Democrat Urges Rove to Quit Over CIA Leak
[there was no leak for G-d's sake-Atlas]
Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:48 pm PST
AP -
The Senate Democratic leader said Sunday that presidential adviser Karl Rove should resign because of his role in exposing an undercover CIA officer, and a veteran Republican senator said President Bush needs "new blood" in his White House.
Rove has not been charged.....helllooooooooooooooo-Atlas
Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader, Calls for Rove to Step Down, Interviewed by George (he still has a show?) Stephanopolous
(Video Here)
Will someone please wake these zombies up? IRAN is the enemy. Al Qaida is the enemy. NOT ROVE. Rove is essential and btw guilty of nothing. BASTA!
If the President's approval ratings are down, it is merely an indication of how effective the left is at controlling the media.
The President is doing a brilliant job. Yes yes that is what I said. He is fighting Radical Islamofascism in spite of a corrupt UN and international community, Stocks surged on the back of a strong GDP report, to cap off a week of big
swings. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 172.82, or 1.69%, to 10402.77. The
Nasdaq Composite Index gained 1.26% and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock
index rose 1.65%.
We are a country at war with two dangerous enemies, the Fifth column within our ranks and Radical Jihadism.
Either Reid is a fool or he takes the American people for fools (it's the later I am sure).
UPDATE: More from JAH on the Liby Indictment
The term "materiality" also goes to the element of covertness, which requires Libby to have known that Plame either was presently out of the country, or had been out of the country in the last five years AND that the US was taking steps to keep her identity secret. That must be IN ADDITION to her having any "classified" status, because including them both in a statute would be deemed "surplussage".Courts will not read a statute that way. Instead, the statute would be read to give effect to all its parts; meaning, in this case, that knowing Plame's identity was "classified" means something different than knowing that the US is taking steps to keep her identity a secret.I'm sure the WAPO would like us all to think that this case is easier to prove than it is; but it ain't.
in addition, this from The New York Sun, Pardon Libby
So Mr. Libby's indictment sent us scrambling back to our copy of Justice Ginsburg's concurring opinion in the 1996 Supreme Court case Brogan v. United States, in which she warned of "the sweeping generality" of Section 1001's language. She wrote, "The prospect remains that an overzealous prosecutor or investigator - aware that a person has committed some suspicious acts, but unable to make a criminal case - will create a crime by surprising the suspect, asking about those acts, and receiving a false denial." She wrote, "the Department of Justice has long noted its reluctance to approve S1001 indictments for simple false denials made to investigators."
Yet that is, it appears to us, the essence of what is charged in the indictment of Mr. Libby. Mr. Libby had been put in that bind by his own president, who, having sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, contravened it by insisting that, in the face of a special prosecutor, his aides spurn one of its most famous protections. The Constitution has a provision - part of the Fifth Amendment - that says no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Yet President Bush said, as he did on January 1,2004,"I've told the members of the White House to totally cooperate."
Now, perjury is a serious crime, but we don't discount for a moment the possibility - we'd even say likelihood - that Mr. Libby was telling the truth. Or that he was misremembering, telling an inaccurate story that he didn't know was false. American jurisprudence requires us to presume him innocent. But it is also possible that Mr. Libby subordinated his own Fifth Amendment rights to his duty to obey the president's instructions "to totally cooperate." In any event, it takes a Washington Democrat to be hypocritical enough to be voting against Mr. Bush's judicial nominees for the sin of being insufficiently like Justice Ginsburg, while at the same time rushing to hail a federal prosecutor for bringing charges against a White House aide under a statute that Ms. Ginsburg criticized for its "sweeping generality."
This prosecution, in any event, is an assault on the presidency. If Ms. Plame didn't want her identity out, she shouldn't have gotten her husband a secret mission and then allowed him to wage a public campaign against the president's foreign policy. The leading prevaricator in this case is Mr. Wilson himself
As this columns was being put to bed, Matt Drudge was reporting that the
special prosecutor is hatching a plan to try to force Vice President Cheney to
testify in open court.
THIS MUST END...............The Sun we cites Jefferson's warning
against permitting the president to be haled in court, lest he be dragged, as
Jefferson warned, "from pillar to post."
Certainly the vice president ranks for
the same principle.
He has accused Mr. Bush of falsely leading America to war. Mr. Bush had claimed "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Mr. Wilson drank tea in Niger for a week and said that Mr. Bush's claim was not true. But even after Mr. Wilson's objection, the July 2004 report by the British government's Butler Commission found that Mr. Bush's comment was "well-founded." In a July 2004 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senators Roberts, Hatch, and Bond said of Mr. Wilson, "The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading."
The way out of this for Mr. Bush is contained, also, in the Constitution, in Article II, which states the president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." The Founder's Constitution, that great compendium of backup material on the Constitution, quotes George Mason as commenting, "The President of the United States has the unrestrained power of granting pardons for treason, which may be sometimes exercised to screen from punishment those whom he had secretly instigated to commit the crime, and thereby prevent a discovery of his own guilt." The point is not that Mr. Libby or any one else in this case trifled with treason but rather that the Founders knew precisely the defensive uses to which the pardon power they were handing the president could be put.
As these columns were being put to bed, Matt Drudge was reporting that the special prosecutor is hatching a plan to try to force Vice President Cheney to testify in open court. The editors of these columns spent much of the 1990s warning that the office then occupied by Kenneth Starr was, though he himself was an honorable man, unconstitutional - and we cited Jefferson's warning against permitting the president to be haled in court, lest he be dragged, as Jefferson warned, "from pillar to post." Certainly the vice president ranks for the same principle. So by our lights the right move would be for Mr. Bush to shut down this entire prosecution with a blanket pardon. He would not only be protecting his loyal staffer, he'd be protecting the office of the presidency itself from those who all along in this case have wanted to undercut the president's powers in a time of war.
