No proof Rove leaked anything in 1992
Adam writes (re: Karl Rove):
I am quite sure nothing could make you think he was guilty…surely not the fact he was fired once before for the exact same crime.
I do agree the investigation should continue because the same crime that was committed 2 years ago in retaliation for dissenting opinions is still a crime today.
Karl Rove was not fired in 1992 for committing a crime. In fact, it is unproven that he did anything wrong at all. Nevermind fact-checking the story, the opposition strategy is just to repeat it loud enough and long enough so that people will believe it. This silly meme has been making the circuit of the left-wing blogs and websites, but it is in no way grounded in reality. Here’s what started it:
This article in Harper’s on 10/07/2003:
Harper’s, Oct 7, 2003 … Rove, the president’s political adviser, denied being the source of the leak, though he was reportedly fired from George H.W. Bush’s 1992 reelection campaign for leaking damaging information about a rival to Bob Novak, the very columnist who exposed Plame in July …
Harper’s apparently is referencing this article in Esquire from January 2003. This has been sourced by much of the left as a talking point about Rove. It has several glaring mistakes in it.
Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted …
- Rove was not fired from the national presidential campaign. He was dismissed from the “Victory ‘92″ Texas campaign. He continued as a national campaign operative.
- Mosbacher Jr. was not the campaign fundraising chief. That was Mosbacher Sr., whom Rove continued to work alongside. Mosbacher Jr. led the “Victory ‘92″ campaign in Texas.
- Robert Novak wrote a negative story about Mosbacher Jr. after interviewing a Bush aide.
- Mosbacher Jr. accused Karl Rove of planting a negative story about him with Novak, and fired Rove. That’s right, Mosbacher Jr. fired Rove. He believed it was Rove was out to get him because Rove’s consulting company only received 1/4 of the campaign’s direct mail contracts, and he had received all of it previously. Rove was not fired for a leak. Rove was fired by Mosbacher on suspicion of using the press to criticize him.
- Both Rove and Novak deny that Rove planted any story. Novak said he got his information on Mosbacher from a Bush aide that he interviewed, not from Rove. In this article from TownHall, Novak states:
Unfortunately, I did not escape Suskind’s article, which includes these sentences: “Sources close to the former president say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fund-raising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted.” I was called by no fact-checker, who would have learned of multiple errors.
Suskind has confused former Secretary of Commerce Robert Mosbacher Sr., Bush’s 1992 chief fund-raiser, with his son Rob, who headed the Bush campaign in Texas (Victory ‘92). Criticism of the younger Mosbacher, a frequent unsuccessful candidate in Texas, was not “planted” with me by Rove but was passed to me by a Bush aide whom I interviewed. Rove was indeed fired by Mosbacher from Victory ‘92 but continued as a national Bush-for-president operative.
So, in rebuttal of the anti-Rove propaganda:
1. It has not been confirmed by anyone that Rove did anything wrong during the 1992 campaign.
2. If he had given the story to Novak in 1992, it is quite worth mentioning that criticism is not a crime.
3. Being fired does not prove guilt of anything. The 1992 firing was a result of political rivalry, certainly not a criminal matter.
July 21st, 2005 08:22
So, in rebuttal of the anti-Rove propaganda:
1. It has not been confirmed by anyone that Rove did anything wrong during the 1992 campaign.
2. If he had given the story to Novak in 1992, it is quite worth mentioning that criticism is not a crime.
3. Being fired does not prove guilt of anything. The 1992 firing was a result of political rivalry, certainly not a criminal matter.
1) Your are right. Beyond him being fired for that specific reason, none of us were there which allows for personal partison rejectability.
2) He was fired not arrested. It doesn’t have to be a crime to be a monstrous ethics violation. It also shows a patern with what he did now. Being an atheist I am not into bizzare/illogical explanations for coincidences.
3) See #1. Do some more reaserch and you will see he was clearly fired for this specific reason.
