did Karl Rove commit treason?
 

a breaking story....

at least two sources have identified Karl Rove as the source who blew the cover of CIA agent Valerie Plame for the purpose of discrediting her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, the man who debunked the administration's "yellow cake" uranium story. a synopsis, courtesy of PEJ:

if Karl Rove is the man who outed Valerie Plame, this would mean the chief architect of the Bush administration, the man who called liberals "traitors", the man referred to as "Bush's brain", committed a very deliberate breach of national security and an act of treason. stay tuned.

I thinks I watched a video about this this old boy and others

"uncovered the truth about iraq"

(Just the tiitle I get called nasty names for giving links)

It had lots of long serving CIA people saying things.
Then again what do they know about F--k all?
Them CIA are all traitors"
Don't you just love them terms traitors and treason?

Opps I'm getting a little confused I can't work out whose side I'm on.
Then again the waters are so mucky I could end up on either side.
The right side or the left side,depends on which way the tide is going.
Don't you just love the ebb and flow..
"God bless America"
And all who saill in her.

i an drunk,stoned...and this thread is the best.... :tu:


whe5res? the link for the porn movie... :mayi:

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!
 

I say...

so it was Rove...the chief advisor to our tough-on-terror, wartime president, who has no problem whatsoever breaching national security when it is in the president's political interests to do so.
this will be the fine legal line that Rove will tiptoe across...that he didn't name her.
Buzzflash cuts through the mainstream media crap: if you tell a reporter Joe Wilson's wife is a CIA operative specialing in weapons of mass destruction, you are outing her in violation of the national security interests of the United States. a 4 year old could figure that out - get us a 4 year old.

Back in September 2003, when the White House was still resisting the appointment of a special prosecutor, the President reportedly told his aides, including Mr. Rove, "I want to get to the bottom of this." His press secretary told the country that the President considered the leak to be "a very serious matter" and said that anyone responsible would be fired. "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration," said Scott McClellan, speaking for Mr. Bush.

by the president's own reported standards (which, of course, are subject to change daily), Rove should be fired, if not prosecuted.

How many were killed as a result of his treachery?

When you've got that figure, multiply it by 20 years, add 30 for the treason, and you've got your magic number.

:AP: Yes knife, how many were killed? A simple question even you might have difficulty spinning into propaganda.

right. so if somebody plants a building or subway bomb and it doesn't go off it shouldn't be prosecutable, but only i suppose if these american guy fawkes wannabies are staunch bush loyalists? christ albed that's a beaut. :att:

- js.

That analogy would really work well if it were possible to plant a bomb that had already been exploded years ago.


Maybe you could try something more appropriate; like letting a dead tiger's cage open so it could kill innocent, helpless people. OH THE HORROR!!!


Pure luck that nobody got killed, eh?

luck?

to begin with if you took the trouble to actually read the law you'd know that even if nobody died as a result the punishment for violating 18 USC Sec. 794 is anything from 1 year to life imprisonment. it's execution if the leak results in the death of the agent in question or an asset of the agent, or other dangerous things spelled out in the statute.

"...shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy."

so leaving aside any deaths for the moment karl rove is in serious potential trouble of about the worst imaginable kind and could be facing spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of his dirty trick. really his only defense becomes one of intent and belief, as in he didn’t intend for the information that he gave to a reporter be used by an enemy and that he had no "reason to believe" that publishing the information in millions of newspapers, web pages and on tv could - again - be used by an enemy. for a sophisticated white house guy regularly privy to all kinds of secret defense stuff that argument's pretty slim. doesn't mean he wouldn't try it but it probably won’t wash.

then there is the matter of executive privledge. george bush may fall back on that hoary republican favorite to shield rove but for a "new kind of politician," "committed to openness" and already on record as wanting to get to the bottom of this despicable act and punish the guilty "no matter who they are" that might not look so good either.

off with his head then.

