McCain is to busy fueling the machine. If he took the time to look up the word he would discover the definition as related to law: " Negligence " failure to use a resonable amount of care when such failure results in injury or damage to another.

No harm, no foul, John ?

McCain's attempt to deflect is so pathetic...it, and he, are not worthy of any response...let's just shake our heads in disbelief and move on to impeachment of the corrupt Bush administration.

McCAin is merely saying what is painfully obvious. There was no law broken, and this is a non issue. Dems will loudly wail and wring their hands for months or years, but they are still doing the same over the election results of 2000 & 2004. So what? GWB is still president, and if the vote were taken again, he would remain president. The trouble with "progressives" is that they think bitching about the current president is the same thing as offering a sane alternative. What sane alternative do the Dems offer? Kerry? Edwards? Hillary? Dean? I rest my case.

I expect another serious a--kicking by the GOP in the mid-terms, and yet another in the next general election. Dems need more than gay rights, more gun control, & higher taxes to hang their hats on.

Any senator who doesn't know the definition of "neglect" isn't fit to be a senator. He should resign immediately, if he has an ounce of decency. That's
"d e c e n c y", look it up.

Hi, Karla #3 - You are living in the Bushland of make-believe. This is America 2005...the American people are NOT stupid, and they ARE very angry, not to mention determined to rid America of the corrupt Bush administration.

Heheh...Glad to have Karla around! Saves me from having to post the RNC Talking Points.

Karla - Please elucidate. What law has Karl Rove not broken? The '82 law against identifying "in any way" a covert CIA operative? The law against lying to a Grand Jury? Or the Non-Disclosure form that he signed upon entering the White House requiring him to not disclose --- or even confirm --- classified info?

Check your Talking Points and get back to us with what you're supposed to say now. (probably something about Liberal Democrats or Bill Clinton or something...let us know!)

karla, if that is what you think progressives are really about, then you have either not been listening or are willfully ignorant. since i'm a Dem AND a Progressive, i can tell you without a doubt that YOU ARE WRONG. next time, ask a real progressive what we stand for rather than taking the word of whatever idiot is putting these ideas into your head.

yes, equal protection under the law of *all* Americans --- even those who are not white Christians --- is undeniably important, as is efficient and FAIR distribution of the federal budget to address the needs of the People. neither has anything to do with higher taxes. don't be fooled, Karla, they have been playing you for a sucker. look it up, and you will find that your party has not done what they *said* they were going to do.... in addition to that part about lying to you about why they wanted to get possession of Iraq. where is your outrage?

what progressives are after is the truth. aren't you? we care about doing the right, moral and ethical thing, rather than using lies, propaganda and dissembling to promote a party and a political agenda. don't you?

for me, Country comes before political party, and national security trumps party politics ALWAYS. does it make you proud to say "no law was broken" as a defense of Rove's tactics?

if you are a real conservative, i would think that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's voluntary and pre-meditated breaches of national security would be of major concern to you. i would also think that you would care about the truth, no matter where it leads, and would be just as outraged at the administration needing two years to tell the truth about this one item. read the primary sources --- Wilson's actual editorial, the actual law referenced in this case, the fact that Wilson's Niger report was true --- which was confirmed by the Bush Administration and the Senate!

alternatively, lets look at it this way: are your feelings today anything similar to how you reacted to the Clinton administration? let's see if any this sounds familiar:

"there was no controlling legal authority" --- al gore, regarding a possibly illegal telephone call for a campaign donation. no law was broken, so there's no problem? right?

"it depends upon what the meaning of "is" is...."
oh, i know you remember that one. see article on McCain above for humorous juxtaposition.

"it's not about sex, it's about the rule of law and obstruction of justice!" "he lied under oath!"
....apparently Karl Rove and Scooter Libby lied under oath to the grand jury about their role in a breach of national security. Rove didn't tell the FBI about his phone call with Matt Cooper, not until much later. the FBI calls that obstruction of justice.

sound familiar?

i'm perplexed that you are so proud of a party that smiles in your face while they gut your civil liberty protections... pats your hand with compassion while they cut funding from VA hospitals and education... distracts you with cultural issues they have no intention of addressing.... all while giving a free pass to corporations who poison your food, air and water because they haven't made quite enough money off of you yet.

educate yourself, Karla. i sincerely hope that you will read the facts with an open mind, so that maybe someday you can see through their blatant manipulation of you.

sorry for the long post, guys, but it just really gets to me when people are willfully ignorant without checking out the FACTS. it's so annoying, besides being downright dangerous sometimes.