The important thing is that if you personally won’t believe anything negative about your prescious administation, nothing will ever be provable. People just like you, but a little older, still claim Nixon is innocent…
That isn’t a rebuttal, it is a denial. There are right wingers that have spun that even more than what you found. The thing is there are tons of right wings that don’t spin that incident at all.
July 21st, 2005 08:32
I am sure you looked at some counter arguments:
Rove fired from Bush Sr’s ‘92 campaign over leak to Novak. Karl Rove was fired from the 1992 re-election campaign of Bush Sr. for allegedly leaking a negative story about Bush loyalist/fundraiser Robert Mosbacher to Novak. Novak’s piece described a meeting organized by then-Senator Phil Gramm at which Mosbacher was relieved of his duties as state campaign manager because “the president’s re-election effort in Texas has been a bust.” Rove was fired after Mosbacher fingered him as Novak’s source.
Rove was the “only one with a motive to leak”: Mosbacher says: “I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go.” The motive in question? Mosbacher had given Rove only a quarter of the $1 million spent on direct mail contracts for the 92 campaign; Rove, who in 1988 had the entire direct mail contract, therefore had an axe to grind with Mosbacher. Novak’s column stated: “Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher.”
Mosbacher still says Rove did it: Although Novak and Rove continue to deny Rove was the source of the leak, Mosbacher recently stated “I still believe he did it.”
(Sources: “Karl and Bob: a leaky history,” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 7, 2003, ; “Genius,” Texas Monthly, March 2003, p. 82; “Why Are These Men Laughing,” Esquire, January 2003)
“allegedly”…haha, but well enough to fire him! You are backing the wrong pony here. Its not the first time for Rove and Novak, you’ll find the brain works better when turned “on”.
July 21st, 2005 08:36
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
You like this website. Note this part:
“For the next few years, Rove worked in various Republican circles and assisted George H. W. Bush’s 1980 vice-presidential campaign. He was subsequently fired from the campaign for leaking information[3] to journalist Robert Novak.”
“Blinded by the Right” also confirms the same thing let alone everything else…execpt for the 2 parties with the reason to lie (Rove and Novak).
July 21st, 2005 13:53
Adam, the fact remains that you will believe anything negative about anyone on the right. You don’t let facts get in the way once an allegation has been made. People like you are the reason for the MSM’s success. The old “repeat until it’s believed” works on you everytime.
You use Blinded by the Right as a source.
You are only interested in smear books (politically speaking), you just aren’t able to recognize them for what they are. Yet another example of you having left reality behind.
July 21st, 2005 14:58
Have you read Blinded by the Right? Unless you read fast as hell I know you haven’t which means you are being the hypocrit you accuse me of. Also, I generally don’t read political books ever-ask Matt and Bret if you actually want to know.
What “facts” and “evidence” is there against this? Roves word? Motive? Wait! Now the crime committed 2 years ago is no longer a crime!…of course only after Rove is implicated.
Get real or actually address something specific. We got it, liberal bad, conservatives you like, good (of course not bastards like McCain).
1). Rove was fired for this same offense with the same Novak assistant for the same reasons: punishment.
2). Rove has now been implicated in this one even though all the details are not known.
Things are much easier for you in this realm: Rush say, you believe.
July 21st, 2005 15:01
You should stop using the word crime. what happened *two years ago was not a crime, regardless of who did it. leaking an overseas covert cia operative is a crime.
*oops. meant 1992.
July 21st, 2005 15:45
John, using reason on Adam is pointless. I know I’ve been a little guilty of it myself lately. Luckily, Adam will always remind us of it.
July 21st, 2005 15:56
John, you are completly wrong. I know the republican talking points and I also know federal investigations are not created for non-crimes.
She was listed as a secret, classified, undercover CIA agent wether you like it or not or whatever crap your party is spinning.
Its so fun to watch you pretend there is a federal investigation 2 years in the running for a non-crime that was considered by everyone to be a major crime and possibly treason…up until the second Rove was implicated. Rove is very smart and seems to be able to play some of you people like a violin.