if they really want it badly enough the government would have the problem of identifying assets who themselves were secret, or identifying where and how some nuke, satellite, crypto system, war plan etc got compromised, no palatable task in an open court. so they might settle for some punishment short of the death penalty - unless it becomes widely known that a security compromise occurred or that people have died as a result of rove's leak.

as for that, and to answer your first question posed above, "Yes knife, how many were killed? A simple question even you might have difficulty spinning into propaganda." it has been reported that more people were murdered from this leak than were so far identified as killed in london's subway blast. if that is indeed true and it does become more widely reported (which if true it will), or if the public outcry is large enough, the prosecutors may not feel the need to withhold identification of assets (agents) who have already been identified and are in any event already dead. but you never know, they may feel that rove's defense lawyers could do further harm on fishing expeditions so they could let it go - unless it's tried without a jury which the law allows, or in one of bush's new secret terrorism courts. if it were to go that far rove could indeed get sentenced to death and would then have to beg his tough-on-terror boss for a presidential pardon, which would be an ugly irony, or spend years on appeal, which may get tougher if the conservatives in congress get their way and speed up the death penalty process, high irony indeed as it was rove who agreed they do so.

- js.

"must.....read.........more................zzzzzzzzzzzzz "
Bet all that lawyer talk really gets you the babes, huh? Once they're bored to death you have your way with them before they get cold.That line must be the coup de grace. Have your condom ready.



|/_

^the house troll flails away - almost makes you miss span, doesn't it?

meanwhile, back in the White House, yet another day where it sucks to be Press Secretary Scott McClellan:
amazingly, the White House press corps begin to act like journalists:
so, Scotty, were you lying then? or was Rove lying to you? or was Rove lying to Bush? or was Bush lying to you? this is the version two years ago:
so who's lying to who here?
"disturbing" is a rare understatement for Dean. be clear on what has transpired here: at a time when the US was being taken to war on the pretext of removing weapons of mass detruction from iraq, we have the most senior White House advisor deliberately sabatoging the career of a cia agent - who was working covertly in the trafficking of wmd's - for political purposes. will the Dems finally grow a spine over this grotesque nonsense or is Dean on his own again?

look again at Scott McClellan's previous comments on the topic:
actually, that is exactly how this White House operates - these guys can't just can't keep their stories straight.

I suppose you're a much more organized liar yourself knife, feeling some disdain for the amateurs.



How do you sabotage the career of someone who's retired and doesn't have a career?



And I guess by simply saying "was working covertly" you're really not trying to deceive people into thinking it was still going on at the time of the "outing".

from today's White House press conference - finally, the press has had enough of this nonsense:

"quick, start shoveling bullshit and ignore these annoying questions....more bullshit...MORE...!"

"Bullshit"
Interesting statement
This guy may have broke the law.
It doesn't matter if no one was killed.
It doesn't matter if no career was sabotaged.
Are you saying people can break the law,if no one is hurt?
It seems to me,that some people have talked them self into a corner.
Is it possible for you to respond without name calling?
It seems that you need to back up every statement you make with insults?Why is that?Your point of view is as valid as anybody else's.
So why back it up with insults all the time?
It just weakens your point of view,or is that the fun bit?



.

Some people simply lie, lacking the intelligence to obfuscate an issue.


Others use contorted language to talk all around an issue without actually addressing it.


And still others just ignore key parts of an issue and continue repeating their propanganda over and over.


But some just whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine and whine...

you fit that last catagory pretty well albed...

So which one of those four did Karl Rove do?

HISTORICAL MILESTONE

The bong sucking monkey molester makes the most intelligent, insightful post of his life.


(almost missed it)

^
ANSWER THE QUESTION McCLELLAN...!!!

White House then:

White House today:

touché...lol

(almost forgot i posted it)

"Those four" refer to posters not Rove.

What Rove might have done was anonymously reveal to a reporter that retired foreign service officer Valerie Plame was also a CIA agent. Hardly a big deal since it's a very common practice and everyone knows it.

