This is topic Emails Will Reveal that Rove Outed CIA Operative Valerie Plame in forum General Comments at The Ornery American Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/6711.html

Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

quote:
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET updated 1:00 PM Saturday

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. Friday night, 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.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing."

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk. She submitted letters from soldiers and military officers with whom she was embedded during the war in Iraq attesting to that. (Miller's pre-war coverage of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has drawn much criticism.)

She asked the judge for "very restrictive home detention," if confined at all, including an electronic bracelet and excluding Internet access and cellular phones. As an alternative, she asked to be sent to the federal prison camp for women in Danbury, Conn.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''

Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.

You would think that this Administration would be far too busy fighting against Muslim fundamentalist terrorism to waste their time outing our own CIA covert operatives (who happen to specialize in Middle East WMD nonproliferation, no less). But no.

Looks like Karl Rove really was the slimeball who outed Joe Wilson's wife's secret identity within the CIA.

Sidenote: Regardless of whether or not you think Time magazine was wrong or right to hand over documentation revealing Matthew Cooper's source, you still have Administration officials engaging in what can only be characterized as high treason.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
As much as I'd like it to be Rove, since it has to be someone, I'm not sure that these documents are going to point to him. We'll wait and see, yes?
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
As to the seriousness of Rove's actions, I think George H.W. Bush put it best:

George H.W. Bush (excerpt from a 1999 speech he delivered at the CIA):

quote:
Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.


[ July 04, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
I'm skeptical. Rove and his lawyer just denied it again, after the documents were released to the prosecutor. If we know one thing about Rove, it's that he's good at spinning things. A flat denial that will have to be contradicted days later is not good spin. So I don't think it was Rove.

As Ev said, we'll have to wait and see.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Dagonee-
I'd appreciate it, if you abreviate my name, you use Ev. Thanks.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
you still have Administration officials engaging in what can only be characterized as high treason.
Do we need to trot out the constitutional defintion of treason again?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Sorry, Ev.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Dagonee, we are at war right now. If a civilian official in our government endangered American national security in wartime (which is exactly what happens when CIA covert operatives get outed), then that is high treason. Enough said.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Actually, it's not enough said, because you're flat out wrong. Endangering national security during war time is not treason. A very specific definition was put into the constitution for a very specific reason. This isn't it.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Dagonee is right, David. Treason is waging war against the us, or adhereing to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. That requires actually being on the side of our enemies.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Here's another take on the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

quote:
July 11 issue - Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.

At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.

Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.

Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources. Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources.

Initially, Fitzgerald's focus was on Novak's sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said. But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove. Fitzgerald declined to comment.

In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." But White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the time that any suggestion that Rove had played a role in outing Plame was "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."


 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
True, Dagonee, you are right on the technical basis. But, for all practical purposes, it is still treason in my book. Outing our covert CIA operatives during a time of war against Muslim fundamentalist terrorists hurts our war effort much more than if the same Bush Administration official had taken up arms against the United States.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.
This makes me doubt Rove is the leaker even more, if what I've read about the waivers is accurate (namely that a reporter will testify about a source who has signed such a waiver).

I'll be very interested to hear who O'Donnell's sources are.

quote:
But, for all practical purposes, it is still treason in my book. Outing our covert CIA operatives during a time of war against Muslim fundamentalist terrorists hurts our war effort much more than if the same Bush Administration official had taken up arms against the United States.
You may be right, all there's considerable evidence Plame's name was known before hand.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
In a brilliant parody of Clinton's "I did not inhale" excuse, it looks like Rove is adopting a "I never knowingly disclosed classified information" defense.

Laurence O'Donnell elaborates:

quote:
Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Ruskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.

Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "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."

So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word--he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?

In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit.

It's all word twisting yet again. Rove outed Plame, yet he didn't "knowingly out her classified and secret CIA identity" -- even though she was described as a covert CIA operative in Novak's infamous column two years ago. Oh please -- that's just legalese damage control by an overpaid defense attorney.

The next thing you know, we'll be debating the meaning of what "is" is.

[ July 04, 2005, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Then explain why two reporters were willing to go to jail rather than name Rove as the source if Rove did, in fact, sign a waiver.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
BTW, Rove also lied before the grand jury about whether or not he leaked Valerie Plame's identity before Robert Novak's column appeared. That's what he said to the grand jury...

Now, however, it seems that he leaked Plame's name to Michael Cooper three days before the Novak column appeared. That's already perjury.

As far as Rove's waiver, it apparently was not broad enough for FBI prosecutor Fitzgerald's liking. It was specific only to the point of the actual identity of the leaker.

Fitzgerald wanted more than just the name(s) of the leaker. Cooper and Time only started objecting to Fitzgerald's investigation when Fitzgerald demanded the documentation itself. So, while Rove did have a waiver that released journalists from dicussing the identity(ies) of the leaker(s), Cooper refused to cooperate when Fitzgerald kept pushing for the documentation regarding the entire sordid Valerie Plame affair.

[ July 04, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"I'm skeptical. Rove and his lawyer just denied it again, after the documents were released to the prosecutor. If we know one thing about Rove, it's that he's good at spinning things. A flat denial that will have to be contradicted days later is not good spin. So I don't think it was Rove.

As Ev said, we'll have to wait and see."

Yes, we will indeed have to wait and see. I never thought it was Rove, but there is still a lot of room for me to be wrong. I thought that it may be someone in the intelligence community.

And I also want to add that if it does turn out to be Rove, he ought to be punished to the fullest extent of the law and of course, fired from his job.

[ July 04, 2005, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Treason is waging war against the us, or adhereing to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. That requires actually being on the side of our enemies."

My qustion: how doe we decide what being on the side of the enemies is? Does it require a manifesto a la Osama bin Laden? Or just proof that a political hack placed his own or his party's political fortunes above the safety of those in potential harm's way?

The question is especially intersting in light of the nebulous nature of our cuyrrent enemies vis a vis the War on Terror.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Futher note: plausible deniability is such a powerfully useful tool that its users sometimes use it one time too many for a "task too far" and find themselves with their own square pegs bearing the imprint of round holes.

Ooh... I feel SO clever with that one. Maybe I;ll get another thank you from canadian? [Wink]
 
Posted by Lewkowski (Member # 2028) on :
 
Crazy liberals. Mad at Rove so they make some stuff up.

I'd lay 100 to 1 odds Rove will never be found guilty of what O'donnell is charging him with.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
I love you, Lew. YOu fill me with a sense of cosmic order, with the sense of security of a freshly loaded PEZ dispenser. Thumb the cap and you know what will happen next.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
I'd lay 100 to 1 odds Rove will never be found guilty of what O'donnell is charging him with.
It's not really fair to make that the standard here. There's very little chance anyone is convictable under the law in question. The law was written to stop one specific act by one specific guy. There's very serious question that Plame's status at the CIA is covered by the law, regardless of who leaked it. Throw in doubts about the leaker's status, and there's very little chance of a conviction.

If you knew the identity of the leaker for sure, you could make the same bet about the leaker and win.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
I'd lay 100 to 1 odds Rove will never be found guilty of what O'Donnell is charging him with.
That's just what I'm afraid of, Lew. That he did leak the name, but the Administration will make sure he is never found guilty of the charge.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Or, that no crime was actually committed.
 
Posted by Lewkowski (Member # 2028) on :
 
Right... so essentially your going to say.

"1. Rove is a bastard look at this crime he committed."

"2. I'm not going to have any objective standards used (like a conviction or even a trial) to determine if it actually happened. I'll just say it happened because I hate Rove for getting Bush elected!"

Under what circumstances in the next ten years will you be able to come to a reasonable conclusion on what happened? What will have to happen for you to think yes he did it or no he did not?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Actually, I'm not saying Rove is a bastard or that he committed a crime. And anyone who thinks I hate Rove for getting Bush elected has left the realm of the actual.

Oh, and I don't think he did it, although I'm reserving full judgement until the emails are released. My point was, and is, quite simple: whether Rove did it or not is almost totally unrelated to whether or not he'll be found guilty, because it's very likely that NO CRIME was committed.

There are objective standards of right and wrong beyond what's legal and illegal.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
quote:
I love you, Lew. YOu fill me with a sense of cosmic order, with the sense of security of a freshly loaded PEZ dispenser. Thumb the cap and you know what will happen next.
Vast wry amusement is hereby noted.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Prosecutor Urges Judge to Jail Reporters Who Refused to Testify .

Anyone else feel that this prosecutor guy is pushing it? Especially since he hasn't really exhausted his options like, oh, I dunno, summoning a certain Bob Novak and his records? Has he?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
We don't know if he has, and it would be illegal for anyone except Novak (or someone authorized by Novak) to say if he testified before the grand jury.

Edit: This is why many grand jury rooms are monitored by the press, although this has gotten more difficult. It's not illegal to say so-and-so went into the jury room. Just for prosecutors, staff, and grand jurors to talk about what happened in there.

Grand jurors' restrictions only last until the grand jury is dismissed, if I recall correctly. The rest are permanent.

[ July 05, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Some of us remember back when there was another thread, and a teacher who defied a court order was threatened with jail.

Now we've got a reporter defying a court order, threatened with jail. It will be interesting to see who flip-flops.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
We need to get you your own official Ornery tally sheets, Drake. I certainly do a lousy job of keeping track of such things (which should be done, if only for my own glee) and so I'm grateful that you take care of it. [Smile]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Actually, I don't do the accounting work. I just throw out a potential accusation, and let people incriminate themselves by justifying how the two scenarios are different.

OOh, the giveaway! Well, now it probably won't work. [Frown]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
Actually, Ricky, I'm not so sure on this one. The confientiality protection for sources is important, but its important for a reason, namely to protect wistle-blowers. These reporters, knowingly or not, needlessly endangered a life and compromised national security. The person who leaked her identity is definately guilty of a heinous act with no redeeming moral justification (such as Deep Throat had). I don't see a reason here for protecting the identity of the source, unless one is broadly worried about precedent. What am I missing?
Adam
 
Posted by DonaldD (Member # 1052) on :
 
Is there any particular reason why, if these reporters have been found to be in contempt, they shouldn't be jailed?

Hey, I'm all for reporters protecting sources if they've talked on the condition of remaining anonymous - but the reporter takes full responsibility when using such sources. Up to and including going to jail for it.

It's the reporters' choice - they could certainly choose not to go the unattributed route. But if they do, I'll certainly respect them for standing firm and paying the price of being stand-up guys.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Another question:
Why isn't NOVAK being threatened with jail? He obviously knows who leaked him the information, correct? I mean, he wrote the story, after all. So unless he got the content of the leak from one of the two reporters in question, wouldn't it be just as easy, if not easier, and certainly more direct, to force him to reveal his sources? The Times, and Time Magazine have been critical of the Bush Administration, while novak hasn't been nearly as critical. (I've heard him described as a Toady for the Bush Administration). If the prosecutor is not putting pressure on novak, but only on writers for organizations that oppose Bush, is this REALLY a non-partisan investigation, especially when it is the Bush supporter who should have the clearest information?
 
Posted by EarlFlen (Member # 2520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Another question:
Why isn't NOVAK being threatened with jail? He obviously knows who leaked him the information, correct? I mean, he wrote the story, after all. So unless he got the content of the leak from one of the two reporters in question, wouldn't it be just as easy, if not easier, and certainly more direct, to force him to reveal his sources?

Ya missed something along the way, bro. But that's understandable the way this story is dribbling out. The conservative AND liberal TV/Radio reports are all saying that Novak ratted out his "source" to the investigators from the git-go. He made an undisclosed deal, apparently. It's just that none of the principals are saying anything about it, and Novak prolly won't be writing any columns where he talks about this or names Rove as his source publically. The consensus is Novak ain't in jail because he already cooperated. Nobody needed to force him to cooperate, it looks like.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Hrm. I guess I did miss something. I wonder what he disclosed.

I friggin hate how, when something like this is national news, we don't have the important bits.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
It's possible he testified and it wasn't reported. He would have incentive not to and no one else in the grand jury room could.

All the reports I've seen saying he did make a deal are working from conjecture. It does seem the most likely reason he's not been threatened w/ contempt.

