal conspiracy to undermine America's national security for petty partisan pique, and with the power to obstruct justice and then escape punishment by abusing presidential pardon power.

              That's the Bush Administration: Corrupt, criminal, conspiratorial, and cowardly. 

              Report Abuse
            • Author by historygeek001 (February 04, 2008 1:16 pm ET)
                 

              Republic,

              Well said.  Unfortunately, Hstrybuf seems disconnected from reality.  Perhaps he thinks that reality has a liberal bias.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by mefirst (February 03, 2008 6:56 pm ET)
               
            he couldn't prove it because armitage gave out her name first, supposedly innocently.  what is clear is that libby and rove were giving her name to reporters before novak's column.  why did the white house deny they did that?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 04, 2008 4:23 am ET)
               
            YOU need some braincells...DESPERATLY. Why not give US a break from your weak attempts at revisionist history. You have proven you know NOTHING about this that you werent TOLD to believe by some rightwing screechmonkey.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 8:05 pm ET)
           
        No he didnt. You just are completly ignorant of the facts of this issue. COMPLETLY IGNORANT.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by hstybuf6553 (February 03, 2008 8:16 pm ET)
             
          do you ever do spell check?  guess not.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by conleytgwinn (February 03, 2008 8:32 pm ET)
               
            We're all capable of spell-check (if we run something from Micro$oft), but not everyone is more interested in that adherence than in fact - indisputable fact - conflicting with our tortured view of Libby's lie, Rove's participation in the disclosure, and Cheney's and Bungle's approvals of the lies and treason.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by solon (February 03, 2008 9:29 pm ET)
               
            Yes I am a poor speller. I plead guilty. Time for YOU to plead guilty of being astonishingly ignorant.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by ezell_h834 (February 03, 2008 5:38 pm ET)
         
      You boys might want to read Daniel Ellsberg report that was linked in Huffington Post in reference to reports in London newspapers regarding the real reason for the leaking of Plame's name. Something about the selling of nuclear secrets that is yet to be reported in the MSM. Also appears in Brad's blog
      Report Abuse
    • Author by eweston8542983 (February 03, 2008 9:48 pm ET)
         

      Good to see you back Solon.

      Buffy your a wanker.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by dangrady (February 04, 2008 12:35 pm ET)
         

      SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

      The schmucks that defend, or re-invent history to protect their tax cuts, will care not the untold damage the Plame matter has done to national security. We did offer the protection of secrecy regardless of politics before the Neo-Cons told us we were all idiots, and they knew better about everything for everyone. Oooooooppppppss, turns out they had it backwards!

      How is it we can offer any kind of protection to covert operatives, or resourses when we know a Republican with a bone to pick will sell them down the river, with the pavarrati?

      The idea that Republicans would with a straight face claim bonafides in national security is so funny it's tragic.

      Happy Thoughts;

      Dan Grady

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.