posted
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...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a great and I believe, unbiased rundown of the facts. Decisions, accusations, and name calling can then come naturally from these facct.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imagine if a Democrat had done this to the wife of a Republican....I am sure the white house would be all over it. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
I've been busy and haven't contributed much.
