October 13, 2005

David Corn looks at Rove's shifting PlameGate defences and wonders why he still has not been fired:
There is no way to reconcile Bush's statements on the leak investigation and Rove's new-and-improved defense. Rove disobeyed Bush's I-want-to-know command. And Bush has let this slide and tossed aside his vow to take 'action' against the Plame/CIA leakers. The wait for indictments continues, but Rove is already guilty of spreading--if not circulating--classified information, and he is guilty of either disobeying the president or drawing him into a White House conspiracy to mislead the public. His continued presence at the White House indicates that Bush does not take his own words seriously.
Posted by at

1 comment:

MnMnM said...

"...if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration."--Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003
More Bush double speak. 1 - violated the law beyond preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt, or perhaps some higher standard?
2 - be taken care off. Does that mean a consulting job for the Carlyle Group or Halliburton; perhaps a cushy government pension or a platinum parachute, administrative leave without pay, perhaps selling some property at 10 time its market value? We may never know. Casper Weinberger and Oliver North and Kathryn Harris were all taken care of weren’t they.
Like OJ, they will not be able to convict Rove at the criminal level but what about a civil level. Perhaps Common Cause, the Taxpayer’s Union, and other groups should file a taxpayer lawsuit alleging abuse, misuse, and malfeasance in office of government paid for information. Mr. And Mrs. Wilson should also join a suit to get a conviction under the Hatch Act (engaging in political activities) or Federal Privacy Act laws. It is a crime to violate any citizen’s Privacy by divulging information to groups or individuals without a need to know or without the appropriate clearances. Whenever any agency . . . fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual [the individual may bring a civil action]." 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(1)(D).
I do not believe that Mr. Rove was a Federal Government employee at the time he talked to Matt Cooper. He was a political consultant. I assume he did not have the need to know in his official capacity and he did not have the clearance to know about Mr. Wilson’s wife. Whoever provided this information to Mr. Rove should also be investigated. This might be a clue about why Rove was made Deputy Chief of Staff of the United States (COSTUS). It appears that he and others working with him and perhaps the RNC had access to information protected by the Privacy Act and National Security regulations while Rove was still a political operative. And were his staff, office, and travel expenses paid for by government funds before he became COSTUS. Now that he is COStUS, it might be easy for his lawyer to confuse whether the actions were taken before or after he was appointed. Can NBC get a copy of the oath of Office of COSTUS and post it to their web site? Since he is now Deputy Chief of Staff, does the Hatch Act allow him to be involved in political activities? No matter what the final outcome Rove, the COSTUS, will COST US in the long run. Costs including deaths in Iraq, high gas prices, expenses for lawsuits, and the slow weakening of Freedom of the Press. Which is already on life support. Don’t let them pull the plug on you.
As Daniel Schorr explained in his comments on NPR’s ALL Things Considered on 7/13/05:
...the real issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war, and how America was misled into that war.
Moreover, the real question is not whether Mr. Rove or anyone at the White House has violated any specific laws; they have betrayed our trust by not answering truthfully when the question of Roves’ involvement was originally posed to them. They could have explained then that Rove made a reference to Mr. Wilson’s wife but did not violate any laws. If it walks like a cover-up, talks like a cover-up, and smells like a cover-up, the American public will assume it is a cover-up.
Finally, a similar civil suit might be in line for the Vice-President. What does his oath of office say? It appears that he may also have violated provisions of the Hatch Act and Privacy Act laws. He has assumed powers well beyond his official duties as VP and had access to information protected by the above laws without the official need to know. Please post his Oath and Position Description.

11:52 pm

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Pages

Blog Archive