If this turns out to be true, it would be huge. Rove is a crucial political advisor to President Bush, and if he's the leaker, he could go to jail for outing a CIA agent or for perjury if he lied to the grand jury about it.
quote: MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case By E&P Staff Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
www.mediainfo.com O'Donnell has been around for awhile, I doubt he would throw this out without some direct knowledge that Rove outed Plame. I guess we'll know who the leaker was in a few days or weeks.
Transcript of O'Donnell's remarks at the link.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
In the words of Dr. Sam Beckett:
"Ohhhhhhhhhh boy."
I'm taking this with a pinch of salt-- it sounds like speculation.
But if it is Karl Rove, I'm not sure anything will come of it.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it is Rove, which I doubt, I don't see how nothing could come of it. Bush would have little choice but to distance himself, and if Rove faces criminal charges, Bush would commit political suicide by pardoning or protecting him.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Political suicide? He's at the top. How much further up could he go?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He still has three years of policymaking left. If he defends Rove (assuming Rove is guilty of anything), you can kiss those three years goodbye, he's automatically a lame duck president, and a hated one at that. He'll have no power over congress, and any deal making room he might have had with Democrats will evaporate.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
The Republicans have a majority in both houses, though. I do not think they are going to "hate" him just for playing politics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Playing politics is capitalizing on a gaffe or some piece of legislation.
Pardoning or protecting your buddy for committing treason is another story. There will be a huge price to pay. I'm a little surprised (again, IF it is true, which I still highly doubt) that many here seem to think Rove will get off with no reprecussions at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If he lied to the grand jury, I doubt anything short of a pardon will save him.
If he let her name out but hasn't lied, legally it's unlikely he will face sanction.
Politically, I think he'd have to resign.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Doesn't the National Security Act or some kind of law SOMEWHERE make it a federal crime to divulge the name of agents in the field?
Republicans on this board claim that Dean is a traitor for spouting anti-Bush rhetoric. Outing a CIA agent in the field and risking their life while they are in the service of defending our nation isn't punishable at all unless he lied about something?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Dag, I thought there was a law forbidding disclosure of CIA operatives, that was the whole basis for the investigation and grand jury? Won't the leaker (whoever it is) be guilty of that?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Here's a link about the Grand Jury testimony. I'm not sure which way American Prospect leans, but I remember hearing about his testimony somewhere and this was the only link I could find.
quote:But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
--j_k
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
TITLE VI—PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES
SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual’s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.
--j_k
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's definitely a crime to lie to a federal agent. Although they can lie to us as much as they fancy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Doesn't the National Security Act or some kind of law SOMEWHERE make it a federal crime to divulge the name of agents in the field?
quote:Dag, I thought there was a law forbidding disclosure of CIA operatives, that was the whole basis for the investigation and grand jury? Won't the leaker (whoever it is) be guilty of that?
A.) She wasn't in the field.
B.) The elements are very hard to prove - there are lots of mental elements. Here's a good summary of the difficulties. Here's the part I think they'd have the hardest time with:
quote:That the individual knew he was disclosing information that identifies a "covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."
quote:Republicans on this board claim that Dean is a traitor for spouting anti-Bush rhetoric. Outing a CIA agent in the field and risking their life while they are in the service of defending our nation isn't punishable at all unless he lied about something?
Look, I've quoted the constitutional defintition of treason at such people. Has anyone pointed to a specific act that Dean could be indicted under?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's definitely a crime to lie to a federal agent. Although they can lie to us as much as they fancy.
It's not that simple. The lie has to be intended to impede an investigation. Even a lie under oath must be material to the investigation to be punishable.
In practice, lying about whether or not you were the leaker would very likely qualify.
Dagonee
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
One thing that's interesting that I didn't know is that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald already knows who the leaker is! edit:That is, he knows Miller's source--who may or may not be the original leaker to Novak.
quote: Miller did some reporting for a story but never wrote an article. She has maintained she intends to go to jail rather than reveal her source -- though Fitzgerald has indicated in court filings that he already knows that official's identity
Washington Post article This blog speculates that the whole reason the Special Prosecutor has gone after the NY Times and Times magazine reporters' notes and testimony about the leaker is to get the required 2 witnesses to make a perjury case against the leaker, because as Dag points out, the underlying charge (outing a CIA agent) is a difficult case to make.
The blog makes a convincing case, I think.
[ July 02, 2005, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't mean that Dean was guilty of treason, or even that Rove was, should this whole thing turn out to be true I mean. I was referring to the rhetoric that some here have used when talking about Democrats. If people are THAT enraged about the minor things Dean has said, why isn't anyone more up in arms about this?