But the liberal spin doctors got going and Valerie announced herself that she was formerly an agent, considerably more credible than an anonymous source, and further that the information was leaked to damage her career, which was odd since she had already retired and she would have done more damage herself with her own announcement anyway, and also that it was done to retaliate against her husband for revealing that falsified intelligence was used by the Bush administration, which was even odder since it didn't even hurt her so how would it hurt him.

But the liberals are playing ball with it, knife is staying busy, and hopefully it will keep the whole lot from their more destructive pursuits of sabotaging the administrations efforts to fight terrorism and spread freedom and democracy.

Karl Rove is to George Bush what Ollie North is to Ronald Reagan.

and nobody ever learns the basic lesson: it's not the deed, it's the lies and the cover-up that makes it all unravel.

the interesting thing about this one is that it is the CIA who asked for this investigation, which effectively negates the usual "liberal media smear" defense. obviously, the investigation would have been closed on Day 2 if Valerie Plame was not a covert op.

now 2 years later, it is the subsequent and now well-documented lies of Scott McClellan are what brought this back to life. LA Times comments on the real scandal:

meanwhile it's a reporter for the new york times, the so-called "bastion of liberal news," who rots on a prison cell floor protecting her conservative administration sources. that is one stand up woman.

- js.

An ironic casualty of liberal lynch mob fanaticism.

bullshit.

who is the baddest. . . .

Da BITCH hillary or the intellectual rove

right. that would be special prosecutor patrick j. fitzgerald. albed you are as always humorously uninformed.

- js.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006955

Karl Rove, Whistleblower
He told the truth about Joe Wilson.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize--perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail.

"While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either.

The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003. At the time he claimed to have thoroughly debunked the Iraq-Niger yellowcake uranium connection that President Bush had mentioned in his now famous "16 words" on the subject in that year's State of the Union address.
Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded."

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.

As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.

1) Joe Wilson is not the issue but if he was, this much is clear: at the end of the day, he was right about the false uranium strory.

2)While there is no public evidence to date that Rove personally contacted Novak to specifically reveal Plame's identity, several journalists have reported that they were contacted by Rove, soon after the publication of the Novak leak, and were told that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." At least six journalists, including Novak, were contacted by Rove and encouraged to target Wilson and Plame.

what kind of "prize" do you think Rove deserves?

A prize for attracting the most liberal propaganda over nothing.


It seems he didn't hurt anyone's career, didn't damage national security and quite likely didn't even break the law.


Ummm, how many people died as a result of this again knife?


But the liberals just keep squawking "TREASON". Simple old fashoned slander.

IMPEACH...!!! CUM STAIN ON BLUE DRESS...!!! IMPEACH...!!!

LOL... I love politics.

No.

IMPEACH...!!! [underoath-onvideo]"I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH

THAT WOMAN"[/underoath-onvideo] IMPEACH...!!!

the Right is either unwilling or unable to discern the issue here. Larry Johnson, former CIA analyst, classmate of Valerie Plame, and Republican party donor provides some clarity:

September 30, 2003
Oh for pete's sake knife.



http://www.powerlineblog.com/
July 13, 2005

Joe Wilson... leaked the contents of his own report to the CIA--in the pages of the New York Times!--only he lied about his own report. He "peddled disinformation," falsely claiming to have found no evidence of an Iraqi effort to buy uranium from Niger, in order to "harm a political adversary," President Bush.

Contrary to false statements made by Wilson and his wife, it was Valerie Plame who suggested her husband for the Niger venture, and the Vice-President's office had nothing to do with it. This is precisely what Karl Rove told Matt Cooper, but the Times demurely fails to quote Cooper's email to that effect.

the Times has never issued a correction of the misstatements in Wilson's op-ed.