Edit: So the reason we don't have this important bits is there's no way for a reputable media outlet to report this.

[ July 06, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
From Fox News - Cooper to Testify

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 by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
"Dagonee is right, David. Treason is waging war against the us, or adhereing to our enemies giving them aid and comfort. That requires actually being on the side of our enemies.--Ev "

How is telling our enemies in the War on Terror who our secret agents are not "giving aid to the enemy".

And I hope it is Rove, since I've been saying it is all along and I would hate to have to apologize to the SOB. Besides, it would be nice to get rid of two birds with one stone. Get the traitor that leaked the information and get rid of the smartest guy in the GOP. And isn't there some way to bring Novak up on charges?

And as the principle member of OA that kept bringing this situation up I would like to say; thank God something is finally being done! And in all honesty; is there some reason it has taken so long? (The latter is a nonpartisan legal question.)

KE

[ July 06, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Since the leaker didn't do that, it would be hard to convict him on that basis. At minimum, you'd have to show he intended to aid the enemeny. Lacking any proof of intent, this would require in part a showing that it did aid the enement so that his intent could be inferred.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Wonder if anybody did any investigating to see how many of her contacts were killed after her outing?

And Dag, I was realy hoping you would know the legal reason behind the length of this investigation. Not that I'm complaining. I was afraid it would never come about.

KE
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
On a personal note; what about loyalty to your country? How could any good American do such a thing?

KE
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
Wonder if anybody did any investigating to see how many of her contacts were killed after her outing?
I'd like to see that investigation.

quote:
And Dag, I was realy hoping you would know the legal reason behind the length of this investigation.
I missed your edit. These things take time. The only admissible evidence of the leak (assuming it wasn't done on paper) will be testimony derived from the witnesses personal knowledge or a "party admission," which means an overheard confession. If the reporter told the editor, "Rove told me this," the editor cannot testify in court to that. It's admissible in the grand jury, but not at trial. Phone records (unless recorded) will only corroborate, not provide evidence of the leak itself.

So they have to get the reporters' testimony. If they have Novak's, they would want corroboration. If they think he lied, they'll want to get him for perjury.

The leak to the reporters who didn't publish is a crime if the leak was a crime at all, I believe, so even though they can't corroborate that the leaker told Novak, they can establish a pattern.

Given that they almost have to have that testimony, they had to go through the two sets of appeals (one on quashing, one on contempt) with Cooper and Miller.

The other side of this is that the Prosecution really has to be careful what they say both to preserve their case, avoid poisoning the jury pool, and meet their ethical obligations. So while the investigation takes a lot of time, no progress can really be announced. If the prosecution gets a name in grand jury, he can't even announce that it happened, although we'll pretty much know when an indictment is returned.

In short, it's a long, tedious process that's had two sets of appeals. There have probably been hundreds of interviews and at least a dozen GJ witnesses.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
On a personal note; what about loyalty to your country? How could any good American do such a thing?
There's only one interpretation I can put on this that doesn't amount to disloyalty, and that is that they didn't know she recruited people. Her name is not a secret in the Washington establishment, and it's possible they thought she was a field analyst who didn't work undercover. We've seen inadvertent leaks in committee hearings on Bolton, for example, which I attributed to carelessness on the part of the office staff.

I have no idea if that's the case. The best possible interpretation of the leaker's actions, though, still amounts to unacceptable recklessness. Someone works for the CIA, you check before using their name.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
For that, her contacts would have to be disclosed...

Look, it obviously isn't legal treason, but outing a secret agent is a crime in and of itself. Rove (assuming, with great relish, that it's him) can't say "I didn't know she was in the CIA", because that's precisely what he disclosed. And there's a limit to how much he can be believed by playing dumb and saying "I thought she was an analyst, not an agent". I doubt very much that the public would buy it. So he won't go to jail, but that'll cost King George even more.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
And even if they bought it, that would mean gross incompetence. Is there really no amount of that at which y'all of the right-wing persuasion will say "enough!"?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
A. Unless you think Rove called Cooper this morning and told him to testify, it wasn't him.

B. Read the law. It's been posted a bunch of times here. There's a lot more to it than "outing a secret agent." It's not "a crime in and of itself."

C. I haven't defended the leak at all. I've tried to rein in hyperbole about the situation.
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
Thanks, Earl. Smart ole Bob, covering his hide...
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Well, once the person is definitively identified, I would think that they will be very nervous having put a CIA agent at risk...

Those guys and gals play rough, and don't care much about breaking laws or if a law was broken. One might find oneself renditioned to Syria while vacationing in Italy...

Mmmm. [Smile] Warm Happy Thought.

Whomever it is should immediately resign, as a bare minimum. I guarantee that protecting that person, just like refusing Rumsfeld's resignation, will cost the Administration political points.

Incidentally, while it does not rise to the level of treason, it is likely a crime under:

50 USC Sec. 421

Look up the text here, abbreviated below.

quote:
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Of course, at issue is the definition of a covert agent. Defined elsewhere in the code as:

quote:
(4) The term "covert agent" means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship
to the United States is classified information, and -

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose
past or present intelligence relationship to the United States
is classified information and who is a present or former agent
of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.



 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
The abbreviated version leaves out most of the elements. I'll just do A as an example, adding brackets around each element and numbering it:

quote:
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, [1. having or having had authorized access] [2. to classified information] [3. that identifies] [4. a covert agent], [5. intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent] [6. to any individual not authorized to receive classified information], [7. knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent] and [8. (knowing) 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 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

First, the access had to be authorized, so 1 is in doubt. Especially because it was common knowledge around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, bringing 8 into doubt. It's not clear her identity was classified, bringing 2 into doubt, and it's not clear she qualifies as a "covert agent."
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
1 and 2: If that person didn't have authorized access, the next one in the chain would. At some point, IF classified information is revealed, SOMEBODY with access to it had to transfer it to unclassified individuals.

8 is in doubt, but since not everyone who works for the CIA is covert, revealing the covert status or activities of a public agent is still covered, is it not? I think 8 is the hardest one to prove, and this restriction also applies to parts b and c.

As far as being a covert agent, since even retired agents are covered, I would think that if she ever had covert duties, it would still apply.

Wiki has an analysis and links.

Anyway, this is the statute that applies, not treason. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
quote:
1 and 2: If that person didn't have authorized access, the next one in the chain would. At some point, IF classified information is revealed, SOMEBODY with access to it had to transfer it to unclassified individuals.
The common knowledge thing is pretty hard to get around. Apparantly lots of people knew she was CIA. If this is the case, then the person who "leaked" might have gotten it at the water cooler or even a cocktail party.

quote:
As far as being a covert agent, since even retired agents are covered, I would think that if she ever had covert duties, it would still apply.
Only if she served outside the U.S. in the last 5 years, presumably as a covert agent.

Your right that 8 is probably the most likely to be disputed.
 
Posted by Bryan Erickson (Member # 1135) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
True, Dagonee, you are right on the technical basis. But, for all practical purposes, it is still treason in my book. Outing our covert CIA operatives during a time of war against Muslim fundamentalist terrorists hurts our war effort much more than if the same Bush Administration official had taken up arms against the United States.

It's highly likely that several of Plame's field contacts were killed by precisely the terrorists we are fighting when the news of her CIA status became public - costing us valuable intelligence sources and betraying those who valuably aided the defense of our nation, and enabling the terrorists to discover and eliminate U.S.-supported threats to their success. How would that not include giving aid and comfort to our enemies?
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
"Highly likely?"

Is this speculation, or do you have a source?

And intent/knowledge is still an element of treason.

[ July 06, 2005, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 
Posted by Bryan Erickson (Member # 1135) on :
 
As far as I know, there's no public knowledge of a specific killing of a secret intelligence source due to Plame's outing - it would be remarkable if something like that did come to light. I based that on what I've picked up from general assessments by sources knowledgeable on intelligence. I don't have a source offhand - maybe someone else has one, or I will look it up later.

As for intent, this is totally outside my field of legal expertise, but I think proving intent for treason may be easier than proving the specific intent spelled out by that covert agent statute.

[ July 06, 2005, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Bryan Erickson ]
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
There have been a lot better candidates for treason than this case. If we were going to charge anyone with treason, this isn't it.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Rove was Cooper's source. Not only that, he did in fact tell Cooper about Valerie Plame (Wilson's wife) work at the CIA before Novak went to press with his column. Newsweek reports in greater detail:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

quote:
July 18 issue - It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

[...]

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division.


 
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 1392) on :
 
Well, innocent until proven guilty, right?
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
From the same article (which tells ya you should always read the thing, instead of trusting the quoter to actually summarize the content):

quote:
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.

A source close to Rove, who declined to be identified because he did not wish to run afoul of the prosecutor or government investigators, added that there was "absolutely no inconsistency" between Cooper's e-mail and what Rove has testified to during his three grand-jury appearances in the case. "A fair reading of the e-mail makes clear that the information conveyed was not part of an organized effort to disclose Plame's identity, but was an effort to discourage Time from publishing things that turned out to be false," the source said, referring to claims in circulation at the time that Cheney and high-level CIA officials arranged for Wilson's trip to Africa.



[ July 11, 2005, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
quote:
Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well. "Karl Rove has shared with Fitzgerald all the information he has about any potentially relevant contacts he has had with any reporters, including Matt Cooper," Luskin told NEWSWEEK.
The key words there are that "Luskin said." Also of note is that Luskin is spinning for Rove precisely because Luskin is Rove's lawyer.

Remember that Luskin is Karl Rove's lawyer, and right now Luskin is trying to mount the "[Rove] did not inhale" defense by insinuating that Karl Rove never named Valerie Plame by name even though Rove did call her "Wilson's wife" when he revealed that "Wilson's wife" worked as a CIA agent.

quote:
it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.
The fact of the matter is that Luskin is trying to maintain a very legalistic defense of Rove by arguing that Rove never said the words "Valerie Plame" -- and thus he did not really out Valerie Plame. Even if she happens to be the "Wilson's wife" that Rove outed to Cooper as a CIA agent. Of course, to any rational person, it is pretty obvious that Rove was outing Valerie Plame when he outed "Wilson's wife."

But of course, Rove is taking a page out of the Clintonian "I did not inhale defense. Heh.

[ July 11, 2005, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/11/politics/main708165.shtml

quote:
For two years, the White House has insisted that presidential adviser Karl Rove had nothing to do with the leak of a CIA officer's identity. And President Bush said the leaker would be fired.
Hmm, is Karl Rove fired yet? Hmm, no? I wonder why...

Meanwhile, Scott McClellan gets skewered by the White House Press corps because he found himself caught red-handed in a bald-faced lie when he asserted that it was "ridiculous to suggest that Karl Rove was involved". Here is the transcript from the hilarious White House press briefing where Scott McClellan clams up quickly as he finds himself in a firestorm of embarrassing questions:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000977098

quote:
Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related 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: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

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....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that 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, when the president made his comments 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'?

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. And 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.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot 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"?

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, 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've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: 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: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

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 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?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?


MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: [B]When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...[/B

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....

***

Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there’s an investigation or not.

So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.


 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
David,
That is indeed one of the funniest things I have ever read. McClellan dodges bullets like an agent from the Matrix. Unfortunately for him, the press brought out a gattling gun of facts. Poor Smith. [Big Grin]
Adam
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
Andrew Card knew what he was doing when he retired when he did. [Wink]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

He needs to get this tattooed on his forehead.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
A gatling gun of facts? As much as I like the imagery, the press are simply roasting him for not making a statement. If they had facts, they wouldn't have to do that. They did construct some neat traps though. My favorite was:

"So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?"

I don't know how you can stonewall that one, but Scott soldiered on.


I mean traps, in the sense of Socratic dialogue, not traps in the sense of being unfair or disingenuous. Clearly, something is up - or he wants to take zero risk. They must be trying to decide what to do. If I had to guess, Karl will have to take one for the team if he turns out to have provided material information, as opposed to other explanations.

I don't see how they can avoid it, given the strong statements they've made in the past. Not that he'll face prosecution, but he'll have to step down - at least officially.
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"A gatling gun of facts? As much as I like the imagery, the press are simply roasting him for not making a statement. If they had facts, they wouldn't have to do that."