I guess I'm just frustrated that someone could get away with something like that. It's more than just irresponsible, it could put someone's life in danger, and risk the safety of the country. Probably not in a huge way, but still, safety is safety.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think that the issue is that we don't know if any of this is actually true. If and when it's confirmed (and appears in the big news outlets, such as the NYT or FoxNews) more people will be very, very upset about it. O'Donnell, meanwhile, is staking his credibilty on this, particularly since he said Newsweek is working on an article about it.
--j_k
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, that was the law we were referring to. I missed your post at first, thanks for sourcing that.
Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a lawyer! Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"Politically, I think he'd have to resign."
No big deal. Kingmakers often work in the shadows, away from the spotlight. Just because Karl Rove has to go underground doesn't make his brilliant campaign strategies any less effective.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Beren: True, but it would be bad news for the President. If Karl Rove has commited perjury and is convicted (I'll use the word "If" until this is confirmed), the Administration will lose all of its remaining credibility. Even with Rove's help, I don't think they'll be able to regain it in the three years left in this term.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That was my point.
Either way, Rove working behind the scenes is dangerous too. If anyone gets wind of a connection between him and any candidate, it's poison for the candidate.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
If the Democrats could not oust president Bush after no WMDs were found in Iraq, I doubt the Democrats will be able to take advantage of this Rove issue to the extent of turning the Republican administration into a lame duck.
Yes, I have that little faith in my party. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Beren,
Somewhere along the line, issues can reach critical mass. Unless the leaker really is some lackey who is inconsequential to Bush & Co.'s overall political capital, the whole White House could go down in flames if the Republicans start seeing their majority threatened.
Not saying it will, only that it's possible.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"I seriously doubt Rove is the leaker. He had to know he would get caught."
Except that these guys don't seem to care about getting caught. They've been caught numerous times, and haven't been "consequenced." By this time they think they can get away with anything.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:On the other hand, Bush isn't going anywhere. The only reason Nixon resigned was that there were 60 Democrats in the Senate at the time and many of the 40 Republicans would also have voted to convict if he had been impeached. There probably aren't more than 10 Republican Senators who wouldn't stand by Bush no matter what he did.
Which brings us to November 2006. If this is true and the Senate does nothing, one can assume that a number of senators will lose their seats. I doubt the Republicans would lose the majority, but if they did, this issue (and the Downing Street memos) might come back to haunt them.
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Lose their majority? Probably not, there aren't enough seats that close to contention. But they could see their majority drastically cut down, maybe it will even out. But they will lose some power at the very least.
The House I would think will be more drastic. There's a lot more wriggle room there.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
This would destroy the Republican party. This would be held over their head next election unless the rest of the party moved away from Bush etc. To be honest I hope it is Rove, even though I have been "Republican minded" most of my life. The reason is because I feel they have been running a very single minded government.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It wasn't Rove that leaked to NYT. (To be clear, this sentence is my conclusion from the linked article, which I believe supports it for the reasons below. It is not explictly part of the story.)
Not because he or his lawyer denies it, but because of both the assurance from Luskin and the fact that NYT will not let Rove get away with lying about the contents of the notes. Not after they had to eat crow and hand them over.
NYT would run this on the front page for months. Rove is way to saavy not to realize that.
Dagonee
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
C'mon, guys!
impeachment? destroy the republican party? a number of senators losing their seats? [the republican senate] majority drastically cut down? drastic losses for republicans in the house?
All this follows from Rove or other high WH official being exposed as a leaker?
I highly doubt it. Let's keep some perspective here. Sure, Bush and Republicans would take a hit. But not as drastic as has been stated, no way. Rove or others implicated would state they acted alone, without the president's or others knowledge. It's basic damage control and spin. It's probably even true.
Maybe the Republican majority in congress will slip in 2006, but due to Iraq and homeland security concerns or other issues, not some leak scandal.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Does anyone even really care? I mean, if you took a poll of ten people walking down the street, would they even know what the heck you were talking about or care either way?
I just think most people don't care. They'll just shrug their shoulders and figure it was a long time ago and she wasn't a field agent anyway and what has this got to do with anything?
Unless the media can convince them otherwise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Do they care? Not by themselves probably not. But that's what the media and the opposition party are for.
Democrats and the Media will bleed it until it dies, and thensome, and everytime they try to mention being defenders of America, someone will throw that in their faces.
So no, people don't know enough to care, but then, most people believe whatever they are told anyway, and the masses will hear about it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I care, and so do alot of others who are caught between parties. I don't vote ANY part line at all, but this would make me consier voting for just about anone else, as long as they aern't the clowns who did this.
Morbo, I think that all of these issues would stack up, adn it is not possible to completely seperate them in the minds of most voters.
I don't think that it will destroy the Republican party, any more than Bush winning destroyed America...we are stronger than any one man, and the Republicans are not just Bush and Co.