Why do you even post Josh? Its like you are competing with louielouie for dumbest comments. Refer to something specific or make an actual point beyond Rove is innocent because I say so, liberals suck, Adam is crazy, blah blah blah.
Things are much easier for you Josh: Rush say, you believe. I don’t have anyone to tell me what to think so have to articulate actuial points.
July 21st, 2005 16:08
Here Josh, to save you the trouble of writing your next post:
“John, don’t waste time talking to Adam. He is crazy and a moonbat and an american hating, troop spitting liberal talking poopy head and I heard he might be gay.
He ignors my mountains of evidence and hard facts that exonerate Rove and everything else I believe. He also claims red is actually green. Oh and he hates our Jesus and wants to take our bibles.”
That should cover your need of ever posting again as there is just as much evidence and proof of whatever in that comment as any of yours.
July 21st, 2005 16:37
Actually, the investigations are formed to see IF there was a crime committed. Comprende?
July 21st, 2005 16:38
I misspoke… I didn’t mean two years ago… I meant 1992. What happened in 1992 wasn’t a crime by any standard, but you were calling it one. Notice I DID say leaking an overseas covert operative IS a crime.
July 21st, 2005 16:48
Perhaps you should be arguing with Josh then!!! He doesn’t seem to think there was a crime committed 2 years ago!
Also, look at my first post here and you will see that I claify my statement and clearly say the ‘92 incident was not a crime.
July 21st, 2005 16:55
Yes, i see that. My fault for misreading it.
July 21st, 2005 16:59
No problem. I don’t think you and I disagree all that much. We seem to both think it is a big deal and whomever is responsible should be up shi*t creek.
We seem to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence and/or who looks to be at fault.
I did say I think Rove did it, which I still do, but I also said that he should only be fired if that can be proven. I doubt you would say that is too crazy even if you don’t agree with some or all of it.
Josh seems to disagree with anything I say in any reguard.
July 21st, 2005 17:00
I want to point out that it only shows a pattern if you assume the conclusion that he did leak Plame’s identity to Novak. If he did not, there is no pattern, but your logic requires him to be guilty first and find the pattern second.
Also, there are plenty of atheists who like bizarre and illogical explanations just fine, as long as they have nothing to do with God.
July 21st, 2005 17:05
As far as the leak goes, I think the grand jury should decide whether it was a big deal or not. Several things are still up in the air… We aren’t sure who leaked. We aren’t sure that Plame was actually a covert agent by definition - so far, we only have Wilson’s word for it. We also aren’t sure when her identity was leaked to begin with. And, the fact that she identified her real name with a CIA front company in 1999 begs a few questions.
I do agree that IF the grand jury decides that laws have been broken, and indictments are needed, whoever leaked should be held responsible. If Rove leaked the identity of an actual secret agent intentionally, then that’s a big deal. If, however, she was no longer a secret agent, but merely a public CIA desk analyst whose identity and job was known to other people without a security clearances, then no harm has been done.
July 21st, 2005 17:11
Why do you keep called her that? She took the name “Wilson” when she got married and has been “Mrs Wilson” for a long time. Her name is Valerie Wilson.
If you consider this instance the case in question, then the 92 incident, with the exact same details, shows a possible pattern and extremly strong circumstantial evidence. Especially since Rove has been implicated as being deeply involved and as the one who leak Valerie’s name this time.
The current dispute revolves around whether “Mrs Wilson” and “Jo Wilsons wife” count as naming her.
This is way more than just assumption. Not quite proof, but so close that the right has done everything possible to attack every aspect of this …all things none of them said at all until Rove was proven to be involved. Until then, this was a serious crime.
July 21st, 2005 17:16
The CIA has confirmed she was a “secret, classified, undercover CIA agent”. That is not in real dispute. People like Rush claim she wasn’t doing anything so she wasn’t really a secret agent. Like he knows sh*t.
