PDA

View Full Version : Why Isn't Karl Rove In Jail? IIARIOK



Gayle in MD
11-19-2011, 08:12 AM
since Novak confirmed himself, that Rove was his confirming source.....Novak, AND two others confirmed it. One inside the White House, and another a respected journalist, other than Novak, himself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNc-RfFK6Oc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8wGYxDjUPY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_X5B-1-Ayw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWQ5ZMnz25I

Qtec
11-19-2011, 08:42 AM
Rove lies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yUtGe-kWgc&feature=related)

Q

LWW
11-19-2011, 04:57 PM
Do you realize how ridiculous these "PROOFS" make you look?

Gayle in MD
11-20-2011, 07:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Rove lies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yUtGe-kWgc&feature=related)

Q </div></div>

Typical Rove double talk....

Novak himself, confirms that Rove was a confirming source. Armitage was an unwitting accomplice of the Bush Administrations plotted, planned outing of a covert agent.

End of story.

Rove Libby and Cheney, at the very least, should all be in jail for Treason.

Bush should be in the next cell, for loads of other crimes, this one among them.

IIARIOK

llotter
11-21-2011, 10:11 PM
Why do you keep beating this dead horse? You bring nothing new to the 'case' so there must have a hidden agenda. What is it??

LWW
11-22-2011, 05:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why Isn't Karl Rove In Jail?</div></div>

My guess is because no evidence of him having actually broken the law has been presented.

Gayle in MD
11-22-2011, 07:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you keep beating this dead horse? You bring nothing new to the 'case' so there must have a hidden agenda. What is it?? </div></div>

LMAO! How could I have a hidden agenda when I have accused him of breaking the law on National Television.

Why isn't Rove in Jail? Don't know? Don't care? Fine, then move on.

Novak himself, confirms that Rove was a confirming source.

Rove still denies it.

Why do Americans listen to anything Rove says, when it is obvious that he outed a covert CIA Agent, IOW committed TREASON, is a proven lyer, and obviously, he is still not in jail.

Will the day ever come when Repiglicans have to pay the price for breaking the law???? Or will IIARIOK allways be the standard?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
11-22-2011, 08:32 AM
When there is no news gayle is her to make it up.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
11-22-2011, 04:55 PM
You'd have to ask Fitzpatrick, the prosecutor, who had Rove up before the grand jury many times for questioning and clarifications of prior testimony.

One tip might be that even Libby didn't get charged with the alleged crime underlying the investigation, but perjury, iirc, despite Fitzpatrick's confirmation that Plame had NOC status, as the CIA itself had already said when they made their criminal referral on this statute.

But violating that law isn't treason, per se.

eg8r
11-22-2011, 10:38 PM
LOL, you guys really have a hard on for this secretary. There was nothing there.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
11-23-2011, 06:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You'd have to ask Fitzpatrick, the prosecutor, who had Rove up before the grand jury many times for questioning and clarifications of prior testimony.

One tip might be that even Libby didn't get charged with the alleged crime underlying the investigation, but perjury, iirc, despite Fitzpatrick's confirmation that Plame had NOC status, as the CIA itself had already said when they made their criminal referral on this statute.

But violating that law isn't treason, per se.
</div></div>

I believe there were obstruction of Justice charges, against LIbby, as well. He was oncvicted. Never served a day in jail.

However, we do know that Fitzpatrick was a Repiglican appointee. Hmmmm....

We do know that only Novak himself, can say who was and wasn't his confirming source, and he clearly stated, Karl Rove was a confirming source.

Yet, when one says that to Rove, even on national Television, he blatantly denies what was clearly his own role in the outing of a CIA NOC Secret Agent, according to Novak, and it is well know that Novak had stated many times his golden connection with Rove, who used Novak over and over to throw leaks out into the public arena, IOW&lt; it was already par for the course.

I don't know of any organized plot of treason, tor any other illegal act, hat has been so thoroughly documented, as the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby plot to expose the identity of a Secret CIA NOC Agent... yet, none of them served time for treason, or even were accused of Treason, and only one was vigorously prosecuted. Repiglicans committing TREASON, and the Special Prosecutor, is a Repiglican, appointed by a Repiglican.
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif


Additionally, Cheney was responsible for anything and everything that Armitage contributed unwittingly, since Cheney was the one who started stirring the pot of exposing Plame, straight from his own office. Fitzpatrick had the Newspaper on which Cheney wrote his directions to Libby right on the Wilson Op-ed.

Novak wrote the column, and Novak stated that Rove was a confirming source.

Hence, IIARIOK, even when they commit TREASON.

G.

Soflasnapper
11-23-2011, 09:47 AM
It may have been similar to treason. Certainly that was the rhetoric everyone used when passing that law, upset about some of the naming of agents that had occurred by former Agency personnel expatriates.

However, it is not quite that. Treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We didn't have "Enemies" at the time, meaning those with whom we were at war.

Gayle in MD
11-23-2011, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It may have been similar to treason. Certainly that was the rhetoric everyone used when passing that law, upset about some of the naming of agents that had occurred by former Agency personnel expatriates.

However, it is not quite that. Treason is explicitly defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

We didn't have "Enemies" at the time, meaning those with whom we were at war.
</div></div>

Thanks....

And BTW, there was an obstruction of the investigation charge inclujded in the Libby conviction....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/ns/politics/t/jurors-convict-libby-four-five-charges/

So, how would the attack, invasion and occupation of Iraq, and all of the lies the Bush Administration told to the American people, hold up under this defnintion?

How about the Iran/Contra affair?



Thanks,
Gayle

Soflasnapper
11-23-2011, 07:16 PM
The Iraq war was extremely damaging to the US in many ways. However, those pushing it into existence did not thereby make war against this country, nor provide aid and comfort to an enemy.

Some horrible crimes against the country just don't measure up to the only definition of treason we have.

Iran/Contra gets a little closer to that standard, since the transhipment of arms and parts for arms did go to a country that was almost our enemy. In effect, a hostile regime, but as we were not engaged in hostilities, and no state of war existed between us, again it falls short of that standard.