It WOULD have an effect, if it were true....adn I have seen nothing to convince me that it is, at least not at this point.
Kwea
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
If you look at my post, I said nothing about destroying the republican party.
I said that if the republicans see this as threatening their majority, they may turn on Bush and Co.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Late last week, Time magazine handed Cooper's notes over to the Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (search), over their reporter's objections. Said editor in chief Norman Pearlstein: "When the courts rule that a citizen's obligation to testify before a grand jury takes precedence over the press's First Amendment right, to me, going against that finding would put us above the law."
But on Wednesday, Cooper changed his mind, saying that before his appearance before the judge, his source contacted him directedly and gave him permission to reveal his or her identity.
It was not clear what Cooper's change of heart meant for Miller, who has been adamant about her refusal to reveal her source. Hogan could sentence her to up to 18 months behind bars.
In a court filing Tuesday, Fitzgerald stated that a source had relieved the reporters of their promise to protect him or her. But it has never been clear if Cooper and Miller got their information from the same, single source or if there were multiple sources.
I'm trying to imagine a credible scenario that has Rove issuing a denial days before giving permission to Cooper to testify. I can't come up with one.
The Post is reporting Miller is being jailed today.
Dagonee
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
It seems weird that the source didn't simply come out him/herself, rather than giving permission to let the reporters do it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yeah, I can't figure it. It sounds like the guy called Cooper very recently, doesn't it? So we're not talking one of the many general waivers collected by the prosecutor earlier in the case.
Unless the leaker is trying to get a deal to serve up someone bigger.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
So who is Cooper's source?!? I'm dying to know. You'd think it would be published by now, unless permission was only given to testify secretly to the grand jury but no permission for public exposure.
[ July 06, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Wait, the administration leaked her name to 6 reporters?
And now it might not be a crime because she might not have been undercover enough?
And how exactly do send the "administration" to jail?
If the administration officials were told to leak this information to the press, who exactly could go to jail? The person who told him? The one who made the decision to have that person them them to leak the information? Bush himself, because isn't he ultimately responsible for his employees?
(In reading up on this, I keep thinking about Mission Impossible and the NOC list because there were so many references to whether or not Plame was a NOC.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The person who told him? The one who made the decision to have that person them them to leak the information?
Both of these would be criminally liable, the first as the direct actor, the second as a principal under 18 U.S.C. 2:
quote:(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
quote:Bush himself, because isn't he ultimately responsible for his employees?
To send someone to jail for this, there has to be intent. So unless someone proves Bush knew about it, there's no case on this against him.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Among the witnesses Fitzgerald's investigators have questioned are Bush; Vice President Dick Cheney; Bush political adviser Karl Rove; Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, and former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, who is now the attorney general. Fitzgerald has said his probe is finished except for hearing from Miller and Cooper.
So, if all those people were implicated, (and I just finished watching that Bob Woodward interview on NBC and the parallels are scary) who would be President if Bush and Cheney had to resign? Hell, I think most of the senior staff was involved in the cover-up, but I'm finding this all very frustrating.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
IIRC, after the Speaker the line of secession is the Secretary of State, then other cabinet officers in the historical order that their office was first established.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
President Pro Tem of the Senate is after the Speaker, then the cabinet as you stated.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
When I posted that, I thought about the Senate, but mistakenly thought they were passed over. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: I'm trying to imagine a credible scenario that has Rove issuing a denial days before giving permission to Cooper to testify. I can't come up with one.
Is it any easier today?
quote: The Newsweek weekly quoted Rove lawyer Robert Luskin as confirming that Rove was the source who gave information to Time reporter Matt Cooper under a pledge of confidentiality, and last week released him to testify about that conversation to a grand jury
quote:And Luskin told Newsweek last week that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA."
Did he, or didn't he? Is this a Republican thing? I mean, this administration seems to say one thing and do another. There is no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, but we have to fight a war in Iraq because of 9/11. Karl Rove is not the leaker, but Rove is the one who told the reporter about Plame.
I don't get it. Do they just tell the same conflicting stories over and over and hope we can't figure out the truth?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It will be stated that he didn't specify a name, just that the man's wife was an agent. Or it will be said that he never offered a name but verified one mentioned to him. Or it will be said that he said a broad hint and it wasn't his fault it got figured out. Or it will be said that he did give the name, but wasn't aware the government was seeking to keep her status seret (said knowledge necessary for charges to be brought). Or it will be said that it was harmless gossip.
The spin is in place and ready, we'll find out which one(s) soon enough.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I stand corrected...it seems like perhaps there IS a reason so wonder.
