Franklin

Well, you might be right about that!


PS ... hope you had a wonderful birthday ... and congrats on finding love again!

NJ_Dave

Jesus Christ, if you hate the guy so much why do you watch him and contribute to his show's ratings? Yes, he's a dickhead but he's not going anywhere as long as people keep tuning into his show......

fatbrit

Er...

Credibility? Morality? Decency?

Sorry they have nothing to do with your beloved law. IMHO, these factors are a little higher than the law.

Franklin

If you seek naturalization and you are asked the question: "What's the highest law in the land". Suitable correct replies are: The Constitution or "The U.S. Constitution". While "The U.S. Constitution" is merely a correct answer, and perhaps not really a really correct answer, it is nevertheless a correct answer, and it is a "correct answer" and not a "really correct answer" that counts.

fatbrit

And your point is?

Franklin

Credibility, morality, decency? Where were these when one Kennedy left a certain young woman in a car beneath the water line? Where were these attributes when another Kennedy allegedly had sex with an underage girl? Where were these attributes when Clinton lied on oath and lost his law licence for lying on oath? Just questions.

fatbrit

You're wandering about here, trying to blow smoke.

You say that nobody should resign provided they didn't break the law.

I say bunkum, pure and total!

Franklin

Reminds me of that "I can't believe it's not butter" gag on the Vicar of Dibley show and the story "They Did It With Mirrors", and it was really was Colonel Mustard in the Library with the lead piping. Just so much media hype.

No substance.

All you can come up with are platitudes to morality, forgetting that not everyone is perfect all the time - just take a look at the Democratic and Republican party ... you will see a half full cup or a half empty cup.

I think you see a half-empty cup when you look at the Republican party and a half-full cup when you look at the Democratic Party. *shrugs*

snorkmaiden

Well in that case someone better tell Rove's lawyer that there is nothing to worry about as the comments he's been coming out with lately have all the hallmarks of organising the grounds for defence.

From the BBC"Newsweek magazine quoted Mr Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, as saying he discussed Ms Plame with Cooper in an e-mail without mentioning her name or being aware that she was working covertly. "

From MSNBC "Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."

Knowingly being the key word in the sentence for a legal defence, if Luskin can prove Rove didn't out Plame on purpose, Rove is safe, but when asked this question at the White House press briefing on the 6th of October 2003 - "But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information? " Scott McClellan answered

"I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better."

Therefore, if Rove was the leak, intentionally or not, according to the White House, he should no longer work for the administration.

Manc

How long is Robert Hanson in jail for?

I mean in all seriousness, one cannot distinguish between disclosing classified info to the NY Times or the Russians.

it is the same crime.




Hang him I say.

snowbunny

And sell tickets.

Franklin

At a guess, Rove is listening to his lawyer, hence the crafted replies. Don't get me wrong, if evidence comes forward that Rove knowingly leaked the identify of a covert CIA agent then he should face the consequences. As yet, there is no such evidence, but the way the media and some folks portray it its a slam dunk case against Rove, when in fact Rove isn't even a suspect in the on-going Federal probe. It's going to come down to answers that don't speak to the elements of the prima facie case. The worst thing Rove could do is give flippant answers. In fact, I am sure his lawyer is telling him to say one thing only or say nothing at all. The media will pick up on any perceived inconsistency in whatever Rove says. But the facts are, the standard of proof to convict on such a charge is VERY HIGH. Rove's comments to the journalist don't even come close to passing over that bar.

Franklin

Well you would say that, after all, you are the Manc (and a forum moderator)!

Manc

and probably on some FBI list somewhere..............

Franklin

LMAO ... illusions of grandeur Matt? *LOL*