...all of the liberal huffing and puffing over the supposed "outing" of Valerie Plame--as though she might be in danger as she drove to and from her desk job in Langley, and as though she hadn't posed for a photo shoot in Vanity Fair, dressed up as a spy--

Who's Pete?
Is he a spy as well?
Does he have a knive?
My God everyones involved now.
:AS:

valerie plame has continued to deny she recomended her husband for the job and stop and think for a moment: why would she? the right has never been able to explain why a posting in niger would be such a plumb position lol. "oh please honey, not PARIS again! yuch. i can't take another bar filled with perfect women. niger has the best heat and the most sand fleas! send me there - please, please, please!!!" get real ffs. no way he'd make his wife send him to that hell hole. the whole thing's another in a long line of idiotic right wing smear jobs to protect thier intellectually bankrupt ultimate leader. it's like out of some pathetic banana republic.

- js.

Wilson spent a lot of time in Africa and Niger, in fact his Twins where born in Niger. With his first wife. He has very good relationships with the power that be in that country and when he started his investment firm, some of his biggest clients are also from Niger. Esp. when they were looking to build a gold mine there. He was the perfect person to work in Niger.

This link gives a lot of info on the profile of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/va...erie_plame.php

my point was that as a career diplomat he would've been posted in a multitude of places - which your link makes clear - and he would have had solid contacts in many of them, not just niger. he may have been qualified to investigate niger, but he was undoubtedly qualified to do the same in stutgart, bahgdad or a host of other hot spots. nothing suggests he asked his wife to pull some strings to get him sent there, again, why? now it's so he could work on a gold deal? he could do that anytime...she continues to deny sending him (apparently so he could wrongly, although it turned out rightly, criticize a president he had political problems with) which is the basis of the right's smear campaign.

- js.

GOP Chairman then, from Hardball:


GOP Chairman now:
the GOP spin on the Rove story is either inane (see above)...or irrelevant (questioning Wilson's activities, which have no actual bearing on the case at hand)... or simply false (that Valerie Plame was not covered by the disclosure laws - obviously untrue, since the CIA asked for the investigation in the first place).

but the Prez is not the man his father was. Bush Sr. has been down this road before with Rove and dealt with it quite differently:

this is how honorable Republicans used to react to stuff like this:

and this is how they react now:

the GOP credits Rove with having the guts to end the career of a CIA officer who's husband proved the administration was lying about Iraq. hmmm...they don't make Republicans like they used to and the apple has obviously rolled far from the Bush family tree.

the obvious question at this point is this: When did the President first learn of Karl Rove's involvement in this case?

meanwhile, yet another rough day for Scott McLellan:

the White House press corps are theoretically America's senior-most media correspondents...and it has finally dawned on them that they have been lied to for the last 2 years. don't expect them to let this one go easily.

Do you really think they're that dense knife?



Anyway I see Valerie Plame wasn't really retired, just on leave. My mistake.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011346.html
July 04, 2005-Valerie Plame has returned to work at the CIA after a year's leave of absence. She won't, however, be resuming undercover work.

Guess her career wasn't ended either way.




And Jack why would a woman want her husband sent to Paris where love affairs among the politicos are practically expected. Seems Niger would be just the place to ensure fidelity and help him appreciate her more.




.

.

better that than this:

MSNBC's Howard Fineman on the press and the Rove story:

the war in Iraq is really the larger picture here...Rove's actions dovetail neatly into the White House predeliction for smearing war critics, as was done with Wilson, and Richard Clarke, and Paul O'Neill, among others. the press should be embarassed and if the Rove story is the tipping point, it's long overdue.

watch for the GOP noise machine to begin to target Patrick J. Fitzgerald, special prosecutor in the Rove case. he's the White House's biggest problem right now:

Feeling the need to justify the rabid ferocity the liberals are exhibiting nowdays?


So it's not so much that they hate Rove but that they let down Saddam.


And now they can't forgive themselves for their failures.


But savaging Scott McLellan will fix everything of course.

If you're interested in watching a good video on Karl Rove check out Bush's Brain over at NetFlix. It details his rise and other things he had been accused of.

3 pages!
 

U'd think this thread was about that bitch hillery (pls notice lack of respect given toward spelling & caps).

I really, really hate that slimey ####.