Gatling guns must, by necessity, fire functionally identical bullets of the same tautological caliber over and over and over and over and over and over...

...to gattle their cages.

[ July 11, 2005, 09:21 PM: Message edited by: kenmeer livermaile ]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
. If I had to guess, Karl will have to take one for the team if he turns out to have provided material information, as opposed to other explanations.
I would guess so too. Problem is, in the past, Bush has seemed to show no awareness at all when his people screw up. I would be seriously unsuprised if Rove turns out to be the leaker, and then Bush turns around and gives him an accomodation. It has precedents.
Adam
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
quote:
. If I had to guess, Karl will have to take one for the team if he turns out to have provided material information, as opposed to other explanations.
I would guess so too. Problem is, in the past, Bush has seemed to show no awareness at all when his people screw up. I would be seriously unsuprised if Rove turns out to be the leaker, and then Bush turns around and gives him an accomodation. It has precedents.
Adam
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"I would be seriously unsuprised if Rove turns out to be the leaker, and then Bush turns around and gives him an accomodation. It has precedents."

Me too. I anticipate that, within the next 3 & 1/2 remainging presidential years, we'll see a collapsible caste of cards of enormous proportion collapse.

Sad. Because the likes of Hillary will be there to pick up the viable pieces.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
I would guess so too. Problem is, in the past, Bush has seemed to show no awareness at all when his people screw up. I would be seriously unsuprised if Rove turns out to be the leaker, and then Bush turns around and gives him an accomodation. It has precedents.
Adam

An accomodation? Or a commendation? Or a medal? [Wink]
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
oops. [Embarrassed]
Adam
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Ex-Republican CIA Officer Larry Johnson puts the Rove/Plame outing in proper perspective:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

quote:
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.

For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA.
I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.

For the record, Larry Johnson was a partisan and loyal Republican all the way up until the outing of his CIA colleague Valerie Plame (he withdrew his Republican Party registration in disgust when Valerie Plame was outed in 2003). Of course, since the time two years ago that the Bush Administration maliciously outed her CIA NOC operative status, Larry Johnson has been outraged by the pathetic political attacks against our country's national security by small-minded men who are so pathetic that they stoop to cowardly attacking the wives of their political enemies -- even at the cost of this country's national security. As should we all.

[ July 13, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Thank God I know that Larry Johnson is/was a good Republican. Everything makes sense now.

Now I know that even though I'm a conservative, I too can hurl invective at Bush and his administration. It's so... freeing!

[ July 13, 2005, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: javelin ]
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
For the record, I have good friends of mine who work at the CIA. When I first learned of what had transpired in regard to Valerie Plame's outing by the Bush Administration in July 2003, I had already been hearing disturbing anecdotes from my friends about how Administration civilian officials were pressuring CIA intelligence analysts to interpret the raw data in such a way that would support the Bush Administration's case for WMDs in Iraq.

So, it was with great disgust that I learned in July 2003 of the ridiculous political attack made by the Bush Administration against our own CIA. Put simply, top officials in the Bush Administration cowardly attacked their political enemy's wife (what kind of self-respecting man attacks someone's wife?!?!) -- and outed a non-official cover CIA operative who specialized in WMD nonproliferation operations in the Middle East -- all in a blatant effort to twist the intelligence into supporting the Administration's false WMD case in Iraq.

Then I think of my friends who work at the CIA (a couple of whom are women as well), and blood boils even more. Heroes, who every day continually fight a shadow war to protect America interests at home and abroad, constantly been misused and compromised and attacked by political hacks who never once spent a day defending this country against its many foreign enemies.

And that's really what turned me against the Administration ever since -- my feeling since July 2003 that the Administration is full of scum that would willingly endanger American national security just so they could score a political attack on a political enemy's wife.

Such men of such character are not fit to protect American national security, and it is no surprise why they are continuing to fail in Iraq because they always put narrow political interests ahead of the country's greater good.

[ July 13, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"Thank God I know that Larry Johnson is/was a good Republican. Everything makes sense now. Now I know that even though I'm a conservative, I too can hurl invective at Bush and his administration. It's so... freeing!"

Aye. So is learning to tie one's shoelaces to their respective shoe and not the other.
 
Posted by Sancselfieme (Member # 1373) on :
 
Apparently Bush, who never passes up a chance to defend and deny charges against even the most seemingly-guilty people in his admin., passed on public endorsement of Rove.

quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush passed up a chance Wednesday to express confidence in senior aide Karl Rove in a political fight over a news leak that exposed a CIA officer's identity. The lack of endorsement surprised some White House officials who had been told Bush would back his embattled friend.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, later asserted that Rove had "cooperated fully" in the federal investigation, had done nothing wrong and was prepared to provide additional information to a special prosecutor if needed.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

Later in the day, White House spokesman Scott McClellan insisted that Rove did have Bush's support. "As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the president," McClellan said.


Bush said he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.

Across town, a federal grand jury heard more testimony in its probe into whether anyone in the administration illegally leaked the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame in July 2003. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the administration's rationale for invading Iraq, has said the leak was an attempt to discredit him.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, who wrote an article that identified Plame, appeared before the grand jury for 2 1/2 hours.

"I testified openly and honestly," Cooper said outside the courthouse, without divulging details. "I have no idea whether a crime was committed or not. That's something the special counsel's going to have to determine."

Wednesday evening, Luskin, Rove's attorney, issued a statement saying that Cooper's testimony would "not call into question the accuracy or completeness of anything Rove has previously said to the prosecutor or the grand jury."

Rove has cooperated completely with the special prosecutor, and he has been repeatedly assured he is not a target of the investigation," said Luskin. "Rove has done nothing wrong. We're confident he will not become a target after the special prosecutor has reviewed all evidence."

If special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald "seeks additional information from Rove in light of Cooper's testimony, Rove will promptly provide it," the lawyer's statement said.

The dispute has taken a toll on the White House and its allies, threatening to jeopardize the president's domestic agenda and leading to an aggressive GOP campaign to blunt Democratic calls for Rove's firing or resignation. With urging from the White House, Republican congressmen lined up in support of Rove and most GOP politicians outside Washington followed suit.

"It's a tempest in a teapot," said Denzil Garrison, former state GOP leader in Oklahoma. But some Republicans said Rove may need to go. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

Bush previously had suggested he'd fire anyone found to have been a leaker in the case.

Bombarded with Rove questions for a third straight day, McClellan said, "I think we've exhausted the discussion on this the last couple of days." Joking about the toll of the controversy, he said, "It may not look like it, but there's a little flesh that's been taken out of me the past few days."

McClellan said Bush had not expressed confidence in Rove in the Cabinet session because no one had asked him that directly. The question put to Bush was whether he had spoken with Rove about the Plame matter, whether he believed Rove had acted improperly, and whether it was appropriate for the White House to say in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leak.

McClellan said Bush agreed with Laura Bush, who earlier Wednesday told reporters traveling with her in Africa that Rove was a good family friend.

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation," Bush said. "We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed."

The failure by Bush to publicly back Rove left some White House advisers privately wondering whether the president was distancing himself from his longtime adviser.

The White House has previously said Rove was not involved in the leak. But an internal Time magazine e-mail disclosed over the weekend suggested Rove mentioned to Time reporter Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent.

She was first publicly identified by name as an operative in a July 2003 opinion piece by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak. Rove, through his lawyer, has confirmed that he talked to Cooper but has denied providing Plame's name or leaking classified information.

Each political side intensified its attempts to discredit the other on Wednesday, producing a flurry of press releases and news conferences.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and three other Senate Democratic leaders - Charles Schumer of New York, Dick Durbin of Illinois and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan - sent a letter to Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, asking him to release results of an initial internal investigation into the leak and to begin a new probe "to explain public inconsistencies."

MoveOn, a liberal advocacy group, announced its members would stage a protest in front of the White House on Thursday to demand Rove's firing.

Meanwhile, Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina, chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, called Democratic attacks on Rove "out of control and entirely inappropriate ... accusations based on rumor and innuendo."


"Full-support" indeed, usually Bush is never loathe to provide his "full support" in his own words (ie: Rumsfeld, Gonsalez, Pitt, Naesse, etc.) even when guilt is very apparent. Looks like Bush is already trying to distance himself from Rove. For the admin. who shamelessly denies the strongest of charges I can only assume this is the biggest admission of guilt I have ever seen.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
I must say, this is very hard to respect.
 
Posted by Ivan (Member # 1467) on :
 
Anyone else catch The Daily Show's take on this? "Which award does Rove get? Tenet screwed up the WMD thing, he gets the Medal of Freedom. Condi Rice was the Nat Sec adivsor during the largest foreign attack on American soil in two hundred years, and she got a title bump. So what reward could possibly be big enough to match the size of Rove's screwup?"

Oh, Mr. President... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Whoops!
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh
Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA."


"...The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy..."

Ain't irony delicious? A fractal gradation of trials about triala about trials about anonymous leaks and secret sources.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Warsaw-
Doesn't really mean anything. Wilson isn't the one pursuing the investigation. THe CIA is, and they think one of their covert operatives was outed. Maybe Wilson meant she wasn't a clandestine operative because she wasn't currently on a mission, or wasn't in deep cover somewhere. Who knows what he meant. But the CIA certainly thinks the law was broken, since they demanded the investigation.
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
It is pretty easy to see why Wilson is parsing his words that way when you read the larger context of the interview:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html

quote:
BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.

She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC

Wilson is stating himself in such an awkward fashion precisely because he cannot ever admit or acknowledge that his wife, Valerie Plame, was ever a clandestine operative with the CIA. Because of the classified nature of her clandestine work with the CIA and the security of her intelligence contacts as a CIA clandestine operative, Wilson is being very careful never to admit that she actually was a CIA operative. Therefore, that's why he is being so careful to say only that the CIA believed that there was a crime that was committed (outing of clandestine CIA operative) and was asking FBI to investigate that crime.

To those who are conveniently reading comprehension-challenged, when Wilson says, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." -- he is emphasizing that she ceased to be a clandestine CIA officer when Bob Novak outed her as a clandestine CIA officer. And he is being very careful to say it in such a way that he never actually admits or acknowledges that Valerie Plame was a clandestine officer.

He only alludes indirectly to her being a CIA clandestine operative by emphasizing things like "Bob Novak blew her identity" and "CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed."

And of course, his wife was no longer a clandestine CIA officer after Novak outed her status as such, so the article and photos with Vanity Fair made perfect sense since she was already outed in the first place.

[ July 15, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Ah ha! Thanks David.

Now, as to that conversation between Novak and Rove...

[ July 15, 2005, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Now, as to that conversation between Novak and Rove...

Phew! Good thing Rove just happened to have the info handy to help Novak out.

At any rate, I don't think the charge against any of the sources (and clearly it's not just Rove) will be treason, since the charge doesn't fit.

Probably espionage and mishandling sensitive information.

[ July 15, 2005, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
I'm still trying to get my mind around the concept of someone passing info like ID of secret CIA agents to a political publicist. Good hell. Do our presidents really trust this level of information to their Carl Roves and James Carvilles? Everyone knows that Caroveelles are born and bred to be political spin machines. You input information, and it outputs a way to use the info to win an election or gain some other micropolitical advantage. Please tell me we're not feeding classified national security info into these machines.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Please tell me we're not feeding classified national security info into these machines.
You didn't know you'd elected Clinton II, did you Pete?

Misplaced secret information, quibbling over legalisms despite clear evidence of wrongdoing...
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That's like mistaking your fax machine for a shredder.
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
AA, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- if the 22nd amendment was repealed, I'd probably join my wife this time and vote for Bill Clinton. But it still doesn't make me regret chosing W over Kerry.

And frankly I don't see any better alternatives.
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
I'm still trying to get my mind around the concept of someone passing info like ID of secret CIA agents to a political publicist. Good hell. Do our presidents really trust this level of information to their Carl Roves and James Carvilles? Everyone knows that Caroveelles are born and bred to be political spin machines. You input information, and it outputs a way to use the info to win an election or gain some other micropolitical advantage. Please tell me we're not feeding classified national security info into these machines.