Bush managed to brag about military duty he never showed for, so if he can spin that into a Presidency, I doubt this will affect him at all.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Ok... look... it says he "gave information to a reporter". It doesn't say what information he gave and specifically denies that he said anything about Valerie Plame.
Clearly what Rove is going to testify about is what information he gave. With neither rove nor cooper's testimony about the conversation, isn;'t it rather presumptuous to assume we know the content of the conversation?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Rove's lawyer acknowledges he was Time reporter's source
Sun Jul 10, 4:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Top White House aide Karl Rove discussed a former US ambassador and his CIA agent wife with a Time magazine reporter, according to a report.
Maybe you should have clicked on the link.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.
Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.
Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.
Kayla, I read the original link. It said he "gave information" to the reporter. You wanted to know how he could make the statement that he never knowingly divulged classified information or told anyone that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. I told you... that we didn't know what information he gave, based on the first link. Your second link (which I have not read) appears to have more info, but I haven't read it yet...
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
this:
quote:"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."
is plausible, but indicates a level of trust of reporters that is significantly bad security. What it looks like is that it wasn't a leak in the sense that people like to talk about leaks (i.e. a deliberate divulgence of information) but that Rove let out unclassified information which enabled the reporter to deduce classified information...which may not be illegal but, IMO, he should have his clearence revoked and maybe be fired.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I predict he maybe gets told to "not let anybody find out about that sort of stuff in the future", in private.
And in public, there's an insistence he did nothing wrong, or if there's enough of an outcry, a fake apology which says its really all somebody else's fault if they think they can get away with it, combined with some reduction in something or other which isn't really a reduction/doesn't matter.
I will be very surprised happy if he does have something happen to him commensurate with his clear violation of security.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're probably right Fugu. That's assuming he'll even get the warning. But I highly doubt we'd even get a halfway sincere apology out of the "do no wrong" administration.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note that the warning has two interpretations -- talking about the information going to reporters, or talking about people finding out about the information going to reporters Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
quote:Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I've previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren't going to comment on it while it is ongoing.
Q Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that's why I said that our policy continues to be that we're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.
Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you've suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, "We're not going to comment on an ongoing investigation"?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That's something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that's why we're continuing to follow that approach and that policy.
Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.
[snip]
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Looks like the fourth estate is getting uppity again....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Why don't people understand that when you don't let the White House Press Secratary tell you baldfaced lies, you're helping the terrorists?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That would be funny, Squick, if it weren't so damn scary...and sad.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything.
... Ouch.
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kayla:
quote: I'm trying to imagine a credible scenario that has Rove issuing a denial days before giving permission to Cooper to testify. I can't come up with one.
Is it any easier today?
quote: The Newsweek weekly quoted Rove lawyer Robert Luskin as confirming that Rove was the source who gave information to Time reporter Matt Cooper under a pledge of confidentiality, and last week released him to testify about that conversation to a grand jury
Yes, that clears it up nicely. He didn't out Plame, so he had no reason to worry.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I doubt that that excuse will even hold up in court, name or no name. He still exposed an agent, active or not, by leaking information illeglly.
Kwea
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't think it's illegal, Kwea...
from the looks of it he was careless, nothing more.
Unless Cooper contradicts Rove's story I don't think there will be any criminal prosecution.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Rove's get out of jail card will likely be "I didn't know it was classified". I think it's nigh impossible to prove that he willfully leaked the info when he knew it was classified.
-Bok
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I don't think there's a chance in Hell that Rove will face criminal prosecution.
I bet he'll be fired, though that won't stop him from remaining a key part of the administration, if they decide to do it on the Sly.
Rove is Bush's right hand man after all. Or is it the reverse? Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
The info Rove actually leaked was not classified.
Edit: again, presuming Cooper continues to match Rove's story.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't realize anyone in the media had that much of a backbone when it came to speaking to administration officials.
You don't usually see that stuff on TV.
Makes my heart skip a beat.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Anyone want to bet whether that reporter will be allowed back?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I'll take that action, Chris.
What are your terms...?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Anyone watch tonight's Daily Show?
Excellent coverage of this... at least for a fake news show. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wasn't illegal?
Interesting, that was clearly classified information, even without the name. It may not be illegal so far as intentionally revealing it with malicious intent, but I'd think that would be at least a little illegal; is classification just a "suggestion system" the government follows that's only illegal to violate under a few circumstances involving intent and usually malice?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The reporter who said that was CBS's John Roberts. I highly doubt they would kick out a veteran reporter like that, especially someone so well respected and high up in the organization.
It was MUCH more fun to see live on the Daily Show. They really hammered away at McClellan.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:From Rove's email, as quoted in the Newsweek article: "wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency (the CIA) on wmd (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip."
quote:Intelligence Identities Protection Act (1982) s 421 (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The Act makes it quite clear that leaking ANY classified information that leads to the outing of an agent is against the law. So Rove didn't mention Plame by name... do the Republicans really expect us to believe that "wilson's wife" is somehow more ambiguous? Gimme a break.
