It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Rove Case May Test Bush Loyalty

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sauron
Rove will be promoted just as every other Bush official has been



Yep thats what I was thinking, they do need someone on the Supreme Court, whats Roves credentials? LOL




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

Great, but where's rove amongst your answer? Or did I miss something within your post?

Dallas


You missed something in my post. I was addressing bodebliss's condemnation for Geroge Bush based on his grandfather's crimes. I will be addressing twitchy's last paragraph eventually, but right now I'm so tired I can't form a cohesive. Sen. Tance. I'll also be addressing Twitchy's Industrial Revolution statement, which comes a lot easier because I've had that conversation with many people in the past, but right now I really have to go to bed. I really hope that, when I hit "myATS" for the last time in just a moment, there's nothing new up there, 'cause that's probably gonna delay my getting that desperatly needed sleep...



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Yah, I know the feeling too. But you have few post requiring your reply attention when your back.

Dallas



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Junglejake,

My point is they are shamelessly standing on the immoral financial mountain hilled up by their grandfather. No remorse there.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I find it interesting that so many of us are already drawn our conclusions on the Rove/Plame issue along partisan/ideological lines. I feel that this is exactly the response the fat cats in washington have perfected over the years and it is the one they want. Defend your own no matter what they do. Or perhaps it is that by admitting that they have done wrong some of you may feel that this reflects that your political philosophy/party isnt perfect as well, one that many of you have defended with much vigour and emotion in heated debate from time to time.

I dont think we should draw any conclusions on the Rove case yet. We should have a clear and open mind about this and not resort to calling Rove a traitor or calling him a hero.

If we wait for the law to figure this one out, I am sure that they will come to the right conclusion, well at least one that has more credibility than people like ourselves commenting on the case without spending many hours investigating the case and being barristers.

Let's put the trust in the law for once instead of political parties who are there to divide.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 14-7-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
DrFunk, I agree with your reasoning, but the facts of the criminal investigation are being ignored. Rove is not even being investigated anymore. The special prosecutor investigated his role, decided no laws were broken, and is now looking elsewhere. So the law has already decided. The only reason we're still hearing about Rove's role in this is because Howard Dean and his ilk are demanding he be fired. When this investigation is over and the special prosecutor makes his case, we will see at least one, and probably many threads appear here on ATS talking about a conspiracy, a cover up, etc. The fact is, Karl Rove did not break any laws. I'm trying to find a copy of the email sent to Time that states exactly what Rove said, but I've heard it. There's a very interesting article on National Review going through the facts of this case, including talking with Rove's lawyer. Rather than assume guilt because Rove is a dangerous politician to the Democrats, people need to look into it themselves instead of listening to what the spin artists like MoveOn and Hannity are saying about the case.

bodebliss, is the money its self evil, or the way it was acquired? If it's the way it was acquired, what does that have to do with Bush jr? He didn't support the Nazis. Yeah, he has money from that support, but so does the Ford motor company. Does that make the Ford company evil, too? You are not held accountable for the actions of your father, or in this case your grandfather. If you had, somewhere in your family tree, a nasty criminal, should we lock you up because someone who contributed to your genes was bad?

As to the circumstances surrounding the supposed political move against Joe Wilson for not finding the sale of yellow cakes to Iraq, they've been twisted around. First, if this was a planned leak to hurt Joe Wilson, it was both very well planned and very poorly planned. Rove did not contact Cooper, Cooper called him and left him a message saying he wanted to talk to Rove about welfare reform. Rove returned the call, and for a long while they talked about exactly that, welfare reform. At the end, Cooper changed the subject to WMDs and was asking about some of Wilson's comments. At the time of the phone call, Rove knew that Cheney had never even met Wilson, despite what Wilson had said, and that was going to be coming out. Rove also knew that later that day George Tenent, the CIA head honcho, was going to be making a press release announcing he, too, hadn't sent Wilson to Nigeria. Cooper said he spoke to Rove on "double super secret background for about two min[ute]s before he went on vacation" according to an excerpt from the email on Newsweek. Rove was trying to turn Cooper away from the story about Valerie Plame because he knew about Tennant and Cheney's comments which were coming, Tennant's in a few hours. He never named her, said he didn't know her name, but did refer to Joe Wilson's wife. The reason he referred to Wilson's wife was because it appeared she was the one who authorized Wilson's trip. "it was, K[arl ]R[ove] said, Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." That statement was twisted around by Cooper in his co-authored article, "A War On Wilson?"

Like I said, there is a very interesting article. that presents the case for Karl Rove. Without reading through both sides, you cannot possibly pass judgment in an honest manner, and as far as I've found, the author of this article is the only one who has actually talked with Rove's lawyer.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:01 PM
link   

"it was, K[arl ]R[ove] said, Wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

What more evidence do you need?

Did Rove need to mention that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Not really, because it was common knowlege in Washington. She was not covert anymore. She was a WMD analyst and was directing the program as an administrator. Those CIA operatives are not classified. Her name is public just like George Tenant's name is public.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
just a little backround info on karl rove it was the second hit on google.

karl rove

Seems like a bit of a shady fellow if you ask me just a little into the corrupting power of politics.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Magickesists
Seems like a bit of a shady fellow if you ask me just a little into the corrupting power of politics.


What high level politician isn't?


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
... as far as I've found, the author of this article is the only one who has actually talked with Rove's lawyer.

And this impresses you???

No one is more partisan to the interests of an individual than his lawyer, so it is no big surprise that Rove's lawyer is spinning the allegations to cast Rove in a positive light. In fact he is duty bounty to keep anything Rove tells him private and to argue on Rove's behalf to the prosecutor and courts. Comments from Rove's lawyer are the last thing you should use to evaluate the allegations.