We do know for sure that Rove leaked the name although we can’t be sure he did it first. This was all shown on Meet the Press last sunday by the people directly involved. Aparently Rove even said “I have said too much” at the end of the conversation. If you didn’t see it, you should try and find the video.
But I agree that this stuff must be proven to take convict Rove of a crime.
July 21st, 2005 18:55
The question is: was she a secret classified undercover agent at any time within the 5 years preceding the leak?
Was the CIA affirmatively trying to conceal her identity? Those are the legal questions. If she was no longer under active cover (as her 1999 campaign contribution implies) or had not been for 5 years preceding, then no crime was committed.
I use the name Plame and Wilson to refer to Valerie and Joseph respectively for convenience’ sake. You know who I am talking about, why does it matter?
July 21st, 2005 19:03
You mentioned Rush… Are you saying that you know more than Rush does about this case? Do you think you have a better understanding of something than someone who has a vested interest in knowing about it so that he can talk about it on the radio?
July 21st, 2005 19:57
Rush only has a vested intrest in spin. Claiming she wasn’t undercover is moronic which is what he has been saying. I do know more than that.
Just today, they have again proved she was infact undercover:
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/21/eveningnews/main710816.shtml
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163162,00.html
There is no possible dispute over her status and what is going on here. It is total crap.
July 22nd, 2005 11:27
You know nothing, as you prove every time you comment.
lol
July 22nd, 2005 11:32
Neither of your links prove anything about her undercover status. Do you actually read these before linking them? Don’t come back claiming they do unless you are ready to show me a quote proving it.
July 22nd, 2005 15:56
“Was the CIA affirmatively trying to conceal her identity? Those are the legal questions. If she was no longer under active cover (as her 1999 campaign contribution implies) or had not been for 5 years preceding, then no crime was committed.” -John
This is the alledged argument Josh. Here is the quote you asked for:
“Sources describe the paragraph as clearly marked with an unambiguous “S” — for “Secret.” That means knowingly leaking the information is a crime.”
This means the CIA was still trying to conceal her identity and clearly states that disclosing her name was a crime. Duh
“Do you actually read these before linking them?”
-Josh for Josh
You might want to just stay out of this and just read the thread. You really havn’t been adding anything. We all know you are against anything I say no need to bring it up every 5 seconds.
We also already proved to you Rush lies. You just don’t know how much (you won’t find out from Rush himself…he will just tell you he is always truthful). Rush say, Josh believe.
July 22nd, 2005 18:37
This is interesting too:
www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517_pf.html
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8600327/site/newsweek/
See if you can digest any of this Josh. The second link spells out Plames status quite a bit more.
July 23rd, 2005 01:33
Rove included, no one at the White House broke the law. The statute (50 U.S.C. Sec. 421(a)) prohibits those with access to classified intel from knowingly disclosing the identity of a “covert agent,” a complicated defined term (id., Sec. 426(4)), essentially limited — for U.S. citizens — to a classified identity intel official “who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or” . . . “who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” And the law provides a defense (id., Sec. 422(a))where “the United States publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual.”
No one — including the CIA — claims she is or was a “counterintelligence agent.” It’s true Valerie had been “covert agent.” But she and Wilson have lived in the DC area since at least 1997, six years before the Rove conversation(s) at issue. Further, eight days before Novak’s column, the CIA allowed her husband to describe the Niger mission in a NY Times Op-Ed (mirrored here), which would point anyone to Valerie (especially given the FEC reports). And, contrary to the present plethora of press, Congress specifically said “the mere fact that an intelligence relationship appears in a [classified] document” does not prove the intel agencies classified an employee’s identity. See S. Rep. 97-201 at 18-19 (1981), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 145.
Simply put, Valerie’s identity was not protected, according to a source never previously considered pro-Bush:
Who’s this source? Why, the very folks now seeking Rove’s head: the left-wing media (see pages 5-13).
