posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Boon
unregistered
posted
Political suicide? He's at the top. How much further up could he go?
IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republicans have a majority in both houses, though. I do not think they are going to "hate" him just for playing politics.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
It's definitely a crime to lie to a federal agent. Although they can lie to us as much as they fancy.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
posted
It seems weird that the source didn't simply come out him/herself, rather than giving permission to let the reporters do it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I posted that, I thought about the Senate, but mistakenly thought they were passed over. Thanks for the correction.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