Well, if Rove is to be believed, he didn't have that classified information.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
And frankly I don't see any better alternatives.
That's the rub, ain't it!
 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
"o those who are conveniently reading comprehension-challenged, when Wilson says, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." -- he is emphasizing that she ceased to be a clandestine CIA officer when Bob Novak outed her as a clandestine CIA officer. And he is being very careful to say it in such a way that he never actually admits or acknowledges that Valerie Plame was a clandestine officer."

I was waiting for someone to grasp that nuance. This IS intelligence work, not politics... except that someone mixed the two in public view.
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"he is emphasizing that she ceased to be a clandestine CIA officer when Bob Novak outed her as a clandestine CIA officer"

You've got more nuance on the brain than I do. If he meant it the way you've descibed, the correct wording would have been, "My wife ceased being a clandestine CIA operative the day...". When he says "was not" in place of "ceased", the meaning is that she had ceased having clandestine status at some point before the article was published.

Edited to add: The word "stopped" could be used in place of "ceased" also without altering the meaning.

[ July 15, 2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
That'd be too clear, Digger - he was trying to be evasive on the subject - they have to "disavow" her, right? So, that's what he was doing? [Confused] Wait, is her husband an undercover operative in the employ of the CIA? Oh few, guess not - 'cause if he was, I just outed him...

[ July 15, 2005, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"...he was trying to be evasive on the subject..."

We're reading minds now? Ok, have it your way. I'm sticking with the text, though. If I'm wrong, I expect there will be clarification soon. Lacking any, I think the written word should stand.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Question for the "Rove is Guilty Without a Doubt" crowd:

Why is NYT's Judith Miller still in jail? What source is she protecting? It surely is not Rove....
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"It surely is not Rove.... "

I'll stretch that and speculate that it isn't anyone who could be called a Republican. She's obviously protecting someone who could still be harmed by the information getting out, and pretty much everyone of significance within the White House staff has already talked with the prosecutors and/or grand jury as far as I can tell.

[ July 15, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Digger ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by javelin:
Well, if Rove is to be believed, he didn't have that classified information.

As a principle, I try very hard not to believe the Roves and Carvilles of this world, any more than I believe that Coke really does add life, or that having the right kind of car will make me happier and more masculine.

On the other hand, I really can't see why anyone would give a Rove info like names of top secret operators. I think the spinner's getting spun here.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Question for the "Rove is Guilty Without a Doubt" crowd:

Why is NYT's Judith Miller still in jail? What source is she protecting? It surely is not Rove....

More than one source mishandled data?
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Digger, be careful what you wish for. Most likely, Judith Miller is protecting Scooter Libby. In fact, it is very likely that Fitzgerald is tightening the screws on Rove and Miller in order to find out the other White House leaker(s).

Remember that Novak's column cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. Rove is one of them. Most likely, Scooter Libby is the other, and Fitzgerald is jailing Miller until she coughs him up.

[ July 15, 2005, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Remember that Novak's column cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources. Rove is one of them. Most likely, Scooter Libby is the other, and Fitzgerald is jailing Miller until she coughs him up.

Although Libby supposedly signed a waiver that released Miller a long time ago...

But I agree with your assessment.

[ July 15, 2005, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"Digger, be careful what you wish for."

Oh, I'm not wishing for anything. Just playing the speculation game. Someone outside the White House and likely a Democrat is what makes sense to me. I could be (and by being on Ornery, by definition, am) wrong.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Hrm. I'm a little bothered by the senate voting to leave rove's security clearance intact, despite an admission by his lawyer that rove spoke to novak about plume. If he's cleared by the investigation, then restore the security clearance. But it seems this is a situation where discretion is the better part of valor.
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"I'm a little bothered by the senate voting to leave rove's security clearance intact..."

I think there were a few Senators who would have lost their clearances had they been held to the same standard they are trying to hold Rove to. I'm not saying Rove is the innocent white lamb, but there's a lot of black sheep around Washington.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I've largely stayed out of this whole sorry affair....but I'd really like to know this:

If outing a single CIA agent who was not even undercover is SUCH A CRIME to call people traitors, treasonous, and that they should be fired or have security clearance revoked...or to have the white house press corp berate Scott McClellan for three days straight (even starting the DAY after the London bombings...) - than what about outing an entire CIA operation?

Is that not even WORSE?

Or MORE treasonous?

Did we already forget about the NYT detailed report exposing companies, and actual planes with Tailfin ID numbers and all in their pictures about the planes that the CIA used for transporting captured prisoners? The countless pilots and flight crews and operators endangered needlessly in the NYT's efforts to continually push the Abu Ghraib/Gitmo torture memes?

Where is the outrage about that?

Oh wait...I know.

It doesn't politically hurt Bush or help the Democrats and their panderer's in the press.

Carry on.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Where is the outrage about that?

Remember, Daruma, when I told you that was a bad thing? But publishing it wasn't a crime.

Furthermore the Plame leak did blow a "whole CIA operation". One that tried to prevent the development and spread of WMD.

[ July 15, 2005, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Daruma-
The only evidence you have she wasn't undercover is wilson's deliberately murky statement. On the other hand, the CIA says she was.

Also, knowingly outting a CIA operative is a federal crime. Outting a CIA agent for political vengeance is even worse.

Exposing a CIA operation is not a federal crime.

Further, have you noticed that no one is calling for a prosection of Novak? It was his article that outted her to the public. But he's protected by the first amendment. He can publish that. He doesn't have security clearance. The same people not demanding he be prosecuted are the same people not demanding the the NYT be prosecuted.

Rove isn't protected. And he outted an operative, possibly in violation of federal law. Can you show me the law that applies to the NYT?
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
That's irrelevant to Daruma's question, since it's not the job of the press to prosecute crime.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I'm not talking about YOU or anyone else here on Ornery really....just the hysterical media going WAAAAYY over the top and haranguing Scott McClellan and publishing "Rove Should Be Fired" articles and editorials ad naseum - like Plame's identity is the most IMPORTANT issue in the country today.

Where is Terry Moran expressing the same kind of outrage at the NYT for outing an entire CIA operation like he did with McClellan?

It's so transparently partisan, it's really laughable.

And look, I don't know how this is all going to play out, and I am not giving Rove the benefit of the doubt...he may very well be guilty. But like the first post in this thread, guys like Ricardo have already convicted him because it suits their partisan agenda rather than a real concern for the truth.

[ July 15, 2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
And he outted an operative, possibly in violation of federal law.
This is the effects of the incessant partisan hyping by the media manifesting itself. The investigation is ongoing, yet Ev, you and all your likeminded ABBers have already convicted him of this.

From everything I've read on the topic, that's still very much in question.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Here's the WSJ's rundown of the whole affair...can someone point out where they may be wrong?

quote:

The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press all report that, as the AP puts it, Rove "originally learned about the operative [Plame] from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony," apparently a lawyer friendly to the White House. According to the Times account, Rove was the second source for Bob Novak's column identifying Plame's role in arranging Wilson's trip to Niger:

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.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." . . .

On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger." Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, "Oh, you know about it."

That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said.

If this account is accurate, then Rove simply confirmed a fact that was already in circulation. He no more "outed" Plame than Wilson did when he peddled his "outing" allegation to various left-wing journalists after Novak's column ran.

Meanwhile, the Washington Times quotes an erstwhile colleague of Plame's who casts further doubt on the Democratic narrative:

A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. . . . The agency never changed her cover status."

Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover"--also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson--also said that she worked under extremely light cover.

In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.

In an interview with CNN yesterday, Wilson acknowledged, "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," though he refused to say anything about her career before that day. As we noted yesterday, though, the source for that USA Today report was none other than Wilson himself, in his book, which apparently no one bothered to read until now.

So Plame has not been undercover since at least 1997 - well beyond the five years to fall within the jurisdiction of the crime of "outing an undercover" agent.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Umm, see the "possibly" there, daruma? No, apparently not.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Where is Terry Moran expressing the same kind of outrage at the NYT for outing an entire CIA operation like he did with McClellan?"

The job of the press is to tell us what the government is doing, ESPECIALLY the things the government does not want us to know. This is why they have first amendment protections.

The job of government officials with security clearance is to not use that clearance for partisan political gain, at the possible expense of people's lives and at the possible expense of national security.

The two cases aren't even in the same ballpark of similarity.
 
Posted by Digger (Member # 2341) on :
 
"deliberately murky statement"

Back again with the mind reading. Oy vey.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Umm, see the "possibly" there, daruma? No, apparently not.

I saw it. But you say "he outted" when it may very well be he "outted" no one, since her identity was already well known. Does it not require that to "out" someone, you have to be the first to reveal the secret to the public?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Nope. He's not legally allowed to identify a CIA operative, even if someone says to him "I know that Wilson's wife is a CIA agent." He cannot confirm or deny that. By confirming it, he outted her.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
But according to Wilson's own book, she was not a NOC since 1997. So how is that "outting" someone who was not even undercover to begin with?
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure O'Reilly said last night that if the operative had "ever" been undercover. I know for a fact that he said Valerie Plame qualified.

He also said that he wanted to know "where the Liberal idea of innocent until proven guilty was in this case."

Nice of him to admit that good ideas like that are ours.

KE
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
If she's hasn't been a NOC since 1997, and Rove didn't say she was a NOC, just confirmed that she was an agent, then what's the fuss, again?
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
If she's hasn't been a NOC since 1997, and Rove didn't say she was a NOC, just confirmed that she was an agent, then what's the fuss, again?
You're not allowed to do that if you know it as part of your clearance, javelin.

Edited to add: here's a link to one of the potential violations, but I think there are other information mishandling statutes that are also in play.

[ July 15, 2005, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
[O'Reilly] said that he wanted to know "where the Liberal idea of innocent until proven guilty was in this case."

Nice of him to admit that good ideas like that are ours.
KE

Score, KE! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Well apparently Alzab, according to todays AP, Rove found out that FROM Novak....not the other way around.

Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak

quote:
Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.


 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Well apparently Alzab, according to todays AP, Rove found out that FROM Novak....not the other way around.

This is the current defense meme, yes. But he still seems to have confirmed her "agent-ness" to Novak without using her name himself -- still a no-no.

[ July 15, 2005, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by John L (Member # 1411) on :
 
I haven't had a chance to plow through all the pages here, but I will make a statement that the Rove affair is at it's end. If the NY Times, hardly a friend of this administration, has pretty much washed it's hands, you can bet that by the end of the weekend, the leadership of the DNC and Congressional Democrat Leaders will be on to their next evil person to attack.

Probably getting ready to set up the White House Spokesman. They have tried it on everyone higher, so they have to reach down into the bag.

I wonder when they will learn to work on a positive agenda and get off of the losing name calling?
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Depends. I don't think that technically Rove has committed any crime under existing law.

Not under Section 421 ... not under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982... not even under the Espionage Act of 1917.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"I wonder when they will learn to work on a positive agenda and get off of the losing name calling?"

I don't know... name calling worked really well to get the republicans where they are today.
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Worked really well to get the Democrats where they are too, cough Bu****ler/Shrub/chimp.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Thats cause the republicans are sophisticated namecallers. Democrats are too nice to be good at it.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
If the NY Times, hardly a friend of this administration, has pretty much washed it's hands, you can bet that by the end of the weekend, the leadership of the DNC and Congressional Democrat Leaders will be on to their next evil person to attack.

Remember that the NYT has some self-interest in this going away too.
 
Posted by Adam Masterman (Member # 1142) on :
 
I have sort of followed the right wing spin on this (talk radio), and their rhetorical defense of Rove has been to shift the debate to whether he was guilty of a crime or not, which it seemed from early on he wasn't. I never thought that he was, just that he was a creepy bastard. What I will be watching with interest is to see whether Bush follows through on his unequivocable (the man is nothing if not plain-spoken) pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak. It seems tha Karl Rove certainly falls under this heading. Not that Rove would ever really stop working for dubya, but at least an official s**tcanning would warm the hearts of us vindictive lefties. [Wink]

Seriously, Rove is basically a creep. Ask John McCain and his illegitimate black child. The guy (Rove) is reaping what he has sewn.

