Save the First Amendment–from Karl Rove and Excellent essay by a friend of Karl Rove’s.
The problem, as always, in dealing with Rove, is establishing a clear chain of culpability. Rove once described himself as a die-hard Nixonite; he is, like the former president, both student and master of plausible deniability. (This past weekend, in confirming that Rove was indeed a source for Matthew Cooper, Rove’s lawyer said his client “never knowingly disclosed classified information.”) That is precisely why prosecutor Fitzgerald in this case must document the pattern of Rove’s behavior, whether journalists published, or not.
For in this case, Rove, improving on Macchiavelli, has bet that reporters won%u2019t rat their relationship with the administration’s most important political source. How better for him to operate without constraint, or to camouflage breaking the law, than under the cover of journalists and journalism, protected by the First Amendment?
found by E. Campbell
Karl Rove did not kill the First Amendment: John McCain and Russ Feingold did. And to say now that reporters shouldn’t protect sources because it’s rumored that the source is a guy you dislike? That’s disgusting.
Get your blinders off, John. The super lefty schtick is getting tired. Get back to being wrong about technology
Ralph
Now how the heck can you say that McCain and Feingold killed the First Amendment? Do you even know what the First Amendment says? I didn’t think you did.
McCain and Feingold introduced a bill into law to limit campaign contributions and regulate political finances. Since corporations, which are not individuals under the law, were doing the majority of campaign financing this is very proper and was upheld by the courts. The aim of McCain Feingold is to level the field so that all voices will be heard.
Amendment I – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
In general I support the right of journalists to keep confidentiality with their sources. Most defiantly where wrong, injustice, corruption, and the like should have their sources protected against retaliation. This is the type of case, though, where I do not believe confidentiality applies. Instead, a crime was committed and in the course of investigation the reporters should not be able to hide the criminal. Karl Rove will be happy to sit there and let the journalists go to jail while the White House blows off the Grand Jury.
Of course you think it doesn’t apply. It’s a man you despise. If it were someone “on your side,” I contend that you (and everyone else calilng for Rove’s head without a lick of proof) would be singing a different tune.
The truth is, Rove may not have done anything. Wouldn’t that be a hoot, all the rabid moonbats would have some apologizing to do then…although I doubt any of them would be courageous and decent enough to do it.
McCain/Feingold is being used to silence political debate and has lead directly to the rise of 527 groups raising billions to flood the airwaves with rhetoric on both sides.
Now they are using McCain/Feingold to propose an expansion of the act that private citizens not aligned in any sort of group be prevented from discussing political candidates on blogs paid for with their own money. At the same time there would be an exception for corporate interests.
That is a direct violation of the First Amendment. Even a moonbat would have to admit that.
Start reading.
First poster i.d.’d McCain-Feingold flaw correctly: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” Including, no especially referring to, political speech. The opression of political speech is tyranny. Imagine all the anti-Bush blogs shut down. Compare to M-F’s “thou shalt not criticise an incumbent politician” law.
“…while the White House blows off the Grand Jury.”
Maintaining presidential tradition. Staff and pres #42’s memory lapses are typical. “Depends what the definition of ‘is’ is” was merely a refinement.
Re Rove: John, everything asked in the blog quotes could have been asked of the previous administration, in spades. No mere gaffes, pres #42’s policy was “me first, my country last, if ever.” Were you clamoring for answers then?
Better: then there was evidence. Where is the evidence here? Hate and innuendo? Saying his client “never knowingly disclosed confidential information” isn’t evasion, it merely addresses human fallability. Rather like “John C Dvorak never knowingly wrote a column entirely for effect.”
Wow. Someone actually posted the first amendment.
Corporations aren’t the only ones touched my McCain Feingold. This website may very well be regulated considering how the FEC is looking at making rules for internet bloggers. Individuals who don’t like a candidate are forbidden from running ads calling for voting against that candidate,, and under McCain Feingold, are not allowed to even talk about the candidate in an ad within 60 days of an election. Does this strike you as OK under the First Amendment?