Everybody says how John McCain is an "OK" Republican. But, I lost all respect for him, when he didn't defend his family, when Rove/Bush smeared his family during the 2000 Republican primary. Anyone who wouldn't viciously defend their family, and then furthermore backs Bush afterwards, after doing that to him, makes you wonder about McCain.

McCain knows fully well what negligence is. He's been sent out as a "good Republican" by the White House to help stem the tide, and he's playing the good soldier.

Never mind him. The law is the law, and we're a nation of laws, not men. If we aren't that anymore, then we're nothing at all.

So who will be the first Republican legislator to say, "Enough is enough"? We have an opening for a hero here.

Gee, sounds to me like mcCain is dis-assembling.

and Des, that post wasn't too long. Well said.

But it seems that karla will just keep repeating that treason is a "non-issue" (wow, how very patriotic!)

& that "if the vote were taken again, [w] would remain president".

Gee, you think?

Brad I have a fair amount of legal experience. It's my opinion that nothing that's been revealed thus far is really a violation of any law. You and a million leftwing bloggers disagree. So? You're outnumbered by at least 3 to one. Des, you wrote a very long and quite angry post, full of loaded questions and incorrect assumptions about me. I hope you got some benefit out of venting.

I'm through with McCain. He's a disgraceful coward. He's supposed to be the best the most honorable the RNC has to offer and he goes on tv and says he doesn't know what negligent means. Take that bs somewhere else. The GOP are a morally bankrupt party. Every last one of them. Once we get fair elections these punks are done.

What the hell is going on here?

I mean even if you go on the premise that it's legal to out a covert CIA agent does it make it right for Rove to do it?

It doesn't sound very patriotic to me. And yet here Karla is saying it's ok to out her because no legal statute was broken.

Why do Karla and Karl Rove hate America?

actually, karla, you've made an incorrect assumption: i wasn't angry at all. i was explicit. based on your words, you know very little about progressives and the progressive movement, so i replied to explain and to encourage you to look into it for yourself.

as for incorrect assumptions about you, you are right --- i read into your post attitudes that were not explicitly there. my bad.

loaded questions? well, of course! that's from Finding Common Ground 101. because even tho we don't agree on this particular issue, i was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you care about this country and the truth as much as i do. i notice that you didn't answer any of 'em, tho, so i would be incorrect to assume that.

btw, while i respect that you have legal experience, the CIA, the Justice Dept, and the special prosecutor have some of that, too, and apparently they think there's something to this 'non-story' worth investigating. and i'm really not feeling angry or sarcastic here, i am just stating a fact.

Karla blathered:

Brad I have a fair amount of legal experience. It's my opinion that nothing that's been revealed thus far is really a violation of any law. You and a million leftwing bloggers disagree. So? You're outnumbered by at least 3 to one.

I'll assume during your accumulation of a "fair amount of legal experience" you've also learned that the number of people who believe a law has or hasn't been broken has absolutely zero to do with whether a law has been broken or not.

Though if your "legal experience" is as up to snuff as your "political knowledge" or "love of country" I'm guessing you may not understand that much either.

As to your thoughts on Des' comment, she spoke up for herself, so I won't bother to do so myself, beyond saying it's a shame your were unable to respond to a single one of her points.

A shame. But hardly a surprise.

Mc "a**hole"ain should be stung up by his balls. Doesn't know what the definition is? He'd know it if he was back in a bamboo box!

I know we are nice people here and try to engage people, but Karla sounds robotic, nothing - a white bread, pablum, bland PR spokesperson for treason. At least Jimmo gave us comic relief occasionally.

OK, Karla, I'm challenging you to actually say something. 1.) Given your legal expertise, tell us specifically why you believe a crime has not been committed. 2.) Tell us why you believe outing a CIA agent and endangering the national security is not newsworthy or worth our attention. 3.) Tell us where you get your information that "nobody cares". (If it is just a feeling, don't be shy about telling us.) 4.) Look at the testimony (including links) of Jim Marcinkowski and Larry Johnson, and tell us point-by-point why it is all nonsense. It seems to make sense to me. Why am I wrong? (Also, I wonder why David Gergen thinks this is a "big, important story".) 5.) If it is not nonsense, why aren't you joining us in our quest for honesty and justice?

I'm afraid any reliance on the tired and decrepit techniques of straw men, vague blanket statements, unsupported statistics, diversion from the issue, and bullying have had their day, and if that's all you have, quit wasting our time.

So Karla has a fair amount of legal experience.

