On his nationally syndicated radio show, Fox News host Sean Hannity responded to a caller's assertion that White House senior adviser Karl Rove was “involved” in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity by labeling the caller a “nut case” and accusing him of “hatred, hatred, hatred for Bush and anyone associated with him.”

The caller's initial comments concerned an October 19 New York Daily News article that reported President Bush had learned of Rove's role in the Plame leak around September 2003 and was “initially furious” at his senior aide. The caller contrasted this disclosure with Bush's pledge in June 2004 to fire anyone in his administration involved in the leak. When Hannity subsequently accused him of “hatred” toward the Bush administration, the caller stated, “I haven't said anything about hating George Bush. I said that he did not tell the truth to the American people. I want him to keep his word.” Hannity went on to ask the caller “Where's the evidence that Karl Rove lied?” and “Just because Karl Rove testified four times, you are declaring him guilty here?” The caller responded, “No, I said he's involved. ... And the president said he would fire anyone involved.”

From the October 25 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show:

HANNITY: [Caller]. New York. Hello.

CALLER: Hi there. You know something? What you conveniently leave out every time is that the president and everyone around him has said they can't wait to get to the bottom of this. They have no idea. But the Daily News has reported that the president knew Rove was behind the leak. He knew he was involved. And the president promised to fire anyone that --

HANNITY: Hey, [Caller]. [Caller]. [Caller]. [Caller]. Where's the evidence that he was behind the leak? And if that's true, wouldn't that be the one thing that you would expect an indictment on? And what is the statute that you would like to apply there beyond your -- you know, I-hate-Karl Rove standard? What is your -- where is your evidence? What is the statute? Where is it applicable?

CALLER: The statutes I want applied is that when the president comes out before the American people and says that he will fire anyone involved, and now we know Karl Rove is involved --

HANNITY: No, no, no -- that, that -- where is your evidence that Karl Rove is involved?

CALLER: He lied to me. And as long as you're going to talk about --

HANNITY: [Caller]. [Caller]. I know -- I know you hate Bush and Rove. Where is your evidence that Karl Rove is involved? What's your evidence?

CALLER: He's been to the grand jury four times. That's involved.

HANNITY: So he went to the grand jury four times to testify, and that's a conviction in your book?

CALLER: The president didn't say he'd fire anyone convicted. He said he'd fire anyone involved.

HANNITY: By the way, ladies and gentlemen, I want to you to please -- hang on. [Caller], don't hang up. We need to use you for a second here. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a classic example of modern liberalism. Hatred, hatred, hatred for Bush and anyone associated with him. Throw him in jail! He testified four times before the -- all right, I'm going to ask you again, [caller]. Do you really want to convict somebody on the idea that he just testified four times before the grand jury? I ask you again, what evidence do you have -- you're so certain that Karl Rove leaked. Where's the evidence?

CALLER: Sean, I'm not going to let you lie about what I just said.

HANNITY: No, I want --

CALLER: I haven't said anything about hating George Bush. I said that he did not tell the truth to the American people. I want him to keep his word.

HANNITY: Hang on. Where's the evidence Karl Rove lied? You said he lied and leaked. Where's the evidence?

CALLER: I didn't say Karl Rove lied. I said the president lied. He would fire anyone involved and he hasn't --

HANNITY: You said Karl Rove -- you said Karl Rove leaked, and you said the evidence is that he went to the grand jury four times. What is your evidence that Karl Rove did this, though?

CALLER: He went to the grand jury four times? It's been reported to everyone.

HANNITY: Oh, boy.

CALLER: It's also been reported --

HANNITY: Hillary Clinton was before the grand jury for six hours. Does that make her guilty?

CALLER: This doesn't have to do with guilt. This has to do with the president's words. You can either take a man at his word, or you can't. I come from New York. Upstate New York.

HANNITY: Oh.

CALLER: It's frog country up here.

HANNITY: Yeah.

CALLER: We keep our word here, and we know what it means when a man is a man of his word.

HANNITY: [Caller], [caller] --

CALLER: And everyone listening to this show knows what the president said.

HANNITY: You sound like a nut. You sound like a nut case.

CALLER: You can call as many names as you want.

HANNITY: No. I just want to know -- just because Karl Rove testified four times, you are declaring him guilty here?

CALLER: No, I said he's involved.

HANNITY: He's involved.

CALLER: And the president said he would fire anyone involved.

HANNITY: Just because somebody testifies, [caller], before a grand jury doesn't mean he's involved. It doesn't mean anything. You don't have any evidence except that -- all you know is he's been questioned about the case. We know that. That's not evidence, proof, or guilt. I'm addressing your illogic here. Just before -- just because he testified four times, you're saying the president's guilty. You know what? You're nuts. I've got to run.