Adam
 
Posted by Pete at Home (Member # 429) on :
 
Of course he is. That's his job. Blame Thomas Jefferson for instituting the policy that every president had to have an official character assassin.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
You've gadda admire these guys' ruthlessness! I mean, I bet dubya and Rove where going like: "So, you wanna fug with me? Huh!? I'll teach you!" and on they went, selling Plame out to the press, which is no laughing matter these days. It's almost like, or very similar to, the good old days of the Evil Empire. But Dubya is no Reagan and Plame is certainly no Gaddafi. Ya can say what ya want about Reagan, but the man had at least some sense of proportion. And he didn't let himself get suckered into the religious right.)
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/15/225611/396

quote:
By Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, Larry Johnson, and Jane Doe

We trained and worked at the CIA with Valerie Plame. We presented the following statement at a hearing on Capitol Hill in October 2003. In light of the latest White House sanctioned assault on Valerie Plame and her character, our testimony remains relevant and accurate.

We slogged through the same swamps on patrols, passed clandestine messages to each other, survived a simulated terrorist kidnapping and interrogation, kicked pallets from cargo planes, completed parachute jumps, and literally helped picked ticks off each other after weeks in the woods at a CIA training facility. We knew each other's secrets. We shared our fears, failures, and successes. We came to rely on each other in a way you do not find in normal civilian life. We understood that a slip of the tongue could end in death for those close to us or for people we didn't even know. We were trained by the best, to be the best. We were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. They may not appreciate what they have created.

Our joint training experience forged a bond of trust and a sense of duty that continues some eighteen years later. It is because of this bond of trust that the authors of this piece and two other colleagues, all former intelligence officers, appeared on ABC's Nightline to speakout on behalf of the wife Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a sensitive undercover operative outed by columnist Robert Novak. The Ambassador's wife (we decline to use her name) is a friend who went through the same training with us. We acknowledge our obligation to protect each other and the intelligence community and the information we used to do our jobs. We are speaking out because someone in the Bush Administration seemingly does not understand this, although they signed the same oaths of allegiance and confidentiality that we did.

Many of us have moved on into the private sector, where this Agency aspect of our lives means little, but we have not forgotten our initial oaths to support the Constitution, our government, and to protect the secrets we learned and to protect each other. We still have friends who serve. We protect them literally by keeping our mouths shut unless we are speaking amongst ourselves. We understand what this bond or the lack of it means.

Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.

Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.

You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It's a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.

Ambassador Wilson's political affiliations are irrelevant. Political differences serve as the basis for the give and take of representative government. What is relevant is the damage caused by the exposure that Ambassador Wilson's wife as a political act intended to undermine Wilson's view.

It is shameful on one level that the White House uses the news media, its own leaks, and junior Congressmen from Georgia, among others, to levy attacks on Ambassador Wilson. Moreover they discount what he has to say, his value in the Niger investigation, and suggest his wife's cover is of little value because she was "a low-level CIA employee". If Wilson's comments or analysis have no merit, why does the White House feel the need to launch such a coordinated attack? Why drag his wife into it?

Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm's way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won't protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson's occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies.

Politicians must not politicize the intelligence community. President Bush has been a decisive leader in the war on terrorism, at least initially. What about decisiveness now? Where is the accountability he promised us in the wake of Clinton Administration scandals? We find it hard to believe the President lacks the wherewithal to get to bottom of this travesty. It is up to the President to restore the bonds of trust with the intelligence community that have been shattered by this tawdry incident.

We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.


 
Posted by kenmeer livermaile (Member # 2243) on :
 
This case has, I believe, only begun to unravel. Unraveled thread makes SUCH a mess...
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
Depends. I don't think that technically Rove has committed any crime under existing law.

Not under Section 421 ... not under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982... not even under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Warss, I so admire your ability to find absolutely the most detaillistic kinda rules, nitpicking regulations, exceptions, exceptions to exceptions, to support your positions. Ever heard of such a thing as 'spirit of the law'?

Care to paste those sections and Acts here?
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
It doesn't have to be a criminal offense for it to be a firing offense. It would be very sad if the only standard for White House employment were the criminal code.
 
Posted by TS Elliot (Member # 736) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Thats cause the republicans are sophisticated namecallers. Democrats are too nice to be good at it.

[Big Grin]

At least Democrats are namecallers when it's about presidents lying (WMD in Iraq ... where?) and stealing (giving Halliburton top dog position in rebuilding Iraq, 9 billion? You gotta admit, it's good business, first you use taxpayers money to bomb a country, then you use EVEN MORE taxpayers money to rebuild it.)

While on the other hand, Republicans can only do namecalling when it's about presidents lying about sex. And of course, republicans NEVER lie about sex and never will do so, right?
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
TS Eliot -
quote:
Ever heard of such a thing as 'spirit of the law'?
Yes, but unlike some people, I don't massage new meanings out of laws. These laws were written as they were for specific purposes, or even specific cases (in the case of Sec 421, a specific former agent of the CIA).

"Section 421" refers to this: Title 50 USC, Sec 421:
quote:
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent
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 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify 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 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
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 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

That's a damn high bar to have to clear to be convicted.

You'd have to meet all of the following conditions, as supplied by the folks at QandO:
quote:
1. The suspect had to have had access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, or resulted in the suspect learning the identity of a covert agent.

2. The suspect had to have intentionally disclosed the identity, or information that disclosed the identity, of the covert agent.

3. The person to whom the suspect disclosed the identity was not authorized to receive the information.

4. The suspect knew that the information he disclosed identified the covert agent.

5. The suspect knew that the government was actively trying to conceal the covert agent's relationship with the government.

The aforementioned Sec 421 is part of the larger Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Under the IIPA, Karl probably can't be charged anyway.

USA Today says why:
quote:
The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington — the "outing" of a CIA officer — may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins.

Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.
[...]
Joseph Wilson would not say whether his wife was stationed overseas again after 1997, and he said she would not speak to a reporter. But, he said, "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.

Spokesmen for both the CIA and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating whether a crime was committed, also would not comment.

Though that key law may not have been broken in leaking the name, Fitzgerald must still be pursuing evidence of some type of wrongdoing, said Victoria Toensing, another of the attorneys who helped draft the 1982 act. Like Sanford, she doubts Valerie Wilson, as she now refers to herself, qualified as a "covert agent" under that law. She and Sanford also doubt Fitzgerald has enough evidence to prosecute anyone under the Espionage Act. That law makes it a crime to divulge "information relating to the national defense" that "the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury" of the nation.

But, Toensing said, "reading between the lines, I'd say he's got a 'Martha Stewart case' " involving perjury or obstruction of justice. In other words, though a crime may not have been committed at the start, one may have occurred during the investigation when someone lied to Fitzgerald or to a federal grand jury.

-=-=-=-=-=-
Now, the Espionage Act of 1917 is not something we normally even use in this country, because it looks bad if the government uses it and it is bad for the press. You'll see why.

The part that would apply to Karl is in 18 USC 793:
quote:
Section 793. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it
[...] Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

If you read the rest of the law, you'll also see the unpopular part: it's also a crime to even RECEIVE the information, which means that if Rove goes to jail, so do Novak, Cooper and Miller. The Act is an extremely powerful tool and one not terribly difficult to abuse in the case of certain types of whistleblowing.
The questions about Rove being prosecutable, then are:
quote:
1. Mr. Rove must have had access to classified information indicating Ms. Plame was a covert operative.

2. Ms. Plame's covert status with the CIA must have been classified information, and Mr. Rove must have known it to be classified.

3. Mr. Rove must have believed that it could harm the defense of the United States or advantaged another nation to release the information.

4. Mr. Rove must have intentionally released the information to a person not authorized to receive it.


 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Warsaw-
Actually, to me, from what I know right now, would say that Rove is guilty of a violation of 421, if Plame was stationed overseas in the five years leading up to the column. The only question would be whether he knew the CIA was trying to keep her under wraps.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Incidentally, I have a question:
Karl Rove was not deputy white house chief of staff in 2003. What was his job title at the time?
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
Since 2001, Mr. Rove has served as Senior Advisor to the President, overseeing strategic planning, political affairs, public liaison, and intergovernmental affairs at the White House.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 2212) on :
 
Ev, Rove apparantly got the information about Plame from a reporter.
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
Ev -
quote:
The only question would be whether he knew the CIA was trying to keep her under wraps.
That's some tough burden-of-proof there. Somewhere someone would have to come up with evidence that he actually knew her status. If she was walking into Langley every morning and members of the press corps knew she had something to do with the CIA, he shouldn't have a hard time arguing the obvious assumption: he didn't know she was a covert agent.

Do you know what Rove knew? Let's hear about it.
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
quote:
[O'Reilly] said that he wanted to know "where the Liberal idea of innocent until proven guilty was in this case."

Nice of him to admit that good ideas like that are ours.

That's retarded. Innocent until proven guilty is a liberal idea, not a Liberal idea.

I don't know what O'Reilly's smoking.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
I'll settle for Novak being given the chair. Who says Dems can't compromise?

KE
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
Rove and the White House's torturous and Clintonian posturing continues as Matt Cooper reveals that Rove told him that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA on Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The GOP talking points is that Cooper called Rove to chat about welfare reform in a weird trap that quickly evolved into a discussion of Wilson and his wife. Then, as the GOP propagandists put it, Rove merely "confirmed" that Wilson's wife was CIA.

Of course, Cooper throws those lies right back into the faces of the propaganditocracy by disclosing what he told the grand jury:


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899,00.html

quote:
I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11...... But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been...

[...]

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.

In other words, Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife Valerie Plame worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation issues, Rove also did not say that Valerie Plame was a covert agent, and then Rove ended the phone call by saying, "I've already said too much."

The key is that Cooper notes that "This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife." -- when Rove decided to detail her role at the CIA as an expert in the WMD field.

Obviously it's apparent that Rove is disclosing sensitive information to the journalists here (that he should not have disclosed), not the other way around as the Rove apologists would have it ( i.e. the "but Rove was only confirming the stuff that reporters were asking him" defense).

[ July 17, 2005, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Rove apologists? LMAO

FACT:
quote:
"Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a ''clandestine officer'' and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only ''leak'' her name in the sense that one can ''leak'' the name of the checkout clerk at Home Depot." - Mark Steyn
How about someone that prefers to see both sides of the story and make an objective judgement. So far there seems to be a lot of smoke, but still NO SUBSTANTIAL fire.

Are you going to sit their and tell us that Judith Miller is in jail right now protecting ROVE?!?!? If you make that case, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale just for you.

David, for someone who loves to proclaim he is a "conservative" it's hilarious that you quote well known, liberally biased, Democrat/left-wing sources like Time magazine uncritically.

This is the mental image I get of you everytime I read this thread...

The Angry Left

Give it a rest already. Even if Rove is fired, what is that going to accomplish? How does that improve government or "this administration?" Is not this administration far beyone redemption in your eyes anyway? C'mon...admit it. This is simply scalp-hunting and sour grapes because you are an outraged ABBer.

[ July 18, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

How about someone that prefers to see both sides of the story and make an objective judgement.

Has someone like that posted to this thread? Who? Where?

quote:

Are you going to sit their and tell us that Judith Miller is in jail right now protecting ROVE?!?!?

No. I think she's grandstanding for a book deal and/or protecting Scooter Libby. [Smile]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
You want objective?

How about a document showing a filing on behalf of 36 media organizations to the court...

The Amici Brief (PDF) (OA won't allow ( ) in a URL, so you have to cut and paste the URL yourself.) Of course you have to type in your own 'http://' and 'www'

bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

quote:
The media organizations that have signed onto this amici brief represent a wide array of television, radio and print news organizations serving the public across the country. The media organizations' interest in this case is that of preserving the right of journalists such as Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper not to be compelled to reveal the identities of their confidential sources absent a heightened degree of searching scrutiny by the Judiciary, and the constitutionally protected role of the news media in America requires such customized procedures when reporters are subpoenaed in government investigations of itself, where the motivations for compulsion may be suspect. In this case, there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate.
Now it's plain as day for all to see here.

36 News Media Orgs - included most of the PRIMARY news-content providers via syndication, like Reuters, AP, Knight-Ridder, Gannett, and the trade organizations for Magazines and Newspaper editors and writers, all filed a brief in court claiming that subpeonaes on Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper were unwarranted because most likely no crime has been committed.