As for the classified nature... umm, hello? The only reason this investigation took place in the first place was because of Plame's covert status. Not to mention Bush and McClellan's unambiguous statements, on separate occasions, that the leaker, if found, would be fired. So much for consistency (to say nothing of honesty).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Very true. After making the pledges they did (well, Bush, McClellan's pledges are by nature worthless, him lacking power to fulfill them), once it became clear Rove was the leaker he should have been confronted, and if he confessed fired, and if he denied and it later could be proved he had lied, fired and denounced.
Waiting only demonstrates that Bush was just posturing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems to me the only possibly legitimate justification Bush could have for not firing Rove after this recent revelation is that he doesn't believe the email is authentic or believes it is authentic but deliberately and deceptively targetting Rove.
This seems like it's still a case of he-said, she-said in terms of what actual proof we've got.
Both of those options are razor-thin as far as substance in my opinion, and my mediocre opinion of President Bush is dropping further still. The very least he should've done was suspend Rove, or something similar. I'm not sure what that would be for a chief political advisor (is he being paid by the President? Who would be the one to stop writing the checks?) but what's actually happened definitely isn't it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rove said she "works for the agency".
That is not classified nor does it directly identify her as a covert agent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It would seem, though, that somehow the reporter inferred something more than that plain statement.
I wonder how he came to reach that inferrence?
So now Rove is only the guy if he said, "This person, standing right next to me, is in fact a covert employee of the Central Intelligence Agency of the USA."?
Please.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And incidentally, Jim-me, presuming your very generous interpretation of what was said is accurate...
How do you account for the timing of the leak of non-classified information?
And what possible reason could there be for Rove even benignly to be talking to reporters about employees of the CIA? He's the White House's political advisor, he's not supposed to be involved with intelligence-gathering at all.
But since he is, after all, a political advisor it makes one wonder if his discussion about employees of the CIA had a political motive.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
oh, and you forgot--"...is doing covert work right at this minute."
The question seems to be, is her employment at the CIA confidential information, or must it be her covert status.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It would seem, though, that somehow the reporter inferred something more than that plain statement.
Or did further research. Good intel operatives and good reporters often put together several pieces of openly availible information to make very good guesses at what is secret. That's their job.
As to how it came up... that's in the article and Rove's legal comments on the issue: Cooper was, in an off the record conversation, making much hay out of Wilson's statements regarding (edit, stupid me) Nigeria. Rove said not to give too much credence to those statements because Wilson was not there on the authority he claimed to be, but rather on the orders of his own wife. That also accounts for the timing of the divulgence.
Now, trusting a reporter not to go digging with this is bad security, but there is a difference between bad security and actually disclosing classified info.
I have a friend who is an intel officer. She regularly has to tread the line with what she can tell me and what she can't, trying to judge which information that she is allowed to tell me is *ok* to tell me because she knows I am analytical and capable of making deductions based on unclassified information. I'm sure that officials with access to classified information have to do the same thing all the time when talking to reporters and there's just no way to prove Rove's intent based on what he and Cooper are saying took place.
Which is why, IMO, there will not be a criminal prosecution, but Rove should be punished for poor security practices.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As to how it came up... that's in the article and Rove's legal comments on the issue: Cooper was, in an off the record conversation, making much hay out of Wilson's statements regarding Ethiopia. Rove said not to give too much credence to those statements because Wilson was not there on the authority he claimed to be, but rather on the orders of his own wife. That also accounts for the timing of the divulgence.
Your conclusions are one set possible that fit the facts we know about. But knowing what I do about Rove's political methods and all-around craftiness and cunning, it's just too much of a stretch for me to believe such a benign set of conclusions.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Oh, and let's be clear... Plame worked at Langley the last few years... her life was not in danger. she was an active field agent in the sense that she could be sent out to the field again, but not in the sense that she was in the field at the time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I know that. It only means Rove has not endangered someone's life (that we know of), in my opinion.
Just their value to the CIA as well as possibly ruining any intelligence she has gathered in the past.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rakeesh,
the part you quoted is not my conclusion but simple fact as agreed on by the pieces of information we have. It came up in conversation because Rove and Cooper were discussing the reliability of Wilson's information. Because that was a present subject, it comepletely accounts for the timing of the discussion. Any other reasons for it are supposition at this point, which is fine to make your political decisions by, but not for criminal prosecution.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
She's not valueless to the CIA, though obviously she's much less useful. I'm not sure how this ruins her past intel... explain please?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, let's say she gathered some intelligence from or about a foreign nation, covertly. Let's say that nation didn't know about this gathering, and possibly still didn't know.