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

And this impresses you???


Yeah, it does, because instead of only taking the side against Rove, this guy went and looked at both sides. All over the place, we're hearing the allegations that he did something illegal. There are stories from interviews with Joe Wilson all over the place. Valerie Plame was featured in Vanity Fair. John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Hillary Clinton, when they call for the firing or suspension of Rove, make all the major news networks. You'll soon be reading stories about Joe Wilson and Shumer getting together and demanding Rove's suspension (they held a press conference together (Wilson is displaying his non-partisanship, you see) at 3 EST today). Yet only this article has bothered to talk to the other source. Yeah, get Wilson's side of it, get Plame's side of it, but also get Rove's side of it! Ignoring an article because it doesn't present the side you like is one thing(ignorant, but honest), but to pretend like Rove has an agenda and Clinton does not is naive or purely partisan.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Yeah most politicians are corrupt and thus far have created more scandals than are humanly possible to remember, but rove is being ejected from his position most likely for some reason of power . It's a power play like when crime bosses want something of the other guys and they gang up then divide the profit. Question is what did rove do to offend his peers and what does he have that they want.

It is never really a public outcry its propaganda who started it, leaked the right info to the right person and why is what matters here see if you masters of the politics can solve those simple questions. muahahahahaha. Yeah there's something going on here for sure my bet is none of us will actually find the truth behind it however.

start digging up research old unclassified docs from watergate anything man. I'm interested in this too and would very much like to know the root of this perturbance in the government over one man.


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
but to pretend like Rove has an agenda and Clinton does not is naive or purely partisan.


You're barking up the wrong tree. I hold democrats and republicans in equal contempt as we are getting screwed by both political parties.

I'll consider what Rove's lawyer has to say should he ever represent him in court as he must operate within judicial parameters in that venue. However what he says to the press outside of the judicial system is nothing but unadulterated BS intended to sway public opinion and has nothing to do with presenting the facts or truth. In fact Rove can lie to this turkey to use him as a shill, then change lawyers before trial and the original lawyer must remain silent.

Mark my words, this guy will not be the trial attorney if this ever goes to court.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no evidence that Laura Welch was drunk on the night she had that accident.

No, there's no evidence to suggest Alcahol was involved, but then again, Laura Welsh didn't even get a ticket for so much as "Unsafe Movement" despite the fact she was faulted in the accident, so no telling what happened eh? Most folks ram their car into another vehicle killing the other driver get charged with something, hell failure to yeild, or SOMETHING, yet Laura Welsh walked away from that accident scott free. There is evidence to suggest that she had been knocked up by the boy and then dumped for a good friend of hers, Reagan Gammon, though, and was very upset about it, personally I think she rammed him off the road and killed him, and then local real estate tycoon daddy got her out of trouble for it. Oddly enough she lied about her relationship with the victim, she claimed she wasn't driving the car when the police report says that she was, she lied about it being slick from rain, she smoked pot too. I did a good bit of reading up on this little tidbit, read up on it here... politics.abovetopsecret.com...


Twitchy - Your take on the above is pure nonsense. I'm not sure what information you think you read up on, but it is completely erroneous and no doubt more of the same type of gibberish you posted above. If you want to call out Laura Bush ok, but at least learn about the first lady first and stop parroting nonsensical things you read on the internet. I've known the Welch family from a much closer perspective for most of my life (I'm from Midland, TX) and what you're implying is damn close to slander.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   
df1, after the case he doesn't have to be silent at all. Also if he did lie about it to the Lawyer, he would then be used as a witness in the next trial.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Question is what did rove do to offend his peers and what does he have that they want.


Rove is known as the architect in right-wing circles. I haven't really looked into his role in politics, mainly because I didn't feel like filtering through the bs I knew would be everywhere. After all, if you look through quite a few threads here on ATS, there's claims he's the leader of all the NWO, the master of the Universe, and that he likes to chop the toes off of infants and eat them for fun. (slight exaggeration
)

If, however, it is true that Rove was the architect of the Bush political style, then there's good reason for the left wanting him out of there -- Bush's politics have been soundly stomping the democrats for almost 6 years now. If you disagree with that statement, just take a look at the numbers of elected Republicans vs. Democrats. I mean, the DNC chair lost the vote to a new Republican senator wannabe. That has never happened! The Republican spin machine has been very effective the past 6 years, and many I've heard and read on the right give credit to Karl Rove for developing this strategy. If I were on the other side, I'd want him out of power though any means, too.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
df1, he's not going to switch lawyers before the trial because there's not going to be a trial of Rove. The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has said that he is no longer investigating Karl Rove. Rove, according to Fitzgerald, has been cooperating with the investigation completely (a lot more than could be said about Clinton with special prosecutor Ken Starr) and has provided enough evidence to clear his name. Now the suspicions on the Hill about what’s being investigated in this by Fitzgerald are perjury charges, but I haven't read anything detailing or guessing about who.


df1

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
df1, after the case he doesn't have to be silent at all. Also if he did lie about it to the Lawyer, he would then be used as a witness in the next trial.


Of course he does or it would expose his client to civil litigation which would be a breach of his duty to the client.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Actually, no.

You see when you agree to take on a client, they sign something which makes it so they agree to tell you the truth and in return you will reprosent them. This is known as a "contract", if they go and break this "contract" then you do not have to up-hold your end of the bargin.

Furthermore, he could be subpoenaed by the Judge/Government/etc, to give evidence and while under-oath he would in fact be in breach of court if he did lie.

Just so you know, this is what I do for a living. I know the legal field very well, for a vast majority of the World. (49 of the U.S. states, the E.U. Russia, China, etc.)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join