I see your point, Lee. Did Fitz just ask for all the emails and Rove let lackeys handle it? If so, then he really might not have known.

Either way, I think that his underlings wouldn't have wanted to tell him even when they found out, if they did indeed find out, because facts are not rewarded in this administration at any level.

I just don't think it matters. The emails are a pronounced gap at an important historical moment in the integrity of this administration, so whether Rove knew about them not being archived or not, unless he had something directly to do with their deletion, seems irrelevant.

~A!

Hey! I've been looking for some journalist willing to discuss the Plame fiasco!

Is this "email" affair similar, in that no law was broken, but Democratics investigate anyway? As everyone (with the exception of ignorant partisans) now knows, Plame was not in a status which qualified her, or the CIA, to claim that she was "covert," within the last 5 years. Indeed, as even the purposefully ignorant radicals now know, no one in the White House (including Rove) was responsible for revealing her name and position with the CIA to the press! It was Richard Armitage . . .

All the same, and knowing these basic facts, you as a "journalist" are here telling a literal lie; leading the inference that some crime was done vis a vis Plame and that Rove was involved in no-crime!!!

I'd be embarrassed . . . but for some, lying is part of being a member of a party that lies; their gang . . .

"I'd be embarrassed . . . "

As well you should be.

"...but for some, lying is part of being a member of a party that lies"

Proving again that any basic propaganda machine begins with the principle that it must accuse its opponents of behaving the way the propagandists do; that both muddies the issue and makes it seem that later accusations against the propagandists are merely retaliatory attacks.

My only question is, do you do this trolling voluntarily, or do they actually pay you?

A~

Well, if he did know and publicly said he didn't, that's telling in itself, and leads immediately to a question of why he would deny knowing.

Anyway, something seems off here to me, but there isn't enough information to know what, or why. It could be as simple as the media reports not being thorough about the explanation from Rove's lawyer, though I find that hard to believe given the interest in this.

Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, specifically addresed Fitzgerald's investigation while talking to the media about the missing e-mails. According to news reports:

The prosecutor probing the Valerie Plame spy case saw and copied all of Rove's e-mails from his various accounts after searching Rove's laptop, his home computer, and the handheld computer devices he used for both the White House and Republican National Committee, Luskin said.

The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White House, the RNC and Bush's re-election campaign, he added.

"There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a complete record," Luskin said.

That really doesn't clarify anything. Fitzgerald may have subpoenaed the RNC e-mails, but as we know, they were deleted. Luskin's comment simply does not tell us whether Fitzgerald knew there were deleted e-mails and, if he did know, whether he managed to obtain the missing e-mails from other sources.

Add in the mysterious references to RNC staff instituting a no-deletion rule specifically directed at Rove, and I have lots of questions.

Now let the trolls begin the insults & distortion.

Lee says, "Proving again that any basic propaganda machine begins with the principle that it must accuse its opponents of behaving the way the propagandists do; that both muddies the issue and makes it seem that later accusations against the propagandists are merely retaliatory attacks."

Who are you addressing? Certainly not me! You provide your 'journalistic' credentials by taking what I said out-of-context, in order to mock me with that invented criticism. Then, turn around and lecture me with some completely senseless bs???

You make yourself appear very callow.

"My only question is, do you do this trolling voluntarily, or do they actually pay you?"

My comments are about politics and the various appearances and utterances made to advance that agenda of power. My criticisms are also generalized, and are in reference to the political 'you,' and any insult must thereby be assumed by the individual 'you,' who might do so. However, for the most part, replies in response are generally of a direct and personal nature, and as you do in this response. That is so because your party has generated a policy of divisiveness from way before the year 2000 and Bush's win. It comes from years of resentment that your party no longer maintained the majority 'rule' of Congress and the Whitehouse . . . circa 1953 and Eisenhower's presidency.

. . . It wasn't Republicans he meant when he talked about the military/industrial complex . . .

It gained spiteful 'greatness' when Nixon took office, and the Vietnam war was magically morphed into being a Republican war, and with Republicans now the war criminals, fascists and warmongers. . .

Consequently now, any mention of the negative aspects of being a Democratic, constantly muckraking and partisan tool of the tactic of personal destruction . . . well of course they are the proverbial internet bte noire: the 'evil' troll.

I notice one of your sychophantic partisan posters is already repeating your *label* as you pat yourself on the back for dismissing another commentator with your magical reasoning and two-pronged tactic: take them out of context and call them names!

Bravo! What a mensch, and what a despicable troll am I . . .

If you're not familiar with the term "troll" as it relates to internet discussion, here you go:

From the fishing term. As a noun, synonymous with flamebait. As a verb, to post controversial or provocative messages in a deliberate attempt to provoke flames.

So yes, calling you a "troll" is probably not quite accurate. A "trollist" or "troller", possibly, but since "troll" in this sense is not a noun but a verb, you are correct.

Do you in fact deny that your only intent on this site is to comment to get attention and derail any reasonable discussion? I call out Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter as racists, you say I want them led to death in gas chambers and to make soap from their skin. I'll completely leave alone the total and complete trivialization of 6 million deaths in your inane commentary on that one.

And then, of course, like all bullies, cowards, and liars, you retreat back into "it was hyperbole" or "I was joking, just making a point".

You've effectively drawn away any sensible debate with comments like these, and now when your comments come across, you would have us reasonably evaluate such statements? You would somehow expect us to ignore all the blatant trolling for attention why?

~A!

~A! makes excuses, "If you're not familiar with the term "troll" as it relates to internet discussion, here you go:"

I'm always amazed at the intellectual Georgie Porgys that populate the Democratic party. This response is an attempt to run away from responsiblilty for your own speech in dehumanizing your correspondent, rather than even try to rebut the facts, observations and opinion on point of the subject at hand.

From the publisher, to the editor, to the dupes, like you, it is the same! You ban dissent, redact it, besmirch it and dehumanize the messenger(s.) Then, turn around and brag about being bloggers, journalists, sensitive, honest partisans, and all for nation and its security; real patriots . . . even if censors and political muckrakers.

You all are actually a bunch whose faith is in the-end-justifies-the-means philosophy of life, and as practiced by every single socialist state/regime in the history; China, USSR, NAZI Germany, North Korea, ad nauseam.

Even now, you are trying to think of some way you can further attack me, personally . . . isn't that right?