All I can say is that, if this is legit, it's pretty much the best thing I've heard coming out of Washington in months.
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
Way to go, Karl. I hope they throw the book at you.
Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
Way to go, Karl. I hope they throw the book at you.
Comments
Hmmm...when a certain President was indicted for perjury, you were vociferously defending him on the basis that his personal life did not concern us. Rove is to be indicted for perjury (attached to dirty politics) and you want to throw the book at him.
I guess perjury does not equal perjury?
Either way...the results will be the same...nothing.
Q
And, while the thought of Karl Rove in one of those dashing prison jumpsuits (even one from the kind of country club prison he'd likely get sent to) amuses the hell out of me, I doubt that'll ever happen (my fervent wishes to the contrary).
What I do hope is that this indictment, and anything that may come out of it, will reduce his political clout. We've been jumping to his agenda long enough.
I am naively astounded at how the legal system is abused by everyone, but is that best for the country. Follow the laws only when you think they are right? That is a big slippery slope that transcends the issue of sex in the oval office versus very dirty politics.
Also, I really do believe in innocent until proven guilty. However, I certainly don't like the idea of a key government official "outing" a covert operative for political purposes. It will be interesting to see the evidence, read the charges and see what, if anything, actually occurred. Of course, that's never going to happen!
Chris
Chris
Scope: The event Clinton perjured himself over directly involved only him and Monica Lewinsky. Every one else (including Hilary… not that I'm deluded into thinking anyone cares) was indirectly affected by it. Karl Rove's lie was about an event that directly affected Valerie Plame and her husband. Conveniently, even Karl was only indirectly affected by that action.
As for intent, Clinton lied about an affair. Again, inappropriate. Yes, he betrayed his marriage vows (again, as if anyone really cares). But the intent was to protect himself from harm. Rove lied to inflict harm (upon Plame's husband, for having the temerity to speak out against Bush). I'm not defending Clinton's actions, but on my ethics meter, the action he lied about ranks lower than Rove's.
Which brings me to that whole ethics vs. morality thing. Clinton scores big time on the whole morality thing here… after all, he violates one of the Ten Commandments, and for all the talk about perjury, that's what the uproar at the time centered on… the salacious details of his inappropriate behavior with Monica in the White House. You could almost forget that they were debating his perjury about the event, and not the event itself. By that measurement, Rove doesn't even get on the scoreboard. I don't even know if what he did would be considered a sin and, if so, probably ends up as a venial one. Give him a couple of Hail Mary's and he's off scot free.
But I'm still suffering under the delusion that we believe in separation of Church and State here, and I don't look to our elected officials for moral leadership (and God help you if you do!). I prefer ethical. On that score, Rove's the bad guy, as he betrayed the public trust over a petty political dispute. His actions could have had serious repercussions had Plame been involved in sensitive CIA ops. Clinton lied about an affair. If it had gone unexposed, it would have as much impact on us today as discussions about Kennedy's alleged affairs when HE was President.
The problem, of course, with choosing ethics over morality as your guiding principal is that there's no "big book of ethics" to refer to, and it's pretty easy for different people to differ on what's ethical or not. I'm sure Karl can find a way to sell his brand of ethics on this subject. But that doesn't mean I’m going to buy it.
So, I didn't say that perjury was okay. I merely said that I see a difference in the lies, and their severity. I still feel that way.
As for reasons for hating Karl Rove, I would think that the Bush Administrations 2nd term performance with him as Policy Chief would have provided ample reason. But to elaborate, I dislike his politics and I detest his tactics. His strategy may be successful, but don't expect me to respect the guy for playing to our worser natures to achieve his ends.
Anyhow...I find it amusing, Lou, that you say you draw a difference based upon ethics but not morals? Technically, and just about any way you can imagine, they are the same thing. Different word (a rose by any other name...).
But, if you want to remove religion or tradition and just try to focus on hard, cold right vs. wrong...then they are both equally guilty. Lying under oath and breaking the law is the same, regardless of motive.
I'd also add that Clinton didn't lie to hide his shame (you call it protecting himself from harm). He lied because the "Lewinski act" revealed a pattern of behavior, and the original thing he was being investigated for was SEXUAL HARRASSMENT! Which is both morally wrong AND against the law.
Let's look at it this way...what if they had both told the truth?
If Rove had told the truth, he would probably have to be immediately fired along with Skippy. Even though Bush gave the go-ahead and he would claim his right to de-classify the information, the press would want Rove out, and he would be gone. But, it is unlikely that there were any laws broken. That is why he is being indicted for perjury instead of something more serious.
If Clinton had told the truth, he would have immediately been accused and charged with sexual harrassment against Paula whatshername. The Lewinski scandal would become news as part of his pattern. And, he would have been impeached.
I'm not making any judgements...I'm just saying what would happen.
Q
As for morals and ethics… it's connotation vs. denotation. The dictionary definition is virtually identical, but in the usage I'm used to, morals implies some religious grounding. Ethics is the same good/bad criteria, only without the "you've sinned and are going to hell!" component. Whether legit or not, that's the way I used 'em, so you're just gonna have to deal with it. ; )
As for Clinton's shame, etc. You know, I lost track of the whole sexual harassment end of things? I simply remembered he got impeached for lying about an affair, and forgot all about the overriding Paula (Jones?) allegations. Selective memory? I don't know. It all got muddled up with debate about who did what to whom with a cigar in the Oval Office. (And wasn't the thing he was originally being investigated for some kind of shady real estate dealings? Now I've really lost track.)
So, if we look at it in those terms — Clinton's sexual harassment as opposed to Rove's petty politics — Yeah, it tilts the scales towards Clinton since, as you point out, he's got both morally wrong and legally wrong working here (and ethically, too… since I'm insisting on the distinction.)
Doesn't change the fact that I'd like to see Rove rot in jail. Nor that I expect nothing will come of this, even if it doesn't turn out to simply be another bit of Internet wishful thinking.
AND, having acknowledged all that, I still maintain that Rove's actions posed more potential threat to national security than all Bill Clinton's sexual peccadilloes.
So yeah, throw the book at Karl.
Ethics and morality? It's a tough call for all of us every day. I’ve noticed that is frequently in a client's best interest legally for a lawyer to find a way around the truth. What prevents a lawyer from the avoidance of a discussion of the truth to moving on to simply lying? We see this all the time in all our lives.
Whatever the purpose behind these unlawful actions, morally or ethically sound, the law must ultimately be respected or it will mean nothing. If that happens, where will we be?
Chris
However, I also believe a plane flew into the Pentagon, Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, and Roosevelt did NOT have advance warning of Pearl Harbor and did nothing.
The moral versus ethics issue? Too deep for me. But let's not forget the media. You really can't fault anyone from finding the ML story with cigars and saved dresses to be much more exciting than the facts of the (boring, comparatively) sexual harassment allegations from long ago.
I have to go ignore ethics and morals right now.
Lawyer: Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case
Tuesday, June 13, 2006; Posted: 2:11 p.m. EDT (18:11 GMT)
Chris
Oh well, I knew it was too much to hope for.