Yet all of these same organizations are continually pounding the Democrat party-line that Rove is a criminal mastermind gleefully outing a covert agent to get revenge in all of their newspaper and TV coverage.

And people eager to believe the worst eat it up without reservation or critical analysis.

"There is no liberal media bias..."

[Roll Eyes]

[ July 18, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
"There is no liberal media bias..."

Eventually you'll understand this, Daruma. [Wink]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
lol - well Alzabo, ONE of us is the proverbial Ostrich with his head in the sand. [Wink]
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
What you didn't do there, daruma, was provide any evidence that they are calling rove a criminal. Are they saying he's guilty of gross moral mis-judgement? are they saying he should be fired because bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak? are they concerned over national security? or are they claiming that rove broke the law? If its not the latter, you haven't shown diddly.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
lol - well Alzabo, ONE of us is the proverbial Ostrich with his head in the sand.
Oh Daruma, I only think your head is half in the sand. I know I can count on you to catch what you think are "liberal" instances of bad journalism. You just ignore any and all instances of "conservative" bad journalism.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Ev, what were Bush's EXACT and PRECISE words? I believe it was "convicted of a crime" not "involved in a leak."

The point is much of the MSM is reporting this by implying criminality of Rove. Much of the reporting is worded like this:

"..for Rove outting covert CIA operative Valerie Plame"

As in Rove is de facto guilty of the crime - yet the same news agencies that report like this are the same ones filing their brief saying there most likely is no crime that has been committed.

But feel free to stick to the semantics of your argument.

I'll believe in the objectivity of the MSM when they give half as much attention to "grave matters of national security" concerning cases of actual criminality - like Sandy Berger's theft and destruction of files.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
quote:
lol - well Alzabo, ONE of us is the proverbial Ostrich with his head in the sand.
Oh Daruma, I only think your head is half in the sand. I know I can count on you to catch what you think are "liberal" instances of bad journalism. You just ignore any and all instances of "conservative" bad journalism.
Au Contraire Alzabo, I know where there are plenty of right wing/conservative bad journalism. I readily point out that Newsmax, WND, FoxNews are generally biased towards the GOP/conservativism. But we all know that. The argument I make is that on the other side of the coin, the MSM (ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYT/LAT/CHISUN/AP/Reuters) are primarily liberally/Democrat biased.

You love to point out conservative bias, but still insist that the MSM (as I defined it) is only objective and sensationalistic with no intent to present a biased view towards liberal ideology. THAT is where we disagree, I think. [Smile]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
Sorry , Daruma, the original pledge by the president was:
quote:
If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates. That's not the way this president expects people in his administration to conduct their business...
.

But I'm sure this can be Clintoned.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
" I believe it was "convicted of a crime" not "involved in a leak."

YEs NOW it is. 2 years ago, it was "involved in leaking."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071800689.html

[ July 18, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Well, by Wilson's own statment on CNN, it can hardly be called "classified" since she was not undercover, but merely a desk jockey without covert status?

So what's the point again?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
my point is that rove was involved in a leak, outting a CIA agent who was not a known agent, president bush said he would fire anyone involved in a leak, and now that its rove, he's raised the standard to convicted. the CIA is concerned enough over the leak to pursue the investigation, so it was not routine name dropping. And it was politically motivated, so rove should lose his security clearance, since he views partisan politics as more important then holding to the intent of security clearance.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Well, by Wilson's own statment on CNN, it can hardly be called "classified" since she was not undercover, but merely a desk jockey without covert status?"

Actually, that statement is false. The information was classified. It doesn't matter whether she was undercover or not, her name was classified information that rove had access to prior to novak because he had security clearance.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
You love to point out conservative bias, but still insist that the MSM (as I defined it) is only objective and sensationalistic with no intent to present a biased view towards liberal ideology. THAT is where we disagree, I think.
No, I love to point out how bad "mainstream" journalism has become. I think it is incorrect to view it through "liberal" or "conservative" blinders. Is Judith Miller "liberal". What about her WMD cheerleading that helped the administration so much? Is Elisabeth Bumiller "liberal"? What about Margaret Carlson? Tim Russert?

I posit that much bad journalism will help "liberals", and much will help "conservatives". Thus, it's not helpful to view it through political ideology.


quote:
Au Contraire Alzabo, I know where there are plenty of right wing/conservative bad journalism. I readily point out that Newsmax, WND, FoxNews are generally biased towards the GOP/conservativism. But we all know that. The argument I make is that on the other side of the coin, the MSM (ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYT/LAT/CHISUN/AP/Reuters) are primarily liberally/Democrat biased.

See, this is where we really disagree. I don't see the "MSM" as "the other side of the coin". There's a lot of crappy reporting that helps "conservatives" coming out of the "MSM".
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
lol.

See Ev, you've already been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rove is guilty. Neat way to completely sidestep the issue of the media pushing the meme basically admitting there was no crime committed.

You can't "out" an agent that was not "in" which means there was no "leak."

It's really that simple.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Nice try daruma. Its really NOT that simple.

If you think its that simple, you haven't looked hard enough yet.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
[QUOTE] No, I love to point out how bad "mainstream" journalism has become. I think it is incorrect to view it through "liberal" or "conservative" blinders.

I agree on the semantics of your point here - I say that mcuh of the bad mainstram journalism is BECAUSE the journalists and editors themselves compromise journalistic objectivity to suit their own biases. Of course there are exceptions in journalism like those you name (Russert et al) that are not in the same class. I only point out that much of the liberal agenda is published promoted and syndicated throughout the MSM without editorial corrections. Like the phrasing "Rove outted." That is not proven, but it's reported like it has...and that is ubiquitous bias I refer to in the MSM.


Hence Dan Rather barely taking the time to check out whether or not forged documents were in fact authentic before rushing to air the story.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Like the phrasing "Rove outted." That is not proven, but it's reported like it has...and that is ubiquitous bias I refer to in the MSM.
Welcome tho the world of "scripts". "Death Tax", anyone?

quote:
Hence Dan Rather barely taking the time to check out whether or not forged documents were in fact authentic before rushing to air the story.
Yeah, 'cause that worked so incredibly well for "liberals". It must have been a liberal plot to discredit Bush. Oh, wait, it was just more poorly sourced, lazy-ass "journalism".
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Nice try daruma. Its really NOT that simple.

If you think its that simple, you haven't looked hard enough yet.

Keep looking harder Ev. Because from everything I've read up to now, when this investigation is concluded, Rove will be vindicated, and the new party line will be something like the investigation was corrupt, that Rove really is guilty no matter what the evidence says, and anybody that disagrees with that consensus will simply be Right wing apologists and GOP operatives.

I really don't give a crap about Rove at all. He could be fired or indicted tomorrow and I wouldn't lose a blink of sleep over it.

What I despise is the willful duplitousness of the MSM media entities as amply demonstrated by their very own class action briefing vs. the theme of their reportage. To very contradictory viewpoints, caused by their desire to promote a partisan agenda.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
What I despise is the willful duplitousness of the MSM media entities as amply demonstrated by their very own class action briefing vs. the theme of their reportage. To very contradictory viewpoints, caused by their desire to promote a partisan agenda.
I'd say "...caused by their desire to preserve their privilege."
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
"Keep looking harder Ev. Because from everything I've read up to now, when this investigation is concluded, Rove will be vindicated,"

He won't be convicted. And if by "not convicted" you mean vindicated, then we have completely different frames of reference.

The simple fact of the matter is that rove had security clearance. He had access to security information. That means he may not confirm or deny, through word or action, information regarding classified information.

His lawyer admitted he did not do that. Thus, he was involved in a "leak" in that information got out through him, that should not have gotten out through him.

He won't be convicted, because the laws don't cover this situation. But he's committed an action that george bush said would get anyone doing it fired.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
quote:
Like the phrasing "Rove outted." That is not proven, but it's reported like it has...and that is ubiquitous bias I refer to in the MSM.
Welcome tho the world of "scripts". "Death Tax", anyone?

quote:
Hence Dan Rather barely taking the time to check out whether or not forged documents were in fact authentic before rushing to air the story.
Yeah, 'cause that worked so incredibly well for "liberals". It must have been a liberal plot to discredit Bush. Oh, wait, it was just more poorly sourced, lazy-ass "journalism".

Lazy-asses BECAUSE the story fit hand in glove with Rather and his CBS staff's preconcieved idea and their own liberal bias. They treated the SBVFT with far more critical skepticism than the forged memos.

That's what I mean by "liberal" bias.

If a story doesn't fit the template, you'll see a lot more critical journalistic research. If it fits the template, well, we don't need to look TOO hard at it, since we already know it MUST be true.
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Which is obviously why the main stream media is flooded with conservative scripts?
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Lazy-asses BECAUSE the story fit hand in glove with Rather and his CBS staff's preconcieved idea and their own liberal bias. They treated the SBVFT with far more critical skepticism than the forged memos.


Except that the Swifties were given free reign by the "MSM" for months. But you can't see it due to your blinders.

quote:
That's what I mean by "liberal" bias.

How convienient.

quote:
If a story doesn't fit the template, you'll see a lot more critical journalistic research. If it fits the template, well, we don't need to look TOO hard at it, since we already know it MUST be true.
Ah, yes. But there are as many "conservative" "templates" in the "MSM" as there are "liberal" ones: "Al Gore, Liar", "Straight-shooter Bush", "WMD in Iraq", etc.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Like the incessant, ad naseum coverage of this whole Rove non-story and the three straight days of a hostile, aggressive and confrontational inquisition of Scott McClellan? Yeah, there's a real conservative script permeating through the AP/Reuters and Major TV Networks....
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
having long term memory loss, daruma?
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Except that the Swifties were given free reign by the "MSM" for months. But you can't see it due to your blinders.
I must have missed the front page banner headlines in the NYT/LAT/CHISUN or the feature stories on 60 minutes and Nightline...must have been my blinders.

How about another case study here Alzabo? Ed Klein and the promotion of his book critical of the Clintons versus Kitty Kelly and the promotion of her book critical of Bush.

Nah. No bias there either.

Three straight days of Kitty Kelly interviews by Katie Couric, while Ed Klein is shut out completely. But that's not because of any bias, right?
 
Posted by Everard (Member # 104) on :
 
Of course, bush is president and clinton is not...

during the clinton administration, there were headlines about whitewater, paula jones, etc almost every day. Yet, there weren't the stories about how the people calling for clinton's head because of sexual misbehavior had mistresses.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
This just illustrates the high level of ethics the Bush Administration is holding to.

You've only crossed the ethical line if you're "convicted of a crime." [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
I must have missed the front page banner headlines in the NYT/LAT/CHISUN or the feature stories on 60 minutes and Nightline...must have been my blinders.

Must've been. Those guys were everywhere, largely unchallenged. Money well spent.

quote:
How about another case study here Alzabo? Ed Klein and the promotion of his book critical of the Clintons versus Kitty Kelly and the promotion of her book critical of Bush.

Yeah, no one critical of the Clintons ever got any airtime. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Nah. No bias there either.

If you think I'm claiming no biases , then you haven't been paying attention.

quote:
Three straight days of Kitty Kelly interviews by Katie Couric, while Ed Klein is shut out completely. But that's not because of any bias, right?
See above. There are plenty of biases in the media, but I'd be surprised if political ideology was in the top ten at giant news orgs.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Round and round we go...getting nowhere in trying to convince each other. lol.

I'll just call for a truce here, as I think we've hijacked this rather interesting thread pretty far enough, eh? [Smile]

We can take up another time in some other thread, as we inevitably do. [Wink]

I'm off to lunch.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Round and round we go...getting nowhere in trying to convince each other. lol.

I'll just call for a truce here, as I think we've hijacked this rather interesting thread pretty far enough, eh?


Done.

quote:
We can take up another time in some other thread, as we inevitably do.

I'm off to lunch. [

Sure enough, but I'm waiting for breakfast here...
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
quote:
anybody that disagrees with that consensus will simply be Right wing apologists and GOP operatives.

Who does that sound like? It's on the tip on my brain....?

