Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Bush knew Rove was the leaker in 2003. Lied in 2004 when he said he didn't know who leaked - Obstruction of Justice.
from John at Americablog:
As a follow-on to Joe's post below, that article is a bombshell. And here's why:
From the NY Daily News:
1. We just had a two year investigation costing a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that the president knew all along?
2. Bush has kept Rove on staff even though HE KNEW Rove was the leaker.
3. It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was, and clearly hadn't fire him.
From the White House's own Web site:
Now that we know that Bush knew Karl was the leaker in 2003, I want folks to scour the Web for any White House comments, from Bush, McClellan, Mehlman, anybody from 2004 until today who says that we don't have all the facts, that Karl is innocent, etc. Remember, the quotes must be dated 2004 or 2005. This is obstruction of justice territory - let's prove that they intentionally misled the public when they already knew that Karl was the leaker.
As a follow-on to Joe's post below, that article is a bombshell. And here's why:
From the NY Daily News:
Other sources confirmed, however, that Bush was initially furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked to the press about the Plame leak....So:
A second well-placed source said some recently published reports implying Rove had deceived Bush about his involvement in the Wilson counterattack were incorrect and were leaked by White House aides trying to protect the President.
"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way," the source said.
1. We just had a two year investigation costing a ton of taxpayer money to find out something that the president knew all along?
2. Bush has kept Rove on staff even though HE KNEW Rove was the leaker.
3. It was June 10 of 2004 that Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak. This was AFTER he already knew that Karl was the leaker, Bush knew that in 2003. So Bush lied when he told the public in June of 2004 that he would fire the leaker because he already knew who the leaker was, and clearly hadn't fire him.
From the White House's own Web site:
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?4. Bush's comments border on obstruction of justice. He went public and made clear that he didn't know who the leaker was - he said he'd fire anyone found to have been involved, he hadn't yet fired Karl, so clearly he was saying that he had no evidence that Karl was involved. Bush was trying to cover up the fact that Karl was the guy. That's obstruction.
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
Now that we know that Bush knew Karl was the leaker in 2003, I want folks to scour the Web for any White House comments, from Bush, McClellan, Mehlman, anybody from 2004 until today who says that we don't have all the facts, that Karl is innocent, etc. Remember, the quotes must be dated 2004 or 2005. This is obstruction of justice territory - let's prove that they intentionally misled the public when they already knew that Karl was the leaker.
# posted by David @ Wednesday, October 19, 2005 