Now everyone who has interacted with her in the past will re-examine their dealings with her, and possibly realize that she was the source of information we learned, or they might realize we learned something we shouldn't have.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Gotcha...
I'm curious, though, why isn't anyone mad at Novak? It seems, from what Rove and Cooper have said, that the information was not intended for publication... again, saying this because I am aware of no principal testimony to the contrary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You mean, she had worked at Langley the last few years except when she went on a mission to South Africa? And of course the CIA would actually make public what she's been up to other than what's already been revealed *rolls eyes*.
quote:it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.
These would be the same WMDs we'd been ferociously refusing to turn over our actual evidence on, and Rove casually assumed that Wilson's wife, an agent of the CIA going to South Africa to apparently investigate them, was okay to reveal? "Wilson's wife" is uniquely identifying information, after all, even if no reporter had tracked down the name (which they obviously would).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Karl Rove told a reporter about it in order to prevent that reporter from making (incorrect, but only because they lacked this evidence) damaging statements about the administration. Then once the evidence was out, Rove launched a massive (admitted) smear campaign against both Wilson and Plame: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html
Also, unless Rove made it explicitly clear there wasn't to be a reveal of the information, you bet your last dollar a reporter would sieze on a juicy tidbit like that, and one can't blame him for it. Plus, since Rove is a high ranking white house official with presumably high security clearance, I would bet most reporters consider getting it from such an official absent such a restriction permission to publish (under whatever conditions were set), since, y'know, Rove isn't supposed to reveal stuff like that unless its okay to.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and I don't like Novak for other reasons, but unless some more information comes out, he seems to have acted pretty reasonably.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I love Irony.
Karl Rove is The Spin Lord. He tells the truth are rarely as he can, favoring spin (lies and half truths) that can give him advantage.
Valerie Plame was a spy, who's life is based upon lieing.
Nobody has been able to take down Rove or Plame, until Rove's husband did something so outrageous it confused our government.
He told the truth.
He said there was no Nuclear bomb being made in Iraq.
In response Karl Rove attacked back on instinct, and he used "the TRUTH".
The Truth about Valeri Plame, which destroyed her career.
The Truth Wilson mentioned also destroyed his career.
Now it seems that the Truth our lie-master Karl Rove spouted may put an end to his career.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Also take into account that any double agents or informants that Plame might have created in past jobs are also compromised.
The entire career of a CIA operative, from their first field assignment until literally their death depends upon secrecy. Like Rakeesh said, every country that has ever had her or her husband as a guest will now be looking over every past interaction, and they will be doubly scrutinizing any particular person she may have come into contact with, looking for more spies.
The danger to her is almost zero, but the danger to other operatives in the field could be deadly. And for that matter, the intelligence we might lose from whatever agents are compromised mighht save lives, and therefore you cannot put a value on it.
Maybe he didn't do anything officially or legally wrong, but his judgement seems to be incredibly faulty. At the very least he shouldn't have a security clearance of any kind anymore, not that he ever should have had one in the first place as a political consultant. And I believe he should be fired. Especially by this administration, which has been safety, security and intelligence the bedrock of it's agenda.
As for Novak, he too is highly irresponsible, but I suppose you can't expect much better from a political pundit these days can you?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Dan: I think you mean:
quote:Nobody has been able to take down Wilson or Plame, until Plame's husband did something so outrageous it confused our government
Right?
--j_k
[ July 13, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
uh..I think so. Don't ask/don't tell
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course it's also possible that her career as an employee for the CIA is not in any way compromised. There are many possibilities-she could have been only a link in a chain, something like that. But that's not the point.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Latest twist:
According to sources inside the Grand Jury testimony (which I am always skeptical of just because they AREN'T supposed to talk at all) Rove says he found out from Novak. Not sure what this implies yet... but it would seem to make Rove a closed communication loop and not the source. It also seems to absolve him from any criminal guilt because he found out from an unclassified source... IOW, the info was not presented to him as classified. It also answers a question I saw elsewhere about whether or not Rove was even cleared to know the information.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not true at all, Jim-Me. It clears him of the clearance issue, but it doesn't make a bit of difference where he found out, he STILL confirmed her existance, which is STILL a direct violation of the law.
I always sort of admired him, even though I am not a Bush supporter, becaue he was very, very good at a difficult job. But this has wiped all he has done out, and I would not be suprised if he is charged.
At the least he should be fired. He, as a senior White House official, leaked (or confired) the identity of a CIA operative. It was at the very least immoral, and I still believe that it was politically motivated, to say the least. It is not a conicidence that this happened when it did, and the man doing it was Bush's political advisor.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
First, he didn't confirm her as an operative... lots of people work for the CIA without being operatives.