KE
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
I don't know, but wehen I come up with the answer, the only people who will disagree with me are Left wing apologists and DNC operatives.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
lol

Warsaw, you forgot the [Razz]
 
Posted by RickyB (Member # 1464) on :
 
awwww, poor McClellan...

Please. McClellan lied by saying it's ridiculous to think Rove had anything to do with the affair. He deserves to be grilled.

If DeeDee Myers had been subject to the same treatment you'd be cheering about how the press is finally doing its job.

You people simply never concede anything, and it's very sickening.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
You people simply never concede anything, and it's very sickening.
Ain't that the truth.

I find the President's words/actions in the matter despicable, and I find the people defending him and his administration despicable in this matter.

If investigations show that Rove had no part in the leaking of that identity, then by all means he should remain in his current position.
But regardless of crimes committed and ethical wriggling by the Administration, if he was involved in leaking that information, his slimy a*s should get fired just like the President said it would.

However: a President who isn't a lying twit seems to be a little much to ask for, these days.
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
WP,

Are you actually suggesting that I am a left wing knee jerk apologist as Daruma is for the Right? If so, I can easily prove you wrong.

KE
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Ok. Please show me the "wriggling." Or Bush ethically "twisting."

Bush's first statement on September 30th, 2003:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Bush's most recent statement yesterday:

"We have a serious ongoing investigation here. And it's being played out in the press. And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

If he "lied" I don't see it here.

Now if pointing this SIMPLE truth of comparing the two quotes that is being spun as Bush "moving the goalposts" or "changing his position to favor Rove" makes me a "knee-jerk apologist and right wing shill," than whatever.

quote:
You people simply never concede anything, and it's very sickening.
So let's recap here:

I posted a link to the actual law brief filed by 36 media organizations four months making the case that Miller and Cooper could not be compelled to reveal their sources because no crime has been committed.

Bush basically reiterates the very same point he made two years ago --ALMOST VERBATIM -- and he's now "twisting" and "wriggling" and "ethically challenged?"

Finally, it's established FACT the Ms. Plame was NOT a covert operative 5 years prior to the Novak column, so EVEN IF ROVE SPECIFICALLY gave Ms. Plame's real name, address, email address, home phone and cell phone number, no crime was committed.

So from an objective person not blinded by ABB ideology pointing out these is "sickening" for not "conceding anything?"

Who's refusing to concede anything here?
 
Posted by WarrsawPact (Member # 1275) on :
 
KE - No, it was a joke! Come on man! I know better than to call you a shill.

Lunch time is short today...
 
Posted by FIJC (Member # 1092) on :
 
quote:
"awwww, poor McClellan...

Please. McClellan lied by saying it's ridiculous to think Rove had anything to do with the affair. He deserves to be grilled.

If DeeDee Myers had been subject to the same treatment you'd be cheering about how the press is finally doing its job.

You people simply never concede anything, and it's very sickening."

I think that McCellen's past comments were really irresponsible. On the other hand, I don't think he's always really in the loop...
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Thanks WP, I know I lean heavily to the Left, but I try to be an equal opportunity offendor if and when I spot injustice or hypocrisy on either side.

KE [Smile]
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
So much for the "I did not know her secret CIA identity was classified" defense:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html

quote:
Plame's Identity Marked As Secret

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

...

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said.


 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
Well, though Rove is claiming that he never saw that memo until the Special Prosecutor showed it to him.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Bush's first statement on September 30th, 2003:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Looks to me like your right, Darma.

Looks like Bush has consistently stated that, in his Administration, ethical means not convicted of a crime. [Razz]

(And it's good to know that he knows who made the leak.)
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Looks like Bush has consistently stated that, in his Administration, ethical means not convicted of a crime.
Bush also stated in the past that he would fire leakers, regardless of whether or not they committed a crime. Let's not be so quick to let him weasel out.
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
quote:
Finally, it's established FACT the Ms. Plame was NOT a covert operative 5 years prior to the Novak column, so EVEN IF ROVE SPECIFICALLY gave Ms. Plame's real name, address, email address, home phone and cell phone number, no crime was committed.
Then our government is sure wasting a lot of time and money conducting a criminal investigation about something that was definitively not a crime.

edit:
Moreover, even if you're right (which, somehow, I doubt quite strongly), Bush seems to have thought the leak was serious enough to justify firing the leaker two years ago.

And also: If Mr Rove were an honorable man who was sure he hadn't done anything wrong (or even an honorable man who might unintentionally have done something wrong), I would think that at some time in the last two years, he would have told someone that he might have been the leak.

Um, instead of LYING about it.

[ July 21, 2005, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: OpsanusTau ]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Then our government is sure wasting a lot of time and money conducting a criminal investigation about something that was definitively not a crime.
Well, remember the Clinton years...

[ July 21, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
I don't, really, very specifically.
Too young, you know.
 
Posted by Funean (Member # 2345) on :
 
(where IS my cane? ....dratted thing....)
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Bush also stated in the past that he would fire leakers, regardless of whether or not they committed a crime. Let's not be so quick to let him weasel out.
Do you think he might have changed his tune when he found out who the leaker actually was?
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Do you think he might have changed his tune when he found out who the leaker actually was?
He seems to have gone back and forth for a little bit earlier, so I don't think he "suddenly" changed his tune now. But I think the "he always said "violated the law"" is pretty flimsy cya. Scott McLellen, for example, kept saying that the White House would fire any "leaker" not any "criminal leaker".
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Yeah, but Scott McClellan doesn't speak for the President, does he? I mean, not when it counts. [Wink] [Smile]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Just wanted to point out something else here (I'm done with this argument until we actually discover some substantial new development other than rampant speculation.)

Bush always said he'd fire a leaker that leaked from his white house about the administration. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, this white house has had the LEAST amount of leaking to the press since I can remember.

I think that's what many of you are conflating with this whole Plame affair. Bush demands loyalty from his staff and admin and if he does find out about a leaker, they are gone.

That is why the entire press was caught off guard with the recent nomination of Roberts. There was no credible leak to the press.

[ July 21, 2005, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

Bush always said he'd fire a leaker that leaked from his white house about the administration. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, this white house has had the LEAST amount of leaking to the press since I can remember.

Ooo! THAT'S a ringing endorsement:

"He'll fire anyone who's personally disloyal, but they can out CIA agents and he doesn't particularly care. So there!"
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Bush demands loyalty from his staff and admin and if he does find out about a leaker, they are gone.
I would find that reassuring, except that it is becoming increasingly obvious that Rove did leak Plume's name.

Now, has the President bothered to ask Rove if he leaked her name?

Did Rove answer yes or no?

If he said yes, what is he still doing there?

If he said no, and it becomes undeniable that he did leak her name (although it may not be a criminal offense), will he still be there?

If he will be fired even though it is not a criminal offense, then why is the President qualifying his statement with the term "convicted of a crime??"

Sorry, Daruma. You may think he will not tolerate a "leaker," but I strongly suspect that he will if he likes the person enough.

[ July 21, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
You can't out someone that wasn't in to begin with.

[Roll Eyes]

[ July 21, 2005, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
So you're saying that Valerie Plume's status as a CIA agent wasn't classified as "Secret" (as was stated before in this thread)?

That it was, in fact, common knowledge?

If it was known before Novak's column, can anyone site something that shows this?
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

I would find that reassuring, except that it is becoming increasingly obvious that Rove did leak Plame's name.

But that's okay, by Daruma's interpretation, because it's equally obvious that he leaked Plame's name at Bush's request. It was a deliberate leak, not a traitorous one.

[ July 21, 2005, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 
Posted by OpsanusTau (Member # 2350) on :
 
That's the current Party Line, I think.
That everyone knew she worked for the CIA.

(if that were so (and there is at least as much information saying that it wasn't so as there is saying that it was so), I cannot imagine why the CIA would want anyone to investigate the supposed "leak"; but then, smoke screens don't have to make sense, they just have to give the loyalists a talking point)
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
How about this?

Than you can actually read the amici brief for which the sole argument rests on the idea that no crime has been committed because she was already "outted" long before Rove ever talked to Novak.

http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20Final.PDF

You have to put parenthesis around the "FINAL" that I bolded. Ornery won't allow the posting of html with parenthesis in a url.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:

I would find that reassuring, except that it is becoming increasingly obvious that Rove did leak Plame's name.

But that's okay, by Daruma's interpretation, because it's equally obvious that he leaked Plame's name at Bush's request. It was a deliberate leak, not a traitorous one.
I guess you guys have deliberately avoided reading the amici brief...or simply ignoring it because it inconveniences your arguments/

Ah well.
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
Neither of those links makes a good case that Rove's alledged "leaks" were not unethical.

Your first link shows that Valerie's covert position was made known to the Russians and the Cubans. That such information was given is questionable in itself, but has no bearing in letting the whole world know that she was a secret operative in Niger.

The second post makes an interesting case that it was not a crime, but also does not touch on how ethical such a leak would be. I almost found it compelling that Novak stated that the CIA did not tell him not to mention Valerie's CIA position, until it became clear that she worked "at a desk job" at the CIA.

So, can we safely assume that everyone who works at the CIA is a CIA operative? That anytime they travel to another country, they are doing business for the Agency?

The fact that she worked for the CIA is not the "leak." The fact that she was doing a special operative job in Niger is. And the fact that the Russians and Cubans may have known about it does not mean that the Nigerians and Sadam knew, also.

If Karl Rove wants to prove that leaking Valerie Plame's assignment was not illegal and unethical, why doesn't he just release the names of all CIA employees who are doing secret assignments around the world. You wouldn't find that unethical in any way, would you, Daruma? [Wink]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
Daruma, that's an amici brief. It's not a finding of fact.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
You can't out someone that wasn't in to begin with.

Former intelligence officials seem to believe she was in , Daruma. But if you'd rather believe the New York Times...

Please retire this talking point, or stop supporting it with the fact that the media you spend so much time disparaging have filed with court to preserve their privilige.

[ July 21, 2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by flydye45 (Member # 2004) on :
 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2122963/

quote:
First, the most exploded figure in the entire argument is Joseph Wilson. This is for three reasons. He claimed, in his own book, that his wife had nothing to do with his brief and inconclusive visit to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," he wrote. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." There isn't enough wiggle room in those two definitive statements to make either of them congruent with a memo written by Valerie Wilson (or Valerie Plame, if you prefer) to a deputy chief in the CIA's directorate of operations. In this memo, in her wifely way, she announced that her husband would be ideal for the mission since he had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines (of Niger), not to mention lots of French contacts." If you want to read the original, turn to the Senate committee's published report on the many "intelligence failures" that we have suffered recently. I want to return to those, too.

Speaking to the Washington Post about the CIA's documents on the Niger connection, Wilson made the further claim that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Again according to the Senate report, these papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip. He has since admitted to the same newspaper that he may have "misspoken" about this.

The third bogus element in Wilson's boastful story is the claim that Niger's "yellowcake" uranium was never a subject of any interest to Saddam Hussein's agents. The British intelligence report on this, which does not lack criticism of the Blair government, finds the Niger connection to be among the most credible of the assertions made about Saddam's double-dealing. If you care to consult the Financial Times of June 28, 2004, and see the front-page report by its national security correspondent Mark Huband, you will be able to review the evidence that Niger—with whose ministers Mr. Wilson had such "good relations"—was trying to deal in yellowcake with North Korea and Libya as well as Iraq and Iran. This evidence is by no means refuted or contradicted by a forged or faked Italian document saying the same thing. It was a useful axiom of the late I.F. Stone that few people are so foolish as to counterfeit a bankrupt currency.

Thus, and to begin with, Joseph Wilson comes before us as a man whose word is effectively worthless. What do you do, if you work for the Bush administration, when a man of such quality is being lionized by an anti-war press? Well, you can fold your tent and let them print the legend. Or you can say that the word of a mediocre political malcontent who is at a loose end, and who is picking up side work from a wife who works at the anti-regime-change CIA, may not be as "objective" as it looks. I dare say that more than one supporter of regime change took this option. I would certainly have done so as a reporter if I had known.


 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
"You can't out someone that wasn't in to begin with."


What a disgusting joke. Is there no level so low that you will not stoop to it to excuse the actions or statements of this administration? Pitiful.