Karla, tell me about Executive Order 12958. Every White House staffer including that pie faced dipstick Rove has signed it. In this agreement the signer agrees to safeguard classified information. Here are some excerpts from the agreement. Looks like Rove violated this one.

PART 4--SAFEGUARDING

Sec. 4.1. General Restrictions on Access. (a) A person may have access to classified information provided that:...

(b) Every person who has met the standards for access to classified information in paragraph (a) of this section shall receive contemporaneous training on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the criminal, civil, and administrative sanctions that may be imposed on an individual who fails to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.

http://www.whitehouse.go...2003/03/20030325-11.html

Actually Karla, John Dean former counsel to Richard Nixon thinks Rove is in a heap of trouble.

The Espionage act probably won't fly, but there are a bunch of statutes to get Rove on. This very same Bush administration prosecuted and convicted someone who outed an agent under Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. There is a precedent out there.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, Court One of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

Please tell me again how no law was broken and this is a non issue.

bloggers 10 karla 0
well stated DES *2 poor response karla

bushcheney won't speak to ANYBODY under OATH about ANYTHING ,odd that ,don't ya thunk ?

Brad, Plenty of blather from all.

You did make one very good point, which is also my point - " the number of people who believe a law has or hasn't been broken has absolutely zero to do with whether a law has been broken or not."

That's pretty much what I've been saying. Having a few million Democrat/progressives screeching at the top of their lungs that a law has been broken is not a criteria.

There are many millions of GOP'ers pooh-poohing the whole thing, and another hundred million Americans who have never heard of Rove, Libby, Plame, or even Cheney, for that matter.

When you attibute statements to me that were not made by me, you dilute your already thin position.

Arry & Nonbeliever, It isn't my burden to prove that no law was broken. It is your burden to prove that a law WAS broken. There are a thousand big brained lawyers right now trying to do just that, and their IQ's are about 40 points higher than yours. So far, the general consensusamong them is that no law was broken. Maybe you should give them a call, or better yet, send them an e-mail. That should set them straght.

By the way, your offhanded mention of a couple of laws is not impressive to anyone with a shred of legal knowledge. Might impress Brad or some of his tweny followers, though. You have to actually read them, in their entirety - if you are capable - and see if they apply.

McCain gets uglier and more disgusting by the day, aren't you all glad he will never get anywhere in the Republipuke party and that he will always just be their waterboy?

To Karla:

This isn't a popularity contest. Being outnumbered has nothing to do with the law.

Also, your "3-to-1"...is not correct. You can say things like that on conservative blogs, and get no rebuttle. That's the way those blogs work. Liberals are not even allowed on conservative blogs. What does that tell you about fairness?

For example, to point out all Rush Limbaugh's lies, you have to go to mediamatters, because it isn't allowed to point out rightwing lies on rightwing sites or rightwing talk radio.

You can't just flippantly say "3-to-1" with no proof. That's assinine!

"A fair amount of legal experience" could mean any of the following:

1) Trying cases in court.

2) Drawing up wills and doing real estate closings.

3) Being a court stenographer.

4) Watching Perry Mason reruns 24/7.

Was Della Street ever a right-wing troll?

But asinine seems to be her m.o., BigDan!
Come on, karla, regurgitate your talking points one more time:
"this is a non-issue. bush would win again. nobody cares. you bloggers are naive."

She's a robot. Go get a lube job, karla. Your joints are creakin'. It's embarrassing.

Long ago in another time I respected McCain, but since his run against bush and continued support of the many lies and frauds this administration has sold....I wouldn't vote for McCain if he were the last man on earth, even if he was a war hero. He's totally lost face....shame on him and his 'flip flopping' ways!

Karla....for the 8 years of the Clinton presidency we heard the cries and lies of the GOP...we saw them spend $70million on Clinton's tallywacker (I listened to every word of the Starr report on tape...gross abuse of power and money...to the point of fraud and theft!) and you claim 'progressives' only bitch and need to offer 'sane alternatives', please look in the mirror before you speak...you all sin and call the others sinners. We are speaking of alternatives, it's called impeachment and the proof is there over and over, but people like you just seem to accept criminal behavior as if it were nothing....well life will catch up and if we don't see justice now, we'll see it eventually...I'm willing to fight till the end!

As you can see, it is impossible to pin down Karla or to ascertain the bases of her statements. I asked a few relevant questions to try to get to the substance of her views and conclusions. But we all knew what the answer would be, didn't we? She's just *telling* us, not carrying on a conversation where evidence and dialogue are necessary.

Of my list, vague blanket statements, unsupported statistics, diversion from the issue are her specialties (and, naturally, a few throw-away insults.) All delivered in a smug, "I don't have to prove anything."