But isn't Novak the one who published the info? Also, I'm not clear, what is the relationship between Cooper and Novak?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, I don't get this latest round of information. Novak was Rove's source, so Rove is in the clear because even though he disclosed the information to Cooper, it was Novak that disclosed it to him?
Also, at this point and time, why isn't the jailed reporter being charged with more than contempt? Obstruction of justice? Hindering a criminal investigation? Hell, at this point and time, I'd probably tell her that I'm ready to give immunity to the actual leaker just so I can get him to testify at her trial for aiding and abetting.
This whole thing really pisses me off. Somebody better be charged with something.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: But isn't Novak the one who published the info?
Novak doesn't have a security clearance so he can not be held liable for the leak.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There's actually a lot of reason to believe Rove doesn't have the clearence for that information, either.
The reason I brought up that Novak was the publisher is, unless I misunderstand, we'e got a closed loop right now. Novak --> Rove --> Cooper --> Novak.
That precludes Rove being the actual leak. As Kayla said... *someone* has to be responsible...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
More importantly, its not something Novak would normally have access to. Either someone leaked it to him, or he discovered it through piecing together disparate pieces of evidence, almost certainly the former.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And no, that doesn't preclude Rove being the leak at all -- notice that Novak's already in your loop twice, Rove could well be:
Rove -> Novak -> Rove -> Cooper -> Novak
In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Rove wanted to see how Novak intended to use the information, and seeing that story before spreading it further gives him plausible deniability for everyone but Novak -- only one person who needs to keep quiet.
I'm not saying that's how it happened, but its darn sure possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which lends serious weight to Dag's speculation that they've already subpoenaed Novak. Because if Rove's claiming that Novak was his source, the identity of Novak's source becomes very important.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Fugu, I understand... My point is that by the testimony we've seen so far, we have a closed loop... we don't have the complete story . It's impossible that Novak leaked the info to himself, just like it's impossible that Rove first heard the info from Novak if Rove is the one who gave Novak the info.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
and let me try to rephrase this:
If Novak knew and was indeed the first one to tell Rove that Plame worked for the CIA, the the fact that Rove passed this to Cooper is nowhere near as significant as the fact that Novak knew it and *someone* told him. As Fugu says, it could be that Rove told him, in which case I'd think Rove would face perjury charges as well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm somewhat debating the significance of Rove telling Cooper. Not the same significance, yes, but not necessarily without weight. Among other things, it depends on whether or not Rove knew Novak intended to publish.
Also, it makes his claims regarding not knowing her name incredibly befuddling, as I'm pretty sure Novak named her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The lawyer said Novak had telephoned Rove to discuss another column, about Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been named deputy national security adviser for terrorism in May 2003. That column ran in Novak's home paper, the Chicago Sun-Times, on July 10, 2003, under the headline "Bush sets himself up for another embarrassment."
At the end of that 15- or 20-minute call, according to the lawyer, Novak said he had learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"I heard that, too," Rove replied, according to the lawyer, confirming the Times account.
If Rove is confirming something he heard from the media, the act simply does not apply.
quote:Republican lawyers working with Rove say he was not pushing a story about Plame but was trying to steer Cooper away from giving too much credence to Wilson.
The conversation occurred July 8 or 9, 2003, the lawyer said. The column that named Plame ran in the Sun-Times on July 14, 2003.
It said: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report."
Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson -- not the other way around.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified before the grand jury, saying he was alerted by someone in the media to Plame's identity, according to a source familiar with his account. Cooper has previously testified that he brought up the subject of Plame with Libby and that Libby responded that he had heard about her from someone else in the media, according to sources knowledgeable about Cooper's testimony.
This lends credence to something I have heard from several sources. On the Washington circuit, it was basically just known that Plame worked for the CIA. I heard it as rumors, basically, so can't say how reliable it is.
The warning on reliability given the GJ secrecy rules is well-taken, but the level of detail suggests this is more reliable than most.
Remember, witnesses can reveal anything they want, so it's not definitive that this was an illegal leak.
As it stands, there are two questions:
1. Was it really an open secret that Plame worked for the CIA?
2. If not, who was the original leaker.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mmm, I'm suspicious of that "just known" notion, given the following bit:
quote:Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson -- not the other way around.
That implies a relatively recent spread of the information; if it were truly generally known, reporters wouldn't have felt any particular need to alert or comment to officials.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If the reporters thought they were "alerting" then yes, this makes it less likely.
If the reporters were commenting to officials that didn't know, then it could still hold up. "How does Wilson's wife's role at the CIA figure in to this?"
