Rove rumors raise questions
The Disenchanted Forest picks up on the latest rumor around Rove. According to an unnamed source privy to the investigation, Rove testified Novak told him about Plame's identity.
Somebody had to tell Novak. It would appear the White House has chosen their sacrificial goat on this one, to be announced at a later date and their initials won't be KR.
Or taking the allegation that Novak somehow miraculously obtained the information himself at face value - (by hacking into CIA computers?) - making him the leak , why the hell hasn't he been indicted for treason?
And this has been troubling me for the last few days. Why in the first place is the press vetting their stories about the administration by asking its ministers for verification? The press is supposed to watchdogging the government for us "little people." Isn't this sort of vetting rather like asking the fox if those feathers stuck to his chin belong to the dead chickens in the henhouse?
Does anyone think if Woodward and Bernstein had vetted their story through Nixon's White House that Watergate would have happened? No wonder the press has been so ineffective until now in containing the excesses of this administration.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.This raises a few additional questions. Ol Cranky has a couple and I have more. For instance, where did Novak get this information? Does he have the same security clearance as the inner circle of the White House?
"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."
Somebody had to tell Novak. It would appear the White House has chosen their sacrificial goat on this one, to be announced at a later date and their initials won't be KR.
Or taking the allegation that Novak somehow miraculously obtained the information himself at face value - (by hacking into CIA computers?) - making him the leak , why the hell hasn't he been indicted for treason?
And this has been troubling me for the last few days. Why in the first place is the press vetting their stories about the administration by asking its ministers for verification? The press is supposed to watchdogging the government for us "little people." Isn't this sort of vetting rather like asking the fox if those feathers stuck to his chin belong to the dead chickens in the henhouse?
Does anyone think if Woodward and Bernstein had vetted their story through Nixon's White House that Watergate would have happened? No wonder the press has been so ineffective until now in containing the excesses of this administration.
posted by Libby Spencer at 1:44 PM
1 Comments:
Novak can't be indicted for revealing the identity of a CIA operative because he was not legally entitled to the information to start with; thus he had to be a "leakee," not a "leaker." The revelation law only applies to someone with legal access to the information -- hence, with clearance.
And if you think a GOP propagandist like Novak is in ANY way comparable to Woodward and Bernstein, you are living in a Crack Universe!
Post a Comment
<< Home