« A test | Main | Right Wingers Going To Iraq! »


July 3, 2005

Rove Security Clearance & Access

-- by Dave Johnson

John at AMERICAblog makes a very good point. Why is Karl Rove in the White House today? We have a guy here accused of one of the most serious acts of treason in our country's history, and they won't revoke his security clearance and remove him from the White House while the charges are looked into? Huh? This guy has access to everything, and is accused of divulging secrets! And he hangs with people who have been indicted for revealing national security secrets to other countries!

Remember the STF Rule: when Republicans accuse it usually means it is something THEY are doing. Rove recently accused Democrats of treason.

Posted by Dave Johnson at July 3, 2005 3:58 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/439


Comments

We have a guy here accused of one of the most serious acts of treason in our country's history

No, sorry, not Treason, as that law only applies to people in the field and Plame was not. Also, I have read a lot about this and am convinced that it was her husband himself who leaked it, to sell his book. The evidence is there, are you prepared to set up the gallows for Joe (treason is an executable offense)?

Posted by: Pericles at July 3, 2005 11:19 PM

first:

SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Huh. Nothing about "in the field" there. Sounds like wishful thinking by "Pericles".

second:

Pericles, pro-am troll, is convinced that someone who assaulted his leader's reputation by daring to question a misstatement must be the one responsible for "outing" his wife. We're supposed to just roll over on Pericles say-so? Yeah, whatever. More wishful thinking from Pericles (who seems not to have learned anything about hubris from his foray into Greek history). Some people can fall into the ocean and never get wet.

Posted by: John Crichton at July 4, 2005 12:14 AM

"covert" implies an active, in the field status. I've actually discussed this with lawyer friends who specialize in Federal law.

Posted by: Pericles at July 4, 2005 12:26 AM

So, if no law was broken, why is there an extensive investigation? Why have the come to the stage of compelling reporters to testify or go to jail?

Of course, you're nothing but a troll and your suggestion that he outed his own wife demonstrates that. That's the most rediculous thing I've heard yet. Tell me your theories about Vince Foster. Ha!

Posted by: DrLaniac at July 4, 2005 7:39 AM

unspoken subtext:


treason, shmeezeon. she was only a girl spy. how valuable an asset could a woman be? just pull another one from the secretarial pool.

Posted by: jello at July 4, 2005 11:08 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page