Originally Posted by rporter314
He admitted he exposed Plame ergo no charges should be necessary to elicit your or my contempt for his actions. or do you believe it is ok to expose covert CIA agents?
FWIW, no criminal charges were leveled against any government functionary regarding the so-called outing of a CIA officer.

Originally Posted by rporter314
As i said a fishing expedition would imply looking for anything but in this case it is very specific what they are interested in. The problem is KR is a known liar i.e. he told Scott he was involved[sic] and told Fitzpatrick he was, I wonder if that somehow implies the President can't tell the difference between lies and truth.
Everyone has an opinion just like everyone has an *sshole. Meanwhile, only I Lewis Libby faced charges of perjury and obstruction so apparently Mr Rove did not lie in this case. Can you specify any other lies Mr Rove has told that you are aware of?

Originally Posted by rporter314
a perjury trap???? !!!! really. It;s only a trap if you can;t tell the truth. Libby didn't tell the truth ergo he committed perjury. All he had to say was yes he did. How hard is honesty for these characters??? Must be out of character.

I don;t know if he committed a crime or not but he was involved in many dealings which may have been illegal. Seems like the only way of knowing for sure to for him to testify and clear the air. If he is innocent of any crime then he is good to go.
About Libby, he waived his 5th Amendment rights protecting him from being compelled to swear to testimony which might incriminate him as a condition of maintaining his job; that was a political decision required by a political decision of his White House boss. The DC jury reached a decision in a he-said/she-said trial. Libby enjoyed all the protections the process offers. When Rove is indicted and brought to trial the decision to testify in court will be voluntary; he can't be compelled to testify against his own interest.

Originally Posted by rporter314
Of course I suppose some people may believe it is ok for the President and staff to commit crimes if they are not caught (or they protect themselves with EP or pass laws to protect themselves or use Presidential pardons) but I don't. If you do the crime you should do the time. Works for every one else should also apply to the President and staff.
Executive privilege is a useful principle as a component of a government with co-equal executive, legislative & judicial branches. The legislature passes laws which must then be approved or vetoed by the executive; see the Constitution. Are you suggesting we Amend the Constitution to withdraw the power of Executive Clemency? FWIW, this correspondent believes those found guilty of criminal wrong-doing should be penalized according to statute.