I betca she's pushed the button on more than one life.

keep your eye on the ball, from the Minneapolis Star-Trib:

exactly the point - the Rove matter is a microcosm of the larger scandal.

So, in this 'did Karl Rove commit treason?' thread, the "ball" is bouncing away like a rat leaving a sinking ship.


I guess the dogs have been barking up the wrong tree. Or at the wrong ball.


I hope the liberals have the decency to apologize for their reckless accusations.

Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement

Rove's disclosure of information in violation of national security regulations is no longer in question. the obvious question becomes: what did the President know and when did he know it?

unless everybody is lying to McClellan, either the President of the United States knew about Rove's involvement with the Plame case, and lied to the country, or Karl Rove lied to the President about his involvement. the Prez is dealing with it in his usual forthright manner:

Come on Albeds do you you really think there is nothing going on here?
Smokes and mirrors?
Politics will always be played.
Treason is just a word here.
This is the real world.
Do you really have faith in our system?
I hope so.
Because,If you do,truth and decency(and lots of other things)
should sit side by side.
Tall order I know.
I've been told Faith moves mountains we'll see.


"The decency to apologize for their reckless accusations"

Please think about this statment a little and reflect.
God does not pay his debts in money.

after a week of spin and obfuscation by Rove's lawyer and the GOP, thier act gets sideswiped by Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper's grand jury testimony:


he also implicates Dick Cheney's top aide Scooter Libby:

I suppose your god pays his debts in beer.

And you must have gotten him pretty deep in hock somehow.

Don't see how it's relevant but I guess it goes back to beer.

the White House backpedals from this:

...and adds a qualifier, thereby lowering the bar or raising the threshold or moving the goalposts, whichever metaphor works for you:

however, the Prez comes out firmly in favor of ferreting out the truth:
...but declines to reveal why he can't just walk down the hall and ask the people involved. McClellan gets grilled today, to a tender golden brown, on this most obvious question:
but through it all, McClellan understands the role he is doomed to play and soldiers on pretty well:

Press Fudges Bush Plamegate Pledge
 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/224504.shtml

The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name - saying he's now added the qualifier, "If someone committed a crime."

But that's exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.

Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.

On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn't changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Still, that didn't stop the Associated Press from charging: "On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed."

The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:

REPORTER: 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, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]

Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, "Yes" - he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter's distorted version: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"

Bush hadn't offered any such pledge.

But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."

take your pick on that one, no?

he'll be "taken of care of" if he violated the law (what is bush now, a mobster? i don't know what the hell that means...)

- or -

do you stand by your earlier pledge to fire anyone [who leak the agent's name]? "yes." (i sure know what that means).


but he can still clear things up easily enough by simply holding a press conference and stating,

"All YOU LITTLE SHITS WILL ADDRESS ME AS MR. PRESIDENT. GOT IT!?

Now then…any leakers working for me will not be disciplined, ever, regardless of the effect on national security, or terrorism, or defense, or any policy whatsoever unless, because of that specific leak, they find themselves convicted in a court a law, and their multi-year appeals process exhausted.

Leaks are fine. I’m on the record as advocating an open administration, right? Look it up. It's ok to do that one. I encourage whisper campaigns to reporters. It's good for the process. Destroy anyone openly critical of me, my incompetence, my unquenchable thirst for power and my constant lying. That's what it's about. As President – Mr. President - I take full responsibility for the leaks done in my name and if my leakers kill American agents, destroy a war hero or three or a city or two I can live with it. Price of freedom. I was elected Mr. President not you...especially not you. Yeah I'm looking at you. Got something to say? What? No? Didn’t think so. Good. So long as it shifts attention away from me and my policies to turn America into a religious feudal dictatorship it's fine. Fine. No problem. But if the leak damages me or has the potential to damage me ever, no matter how little, the leaker will be executed and his family destroyed by my secret police. I think that covers it, huh? Let’s move on.

Anyone asking why the twins aren't serving will get a whisper campaign. A bad one heh. Audited too. For starters. NEXT QUESTION!"


now that's pretty clear.

- js.