Do you not care in the least that with each of your posts, such as the above, excusing the indefensible actions of this administration you lose more and more credibility with this forum?

I understand loyalty, but outing a CIA agent as political retribution is beyond the pale. And the fact that you "can't" or "refuse" to see that renders your posts meaningless defenses of the party line.

Surely, with posts like the above it will not be long before everybody who cares about honest and open debate simply skips over your posts assuming that they are more of the same self-serving defenses of the indefensible actions of anyone connected with the Bush administration.

America first. Party second.

KE

[ July 21, 2005, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
What a disgusting joke. Is there no level so low that you will not stoop to it to excuse the actions or statements of this administration?
Well, you've already written me off as a GOP hack and a shill for the Adminstration, so what do I care what you think about me? I already know your opinion of my political opinions.

What I SEE from my POV is an entire witchunt based on political gamesmanship, and all of you that share the particular ideology of opposing Bush will stoop to any level to get this administration.

And you asked earlier in this thread why someone doesn't come up with a list of people injured or killed because she was "outted."

They can't, because there is none. Her covert status was blown long before Bush was even in the White House.

But hey KE, skip over my posts. I guess I'm only a "self-serving" Bush admin apologist...although I don't see what the hell I get out of this except for possibly the designation of "least popular poster on OA for my trouble." Too bad I don't really care about being popular. [Smile]

But I must say I do like most of you with whom I disagree so vehemently with for the most part...at least those that have something more to say than simply grinding an axe with a single minded determination.

Apparently I'm the only that sees the hypocrisy of all these news organizations that file a brief claiming there is no crime committed while they turn around and continually call for Rove's resigantion/firing for a crime.

No. I think it's Democrat party bull**** and a complicit mainstream media beholden to the DNC on par with the Republican party bull**** pulled in the 90's to get Clinton for Monica. I'm just calling it as I see it.

Obviously KE, you and a bunch of others see it differently.

No need to imply I'm being dishonest, disingenuous or "sinking to new lows" because of a differnce of opinion.
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
The press may have some priorities mixed up, but that is nothing compared to the people who were angry at Novak about the outing of Valerie Plame who have broken their backs flip-flopping to excuse Rove's actions.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
And you asked earlier in this thread why someone doesn't come up with a list of people injured or killed because she was "outted."

They can't, because there is none. Her covert status was blown long before Bush was even in the White House.

Actually, Daruma, I suspect this is a nonzero list and we may find out after all this.

I don't have access to the same secret info as Libby and Rove, remember.


quote:
Apparently I'm the only that sees the hypocrisy of all these news organizations that file a brief claiming there is no crime committed while they turn around and continually call for Rove's resigantion/firing for a crime.

No. I think it's Democrat party bull**** and a complicit mainstream media beholden to the DNC on par with the Republican party bull**** pulled in the 90's to get Clinton for Monica. I'm just calling it as I see it.

It's a complicit media that wants to report the news of the leak, while absolving all future leakers of any responsibility.

There's some self-interest for media there, Daruma.

[ July 21, 2005, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: A. Alzabo ]
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 99) on :
 
quote:

And you asked earlier in this thread why someone doesn't come up with a list of people injured or killed because she was "outted."

I submit that this would be even worse than the original leak.
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
I submit that this would be even worse than the original leak.
I agree. But we may get a couple of examples out of all this. Maybe not.

Since anyone killed would have been an undercover agent or a spy, it's a little hard for a layman such as myself to compile a list, however.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
Well, a few things are apparent to me. Some people didn't bother to even try to read the brief...and those that did didn't even try to reconcile what it contained versus their own statements.

Since Ornery wouldn't let me post the accurate URL due to the parenthesis, and I've been accused of sinking to new lows in a desperate attempt to defend this administration at all costs, I've decided to transcribe a few relevant parts of the brief, so that it is clear as to why I disbelieve the mainstream media's reports (much of the same ones that are part of the brief) that it is a given that Rove "outted" an agent for political revenge.

For reference sake, the URL to the page that contains the PDF link Ornery won't let me post:

http://www.bakerlaw.com/practice/industry_detail.aspx?Industry=true&id=31


quote:
At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must truly be "covert" for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent {see 50 U.S.C. 426 - "covert agent" defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington - not stationed abroad - for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name.

Moreover, the government may have "publicly acknowledged or revealed" her intelligence relationship prior to publication of Novak's July 14, 2003 column. "The United States has 'revealed' an intelligence relationship if it has disclosed information which names, or leads directly to the indentification of...a covert agent." S/ Re/ 97-201 at 23. An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication.

quote:
THere are sufficient facts on the public record that cast considerable doubt as to whether the CIA took the necessary "affirmative measures" to conceal Plame's identity. Indeed, these facts establish such sloppy tradecraft that, at minimum, the CIA was indifferent to the compromise of her identity.

The Following facts are public:

- The CIA sent a non-CIA employee, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, on a mission to Niger to determine whether Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase "uranium yellow cake," an ingredient for making non-conventional weapon.

- Wilson had not served in Niger for over two decades, and, unlike his supposedly undercover wife, was not an expert in nuclear weapons.

- Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement about his mission.

- Wilson was not prevented by the CIA from writing his Op-Ed for The New York Times, an article that not only criticized the Administration, but also detailed his mission and findings.

- When columnist Novak contacted the CIA to verify that Plame worked for the Agency, he says that the Agency not only verified her employment but aslo failed to give him a serious request not to publish her name.

- The CIA's usual procedure when it is concerned that publishing a fact would endanger a covert agent is to have a high ranking official, usually the Director, contact the journalist and ask that information not be published.

- The CIA did not prohibit Plame from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.." facts that are publicly available at the FEC.

Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude; the Agency's response to a request by the State Department and the Vice President's office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have "low level" bureaucrats mke the decision to send a non-CIA employee (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's suggestion. Did no one at Langley think that plame's identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed peice discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?

The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it was "shocked, shocked" that leaking was going on, and thus made a routine request to the Justice Department to investigate.

...While there is no suggestion that the Special Counsel is proceeding in bad faith, there should be abundant concern that the CIA may have initiated this investigation out of embarrassment over revelations of its own shortcomings.

So KE. You may still disagree with me...but can you at least see why I have serious reservations as to the honesty and veracity of the mainstream media's reports on this whole affair? Why I doubt Ms. Plame was even "covert" or undercover? Can you concede THAT?

Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?

[ July 21, 2005, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
I choose this one!

Do I get a prize?

[Wink]
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
Well, a few things are apparent to me. Some people didn't bother to even try to read the brief...and those that did didn't even try to reconcile what it contained versus their own statements.


And it's clear that you haven't read a single one of my links. I think the brief is an exercise in ass-covering as the media try to preserve their privilege. "Stop us before we kill again!"

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree and see what happens.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
I read your link Alzabo...I wasn't referring to you alone -- and I also agree that the media was most certainly motivated in trying to preserve their privilege. But that certainly does not invalidate the case the brief presents either. It simply demonstrates that the media will speak out of two sides of their mouths to promote an agenda. On one side - to the courts - their is the "No crime was comitted, she was not undercover, there's nothing here." On the other side, it's "we have a top Presidential advisor and if we imply a dastardly scandal, we'll sell a lot more copy."
 
Posted by A. Alzabo (Member # 1197) on :
 
quote:
It simply demonstrates that the media will speak out of two sides of their mouths to promote an agenda.
If you think about it, it's not really inconsistent. They want to sell news today and they want to ensure that they will have consequence free access to leaks so they can sell news tomorrow. It's overweening entitlement, not hypocrisy.
 
Posted by Daruma28 (Member # 1388) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
I choose this one!

Do I get a prize?

[Wink]

Which would you prefer, a VRWC coffee mug or a Bill O'Reilly "No Spin Zone" door mat? [Razz]
 
Posted by David Ricardo (Member # 1678) on :
 
The State Department memo circulated by the White House was actually more top secret than previously thought.

Apparently, there is going to be an article in the Wall Street Journal tommorow stating that the State Department Memo was marked "Top Secret", and that it was classified information not to be shared with other foreign nationals, especially foreign intelligence services, regardless of how friendly they are to the United States.

Good job for the Bush Adminstration -- leaking classified information that was "Top Secret -- Not To Be Shared with Foreign Nationals."
 
Posted by The Drake (Member # 2128) on :
 
There was no legitimate reason for Rove to discuss Plame with Novak. Given his past history of using Novak for personal political purposes, I'm comfortable accepting the version of history where he had the same motivation for discussing Wilson and/or Plame with Novak.

Or is there a reasonable alternate purpose under which he would be double secret background for his buddy Novak?
 
Posted by Wayward Son (Member # 210) on :
 
quote:
Some people didn't bother to even try to read the brief...and those that did didn't even try to reconcile what it contained versus their own statements.
Not me! [Razz] Let me iterate my reconciliation.

quote:
An article in The Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication.
You failed to include in your quotes, and in your argument, what those two compromises were, Daruma. One was to the Russians, the other to the Cubans. Neither are known for making their intelligence widely known.

Novak, however, published it to the whole world. This is a much larger compromise than letting those embassies know. I mean, did you know about it before Novak’s column? [Wink]

All the other information of your second quote (and the rest of the link) does not touch on Valerie Plame’s covert job. Her non-covert job, a desk job at the CIA, is public knowledge. Her covert work in Niger was not. If all Novak wrote was that she was a CIA employee (which is all he mentioned to the CIA), then there certainly would be no scandal. But he did not get the information from the CIA. There is no indication that the CIA knew he had that information. So how could they tell him not to publish secret information they did not think he had.

Read it carefully, Daruma. There is nothing in those two links that indicates that Valerie Plame’s covert CIA mission was public knowledge. Somewhat compromised to two embassies, yes. But not general knowledge.

Her mission was still secret. The Leaker blabbed about a covert CIA operative. Why doesn’t that disturb you??

quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
Looks that way to me. [Smile]
 
Posted by canadian (Member # 1809) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
quote:
Originally posted by canadian:
quote:
Or is it that I'm being simply a good little wepublican taking my marching orders from the VRWC and sinking to the lowest depths of ethics to defend Bush at any cost?
I choose this one!

Do I get a prize?

[Wink]

Which would you prefer, a VRWC coffee mug or a Bill O'Reilly "No Spin Zone" door mat? [Razz]
They both sound so good...


The coffee mug!

Now I have something I can drink my kool-aid out of.

[Wink]
 
Posted by KnightEnder (Member # 992) on :
 
Daruma,

I agree that the main stream media is liberal. I agree that they hammer conservatives more than liberals. Which is the difference between you and I. I can and do admit, and condemn, the faults and actions of people on my side of the aisle when they are contrary to the good of the nation.

I would never defend anyone Left or Right that gave a CIA agents name to the press. Nor would I mince words and play semantic games in order to ameliorate their despicable actions.

You, however, seem incapable of even entertaining the idea that Rove or Novak, or both, gave up Mrs. Plame for political purposes. And you jump at any excuse, no matter how small or inane, to defend them.

If you were being fair-minded you would be outraged that it happened and demand to know WHO did it, and why, rather than leaping to the defense of the Right immediately. As usual.

KE

[ July 22, 2005, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]
 
Posted by javelin (Member # 1284) on :
 
Couple of questions, I hope I'm not wasting my time:

From the quotes I've read, Rove seems to have said that Valerie Plame was working for the CIA, and implied that it was through her that her husband ended up being the guy that investigated the Nigeria thing. Is that correct?

If it is, then here's the next question:

According to what's been said here, and in the press, Valerie Plame openly worked for the CIA, at least as an analyst (she's been openly going to work at CIA headquarters for the last seven years, yadda yadda). Is that correct?

Okay, so here comes the one that's been rattling around for me for days:

If Rove implied that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, and Valerie Plame openly worked for the CIA, then how can it be said that Rove leaked that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative? If Rove didn't say or imply that she was undercover, then how is that outing her? After all, if all that I've laid out is correct, then her status as "working for the CIA" was pretty much public knowledge, it is just that she was actually, what do they call it?, a NOC that was a secret. And as far as I've been told, Rove didn't say anything about that.

What am I missing here?

[ July 24, 2005, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]
 


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1