July 23rd, 2005 01:45
MoveOn, Rove-Haters
While the rabidly partisan and the left-wing media foment, the truth is MIA: Valerie was not a covert agent” for at least the previous six years; thus outside the five year window in the relevant statute.
July 23rd, 2005 10:44
You are really not understanding a lot of this. Bicking over simantics to try and justify a crime of retaliation…an act committed once before by the same person wont fly. There would never have been a federal investigation 2 years in the running otherwise.
What you describe about Plame is exactly what her cover was. SHE WAS STILL A CLASSIFIED SECRET AGENT. The CIA says she was so who the hell are you to claim they are wrong? Also, did you ever consider that all the info about a secret agents identy may not have been revealed to the public?
No matter what crap info you are told from Rush and Hannity, the only thing that matters is what the CIA says and what the documents that disclosed her identity say. They both say she a classified agent and that revealing her identity is a crime…very clearly.
Quible about “covert” to your hearts content.
July 23rd, 2005 10:50
Again, do you actually read these? I said they proved nothing about her undercover status, and that stands.
What’s this “we” business?
And yes, I do believe Rush to be right most of the time. You’ve never proven him to be a liar. You say Rush only spins, that’s just your defense mechanism for coping with the truth.
I know I already did this one, but I just really like it. Adam, I’m sure you have some high-profile lawyer friends, why don’t you run that one by them.
July 23rd, 2005 11:26
“Sources describe the paragraph as clearly marked with an unambiguous “S” — for “Secret.” That means knowingly leaking the information is a crime.”- One of my links
Do you think “secret” is diffrent from “undercover”? Do you think it matters even if it is since leaking the info has been established as a crime?
___________________________________________________
Matt, Bret and I all were involved in providing evidence of Rush lying (I think only Bret and I posted) and you claimed “some” of the sources were wrong leaving the others as “right”. We all think it is sad and strange that you worship him so. Do a little digging and you will see he has been proven as a liar over and over and over and over and over again…
_________________________________________________
Of all things you know nothing about, “law” would be a front runner even if you don’t realize that. Federal Investigations are not done just to find out if there was a crime committed. They are launched when it looks like a crime WAS commited…and when that possible crime is a big one. You must not understand what the “federal” part of that really means.
Maybe you should run that by one of your lawyer friends, lawyer friends you work with every day, or perhaps a friend that is currently in a top tier law school…or maybe you will study it when you yourself are at law school
July 23rd, 2005 12:47
Yes, investigations are started because someone thinks a crime has been committed. The investigation is there to determine if that is the truth, and if so, who committed it. It does not necessarily mean a crime was committed. Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? File this under points you will never comprehend, if there’s any room left.
You posted a bunch of links from leftists who hate Rush, nothing new there. I don’t remember Bret or Matt taking part in that. You should really let them speak for themselves.
Lol, yea, it’s so complicated.
July 23rd, 2005 13:43
Apparently so.
Rove will be innocent until proven guilty. The evidence from the other people involved looks real bad for Rove and makes him look very guitly. This combined with him being fired for the exact same thing once before make him look even more guilty. Reguardless of what happens, he is almost for sure guilty of doing it intentially as retaliation.
The “leftist” sites on Rush. Josh, when someone is proved to have lied over and over again, it doesn’t matter who points it out. There is clear, unarguable evidence and a crap load of it. You are beyond being able to ever believe your sweet Rush is a partisan propiganda hack.
Rove is the clearest specific example of what Matt, Bret and I hate about modern politics. Divide and Conquor, “your” team and “my” team, ends justify any dirty means, we are always right and you are just crazy, vast negative broad overgeneralizations, ect, ect. Sh*t like this we have preached about over and over again.
Rove is greatly responsible for this new attitude toward politics and is responsible for creating people like you.
The kind of brain washing that can get old friends to call each other “american haters” and accuse them of “spitting on the troops” and other such moronic nonsense you seem to be about now. Enjoy being on the other “team”.