Of course, I have no idea what happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Here's a possible scenario:
People who know Wilson know his wife works for the CIA. Wilson's name starts getting buzzed about because of his editorial. The people who know mention it during these conversations.
It's a recent spread of a long-known fact. Again, just speculation. But it's consistent with the article.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I knew if I procrastinated long enough Dag would do my homework Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While a small possibility, I think that's pretty dubious. Remember, the leaked information was not just she's in the CIA, but that she approved her husband's trip. I doubt that she was circulating to her friends recent CIA intelligence gathering trips she'd been on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see why that changes anything. If the information was out there that she worked for the CIA, then there wouldn't be any reason not to mention that she was the one who suggested Wilson.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It wasn't just that she suggested, it was that she was doing her own intelligence gathering while there.
Last I checked, intelligence gathering operations by the CIA were generally classified.
Just because, for instance, I know someone's in Army Intelligence doesn't mean I get to know where they are and what they're doing, even in relatively vague terms.
Whether or not revealing that knowledge would be strictly illegal is one question, but its certainly a leak that breaches trust if it was leaked separately.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I haven't said that it's not. I've simply said that identifying Plame may not have seemed like a big deal because she was already known.
The Post story lends credence to this theory, although it does not prove it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I don't see why that changes anything.
It makes it far less probable that friends would have circulated it, given friends would very likely not have known about it, or known not to tell.
Also, it really makes it possible there were two leakers, or one leaker and "general knowledge".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Friends would have circulated the relationship, not that she sent him. The relationship is juicy gossip.
If the leaker only actually released details of her trip, then this is a very different situation, at least legally.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
This is interesting:
quote:Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.
It strikes me as interesting how all that has to be done even if Rove leaked to Novak is for Novak to insist he got it from Rove, and Rove to insist he got if from Novak but had also heard about it from a third party whom he can't recall.
Irresolvable situation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Eh, I'm only half concerned with legality, I'm far more concerned with accountability, combined with certain pledges made by Bush (and irrelevantly by McClellan).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt Novak named Rove as his source, just confirmation, based on the way the investigation has gone. Totally gut feel, though. We'll soon know.
quote:Eh, I'm only half concerned with legality, I'm far more concerned with accountability, combined with certain pledges made by Bush (and irrelevantly by McClellan).
Fair enough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, interesting twist:
quote:Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.
Assuming that's correct, Rove lied repeatedly when he said he didn't know her name and didn't leak her name -- the first part would be false.
One possibility is that if one goes over Rove's testimony with a fine tooth comb, he admits to letting others know her name after seeing Novak's stuff, saying that's when he found out "who she was" or the like, and always denies revealing her name to people before that -- which is consistent with leaking her as "wilson's wife" and then finding out her name from novak.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd also be curious to find out why, if Mr. Rove's involvement was so innocent, he either didn't disclose this to the White House when asked directly about it or the White House lied about it?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But prosecutors must prove the leaking official knew the officer was covert and knowingly outed his or her identity. One of the questions that still remains is exactly what status Plame had at the time of the leak; many reports say she had a desk job at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., at the time.
Wilson on Thursday acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her.
"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.
If she wasn't a clandestine officer, by her husband's own admission -- plus the fact that he sold a book and cover of Vanity Fair with a photo of them too -- doesn't sound like anyone was really trying to hide her identity. I don't understand what the flack is all about it if was as commonly known as it seems to have been...
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wasn't by the time it was published, not wasn't. She had been, and the operation in question was in the rather recent and sensitive past, and is almost certainly still classified, including her participation in it (except that's now pointless); if it had been declassified I'm sure that would have been remarked on.
And being commonly known as his wife is very different from being commonly known as an (ex-) CIA undercover operative. The former gives her an excuse to go places (such as happened in exactly this case), the latter a reason for places to prevent her from hanging about.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
This is a great and I believe, unbiased rundown of the facts. Decisions, accusations, and name calling can then come naturally from these facct.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I ain't even looked. But ya really shouldn't link to a neo"conservative" whacko organization like FactCheck for anything whatsoever. About the political equivalent of linking to JunkScience.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Or the Hatrack equivalent of listening to aspectre... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've found FactCheck to be fairly unbiased in the past.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Imagine if a Democrat had done this to the wife of a Republican....I am sure the white house would be all over it. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I think this has been the best thread I've ever started! Thanks for all the input, everyone! I've been busy and haven't contributed much.
Factcheck.com a "Neo-conservative wacko organization"?? Get real, aspectre, you know Factcheck is neutral. Far less biased than most media, that's for sure. In the 2004 presidential campaign, they were a welcome voice of sanity. They called both campaigns on distortions of truth and outright lies.
Thanks for linking to it Dan, it's a great summary of the scandal.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I've been busy and haven't contributed much.