tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post112172922294242650..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: RecusalDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1121968027704449592005-07-21T10:47:00.000-07:002005-07-21T10:47:00.000-07:00One leaker seems to have been Plame herself, certa...One leaker seems to have been Plame herself, certainly to her husband with the "incorrect numbers" matter, later misremembered, but also perhaps to the NY Times or others... One has to consider the entire context, including the hot presidential election compaign. It's possible the NY Times has a Dan Rather problem here it cannot admit. And the Wilsons were much more interested in defeating George Bush than in learning the truth about African yellowcake. They do not seem above telling a few lies to abet that effort, either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1121794053117193772005-07-19T10:27:00.000-07:002005-07-19T10:27:00.000-07:00Meh.Your issue comes down to whether or not Rove a...Meh.<BR/><BR/>Your issue comes down to whether or not Rove acted improperly. This is a controversial point, upon which it seems that rational people can disagree.<BR/><BR/>You dismiss without analysis the conservative arguments, which form the foundation for what they believe is a rational conclusion that Rove has not acted improperly.<BR/><BR/>You present your own preferred conclusion with a woefully incomplete supporting rationale; indeed, you simply quote other blogger's conclusions, again without analysis.<BR/><BR/>Your admirable admission of extreme bias against Rove, plus your total unwillingness to attempt a rational analysis of the facts and their interpretations, makes your posted opinion meaningless.<BR/><BR/>If you're not even going to try to present an argument that stands on its own merits, apart from your own bias, then you'd be much better served by adhering to your former policy of keeping silent.<BR/><BR/>Opinion blogging is great. "I hate Karl Rove, and I agree with those who think he's wrong--they said it, I believe it, that settles it"? Not so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1121746363895154432005-07-18T21:12:00.000-07:002005-07-18T21:12:00.000-07:00The problem I have with this whole scandal is that...The problem I have with this whole scandal is that it depends on Plame having been a covert agent - yet several members of the press have indicated that they already knew Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.<BR/><BR/>Now, if the prosecutor ends up saying "Rove gets off because we can't prove he broke the law" then that's one thing - but if the prosecutor ends up saying "Plame was not covered by the relevant laws" then I see no reason Rove should be fired (ethically, that is - politically he's such a lightening rod that Bush should have moved him out of the limelight a long time ago).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1121733872574560042005-07-18T17:44:00.000-07:002005-07-18T17:44:00.000-07:00I'm unaware of any precedents related to 18 USC 79...I'm unaware of any precedents related to 18 USC 793(f) (the section you cite). I do enjoy becoming better informed on these sorts of things, so if you'd provide the links I'd be delighted.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1121733671159204802005-07-18T17:41:00.000-07:002005-07-18T17:41:00.000-07:00I think you were hurting the community by not givi...I think you were hurting the community by not giving your opinion just because of assumed personal bias, and I support the GoP position. Everyone has some personal bias - it's through the culmination of so many biased viewpoints that the truth, if it exists anywhere in small pieces, can be made obvious.<BR/><BR/>You should, however, note that Sullivan's proposed attack plan does have a few flaws. For example, previous uses of the law's fifth section (the second one in the quote you provide) have had a lot of difficulty being used. And that is the section that would need to be applied - Rove was only a paid political operative as of 2003, which doesn't give him any significant security clearance.<BR/><BR/> The nature of intentional unauthorized access obviously gives better laws to be thrown around, and unintentional access often makes it nearly impossible to prove that clause about "information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." Unless Rove did an illegal access version of Sandy Berger, which would give the Grand Jury much better ammo than it seems (to me) to have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com