Probably not worth our time.

NonBeliever, When you suggested that a law was broken, it makes sense to me to ask "Precisely which law?" And "specifically, which part of the law?" And "Specifically, in what way?"

Perhaps to you it is sufficient to blurt out on a forum that a law was broken, even to name a law, and then demand that a stranger prove that a law wasn't broken.

To me that sounds like utter foolishness. Sorry.

Robert, you may have a "fair amount" of experience as a writer. So does Madonna. So does Pee Wee Herman. So did Hitler. So did Rosie O'Donnell.
So do the authors of romance novels & Enquirer articles.

One thing you don't seem to have is common sense. If the law was broken, you would think people would be willing to discusss the specific portion of the specific law, and to discuss specifically how it was broken. I don't see that here. I see diversion and child-like logic.

Ada, you would make more sense if you didn't run all your sentences together like an elementary school student.

Dan, "rebuttle" ?

We are allowing karla to take over this board-just what she wants.

Ignore her and she'll go away.

Bob - I don't mind if Karla is here. She's rather amusing, and racking up an impressive written record of things she'll have to figure out how to back out of later.

Karla continued to blather (in her attempt to back out of her silly position):

When you attibute statements to me that were not made by me, you dilute your already thin position.

What statements would those be, Karla?

There are a thousand big brained lawyers right now trying to do just that, and their IQ's are about 40 points higher than yours. So far, the general consensusamong them is that no law was broken.

Karla Zogby? Who knew she had such an impressive grasp of the "general consensus" among lawyers in this country?!

To be clear, Rove has admitted that he (at the very least) confirmed the identify of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative, which is a violation of the 1982 law which outlaws the "identifification in any way" of a covert operative. Please let me know how Rove *didn't* violate that law based on what is now known, Karla.

Also, let me know how he *didn't* violate the Non-Disclosure agreement he signed when he began working in the White House which requires him to confirm in any way the validity of classified information? Even through negligence.

Finally, as at least 11 current and former CIA agents have expressed in a letter to Congress and Bush, let me know why it is that in even the smallest police department around the country, an employee who is under criminal investigation would be given (at the very least) administrative leave until such questions were investigated and cleared up, yet Rove is allowed to keep his Top Secret security clearance, and is not placed on administrative leave for his actions.

Those actions, I'll remind you, were leaking classified info, which your own "President" George W. Bush said would be worth removal from the administration if found to be true. Rove has admitted as much, and then Bush changed the criteria for removal from his administration.

These are all facts, Karla. Please let me know how you still justify nothing being done (the "nobody is paying attention in America" argument is a bit tired, beside the point as you've admitted, so try to come up with an actual argument this time).

Eager for you to continue your paper trail of shame, so we look forward to your next post!

Lots of blather from karla.

What is your point, anyway?

How would you know what people's IQs are - you wouldn't - just another of your personal attacks.

It's obviously NOT Arry or Nonbeliever's burden to prove a law was broken --- another personal attack.

Way to go Des #7! Excellent post.

BTW - what are "tweny followers?"

Karla, if you had a clue, surely you'd realize the burden isn't on me to prove a law was broken and it resides solely with special prosecutor Fitzgerald. My posts were to simply counter your assertion that a law wasn't broken.

Trying to disparage my intelligence in a thread about the legal implications of treason really shows you don't have a leg to stand on.

Karla (Comment # 3)

"I expect another serious a--kicking by the GOP in the mid-terms, and yet another in the next general election. ..."

Yes, more serious ass kicking with GOP will continue to happen as long Diebolt, ES & S, et. al, continues to count our votes. In a few years there will be 100 Republican senators and 435 Republican congressman. With 100 % touch screen machines with no audit trail on paper who can ever beat the 'Taliban' Republicans.

Have you ever heard of a Banana Republic Karla?

Brad,

I understand that you think laws were broken. Sooo??

That isn't saying anything. I've asked for specifics, yet all I get is vague opinion from a mostly misinformed group of armchair lawyers.

Bush would easily win re-election right now, in spite of the noise of a few disgruntled bloggers.

Sounds like Karla's battery is running low.

Speaking of bu$h winning an election - this just in at BlackBoxVoting.org 7-25-2005: Wondering about mail-in voting? Diebold's new VoteRemote

Top secret documents obtained by Black Box Voting --- As state after state has passed cookie-cutter mail-in voting legislation, here's what's been flying under the radar: Diebold's new Vote Remote Suite.

As we add more to this, you'll see that components of VoteRemote are already in use, as shown by accounting entries with completed billings for VoteRemote services.