July 23rd, 2005 15:19
What makes you think that modern politics is any different from old politics? Politics has always been “your team” and “my team”, vast overgeneralizations, and dirty dealings. That is the name of the game, it always has been and always will be. Think about this concept:
For either Republicans or Democrats to retain any influence in American politics, they must play by whatever rules the other side makes. For instance, the recent Democratic policy of filibustering judicial nominations is new… that has never ever been done before. When the balance of power shifts, republicans will have no choice but to use the same tactics the Dems used to gain power and vice versa. If one side gains an advantage through a new tactic, it’s almost assured that the other side will invent something else to use against them at some point, like the “nuclear option”. It has to happen to maintain the balance. If one party stands back and says “We aren’t going to play this game”, they will get steamrolled. Both sides like to claim the moral high ground, and say “Your side plays dirty”, but its only a ruse to gain more power by getting the other side to back off. Politics is just dirty, end of story.
July 23rd, 2005 15:39
Judicial nominees have been filibustered before John. Whats the point of talking here if things are going to be clearly distorted? John McCain even said flat out on Meet the Press that it had been done before and by Republicans. There are many diffrent ways of stopping nominees and they change tactilly based on who controls what. The republicans have done various things aside from filibustering to get the same effect over and over.
Politics has always been dirty but not like this. The country has never been this divided and the crap Josh and you say about “liberals” has never been like this until Newt, Rush and Rove came along. There has never been this kind of “we are right and you are the enemy” hate politics on such a widespread stage.
You guys often come off like you are new to politcs and havn’t read much on how things were though out history.
July 24th, 2005 01:46
Neither party has ever before defeated a judicial nominee with clear majority support with a filibuster. It’s never happened. Especially not TEN judges, excusing the blockade by saying “they were out of the mainstream”. Unprecedented.
I suppose you don’t remember reading about the Vietnam War. I’m sorry, but liberals do a lot more hating than conservatives do.
July 24th, 2005 09:34
You may not listen to Rush, but I am sure you listen to someone feeding from the same trough.
You are wrong again, there is no need to filibuster anyone ever if they don’t have the votes to win. It is only used by the minority. Typical though for you to try and find some loophole that would justify these slanted beliefs.
Der, Republicans have filibustered before, but only on candidates that were already certain to lose anyway. Give me a break.
____________________________________________________
The vietam war was a BAD war man. You need to understand this. Nixon was a liar. The war was almost unwinnable (you will see a repeat in Iraq) as history has shown that it is almost impossible for an outside nation to do regime change and set up the government they want.
The people were right as hell to hate their lying government that was causing thousands of deaths a week for a sh*t war.
I shouldn’t be surprised that this is how you convince yourself of crap like “liberals do a lot more hating than conservatives do”. That is such nieve, moronic crap-people like Rush and Rove play you guys like a fiddle, this is exactly what they want you to think: vast, all-encompasing negative generalizations about liberals only. That is how Rove wins things.
You guys fit so perfect into this new hate politicis.
July 24th, 2005 09:38
BTW-how long ago was the Vietnam war? The one you claim is evidence that “liberals” do more “hating” than conservatives.
More hating of dying needlessly.
July 24th, 2005 12:52
Seriously, are you having the autorantic moonbat write your comments?
July 24th, 2005 13:04
Here Josh, to save you the trouble of writing your next post:
“John, don’t waste time talking to Adam. He is crazy and a moonbat and an american hating, troop spitting liberal talking poopy head and I heard he might be gay.
He ignors my mountains of evidence and hard facts that exonerate Rove and everything else I believe. He also claims red is actually green. Oh and he hates our Jesus and wants to take our bibles.”
That should cover your need of ever posting again as there is just as much evidence and proof of “whatever” in that comment as any of yours.
July 24th, 2005 13:59
Wow, that is helpful, thanks.
July 24th, 2005 14:08
About as helpful as:
“Seriously, are you having the autorantic moonbat write your comments?”
:)