Most of the VoteRemote technology has been around for 40 years (basic mail processing automation, like envelope stuffing and bar coding). What is new for elections is Diebold's automation of signature comparison. ***More at link***

heheh...Arry...Batteries running low indeed.

I'll give "her" one last chance:

Karla - Here are the specifics that you claim I haven't mentioned and --- of course --- which you haven't answered. From comment #34 here for the record:

To be clear, Rove has admitted that he (at the very least) confirmed the identify of Mrs. Wilson as a CIA operative, which is a violation of the 1982 law which outlaws the "identifification in any way" of a covert operative. Please let me know how Rove *didn't* violate that law based on what is now known, Karla.

Also, let me know how he *didn't* violate the Non-Disclosure agreement he signed when he began working in the White House which requires him to confirm in any way the validity of classified information? Even through negligence.

Finally, as at least 11 current and former CIA agents have expressed in a letter to Congress and Bush, let me know why it is that in even the smallest police department around the country, an employee who is under criminal investigation would be given (at the very least) administrative leave until such questions were investigated and cleared up, yet Rove is allowed to keep his Top Secret security clearance, and is not placed on administrative leave for his actions.

So please use your "fair amount of legal experience" to tell me specifically why the various rules and laws mentioned above were not broken and why Bush shouldn't remove Rove's security clearance and fire him immediately, or at a minimum place him on Administrative leave until the matter is cleared up.

Thanks!

Karla, Karl, et. al.

Said this before, here, but it bears repeating:

This blog, where you can post your views and read the views of others, is brought to you courtesy of Brad, and his hard work. Pro Bono. You've even been honored by some direct responses from Brad himself, which not everyone gets.

Fair is fair. How's about making a $$$ contribution to the BradBlog, so Brad can keep on blogging, and keep on giving *all* of us the opportunity to speak our minds? I've contributed my $$$. What about you? Without BradBlog, after all, I wouldn't have been able to read your comments and thus continue my political education.

VG

Looks like McCain learned how to lick dicks while a POW, if nothing else.....what a miserable little coward..Rove abuses (smears) McCains wife and child..and the dutiful "son" comes crawling back to take more abuse..disgusting....politicians have no sense of pride or patriotism...no sense of right or wrong, just THE PARTY..I wonder if they really understand,..the GOP is feeding upon itself with its own corruption

McCain just does not know
what his non-words will sow.
His negligence
is not to miss.
He’s still a P-O-W.

Karla says I run sentences together like most elementary students...(ouch I'm insulted by an bushite moron)...is that the best you can do? I'd rather run sentenences together than spew the crap you do and by the way your writing style sucks too...

LOL! Wow. I expect karla will soon begin singing "Daisy...Daisy...give me your answer do..." as her lights start to flicker out.
She asks for specifics, Brad gives her specifics, & she asks for specifics again. Maybe it's just that her computer is as slow as her brain seems to be.

Karla claims that she wants fact & reason
Don't be fooled, folks, 'cause she's only teasin'
Though her jibes may be galling
What's far more appalling
She's perfectly comfy with treason

For K-k-karl-a .... listen to your OWN Party, how about it ... some have a wee bit of integrity left ... some have resisted the kool-aid ... some are not pod-people ... some are not menacing "night of the living brain-dead" zombies. Here's one:

Vanity Fair's profile on Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame

[snip] ... And, according to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, leaking the name of an undercover agent is also a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, under certain circumstances. When tv commentator Chris Matthews asked Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie if he thought such a leak made by government officials was "worse than Watergate," Gillespie replied, "Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real-world implications of it." ... [snip]

The law passed in 1982 makes it a crime to knowingly reveal or confirm the name of a C.I.A. operative. By his lawyer's own admission, Rove at least confirmed the name to Cooper. So whether a law was broken hinges on the question, "Who knew what?"

It is argued in Rove's defense that he didn't know Plame was a C.I.A. agent. It has also been argued in his defense that "everybody knew" she was a C.I.A. agent. Thus, for no law to have been broken (Karla's position), Rove necessarily was the only person inside the Beltway who didn't know who Valerie Plame was and what she did for a living.

That's ludicrous on its face, and should settle the issue. But trolls aren't interested in issues, or facts, they're interested only in discrediting those whose political views conflict with the status quo, where they themselves float in an amoral vacuum.

MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell on Al Franken said that the relevant law concerns whoever had security clearance (bush? cheney?) telling someone who did NOT have such clearance that Plame was an agent. Is it known for a fact that rove DID/DOES have such clearance?