Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Obi-Wan McCartney, Jul 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

    By E&P Staff

    Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

    NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

    Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's 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.

    "And 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.

    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.

    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.



    Wouldn't that be freakin crazy? If it were Karl Rove all along! Laurence O'Donnel seems fairly credible ot me, I've been watching him on the various news shows for years. He is a bit partisan it seems, but hey, who isn't these days?

    KARL ROVE! Not the biggest or craziest political scandel, but you never know, the Democrats may try to run with it if true. Wouldn't it be crazy?/>
  2. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Oh boy...

    Hey OWM, if the US considers itself as being "at war", in the context of terrorism, is this treason?

    E_S
  3. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    I think this could be pretty big.

    Besides being a scandal in and of itself, when the news follows this story, it will continually be giving its background to vieweres unfamiliar with the story. This means going back to the immediate leadup to the Iraq War with the uranium from Niger story with the state of the Union address to the lack of WMD.

    It could have a similar effect to what the Downing Street Memos are having now.

  4. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Well Karl Rove has been believing his own hype for years so I think if this is true and he is tried and convicted that his life is pretty much over. And then Bush is without a brain, so to speak.
  5. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Well, obviously it can't be true, because it would mean someone close to Bush did something wrong, and that's simply impossible. Even if it is true, it's no worse than what some others have done with their words and/or actions in opposition to the Bush administration, so don't make more out of it than it really is.

    Or not.
  6. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    You forgot to add, 'but Clinton...' as well, KW. ;)
  7. severian28 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2004
    star 5
    Many believe that he intiated Rathergate . The man is a ruthless competitor and wouldnt shirk from saying something about the administration thats bad AND true knowing that a Dem or reporter will run wild with it. The rub is that Rove knows that there is no way that that Dem or newspaper editor or whoever it may be will ever be able to back up his newly found info and consequently look like a fool AND destroy the legitamacy of the info - even though its 100% true. Its risky and hostile corporate tactics but its paying off so far.
  8. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Continued success, especially in Rove's position, can create a feeling of invincibility. No one can or should get in his way, and that he knows what's best for everyone. If one isn't careful, it can eventually bring about your downfall.
  9. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    My sentiments exactly, KW. He let his ego get the better of him if this story turns out to be true. And he's made plenty of enemies who will be lining up to see his downfall. Well, this could be it.
  10. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    It wouldn't surprise me if it was Rove - the impression I've received from him over the past few years doesn't make this seem out of character. Still, innocent until proven guilty.
  11. Guinastasia Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2002
    star 6
    It certainly would not surprise me-the man is ruthless. As far as it being treason, I don't know about that, but it's definitely a felony.
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Do people know what the specific charge would be, as well as the requirements under the law?

    If one doesn't, it's probably best not to make "definate" statements..

    For those who are actually interested in the law, it's contained under USC title 50, chpt 15.

    There are 2 requirements that must be met under the law:

    1)The person named has to be a protected employee

    2)The person has to be authorized to recieve such information in the first place.

    In other words, in order to have this actually be a crime:

    Plame would have to be a part of a specific group of defined employees. Simply "working for the CIA" wouldn't matter.

    Whoever leaked this information would have to be a position that required access to the classified information above.

    For example, let's say a reporter pieces together the identity of a covert operative after talking with people at a party, and reading back issues of Time magazine. No laws would be broken if that reporter revealed the name.

    However, if a supervisor at the CIA took a classified list that had a covert employees name, and sold it to Newsweek, that supervisor could be arrested and charged, because he specifically had access to classified information.

    ACTUAL LAW

    I certainly don't know who gave her name to Novak. It may have been a cheap move, but it's a good bet that it was never illegal.










  13. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    But I believe Karl Rove testified before the grand jury saying he talked about Plame to reporters, but never mentioned she was a CIA agent. If he did actually mention her CIA status, then he committed perjury.

  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    This is where the 'but Clinton' crowd comes in.
  15. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    then he committed perjury

    Perjury could be a real possibility, depending on his testimony..

    If he did, that's on him.

    That's a totally different concept than the "But Valerie worked for the CIA, so she automatically becomes Jane Bond.." crowd.

    Anyway, it's a subscriber story, but today's Chicago Tribune indicated that Rove wasn't the leak.

    ChiT

    Rove is identified in Cooper's notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, under court order. Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations.

    Robert Luskin also said Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last month that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

    "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin said.

    Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl."


  16. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Wasn't it named as someone in the administration? How big is that list? And who is the most likely?
  17. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    That's the main issue that works against Valerie Plame and her husband's claim.

    If you remember from the original thread on this, and the initial investigation, literally dozens of people around Washington knew of Plame's identity.

    I believe Novak's original quote was something like "she was literally the gossip at certain cocktail parties.."

    If that's the case, she really wouldn't be a protected person under federal law. The fact that her husband is now trying to fan the poltical flames by claiming "OMG, my wife worked for the CIA!!1!! doesn't matter.

    It doesn't make it all together ok, but it then becomes another example of neither side really being "right" or "wrong."
  18. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Robert Novak and Karl Rove have been through this leak issue before. And her husband's criticisms are overrblown, but also anyone she's spoken to in the past could be at risk if they trace anyone to her. That's where the real danger comes from. Not that her identity was revealed, as you said it was insider knowledge, but that people can backtrack where she's been.
  19. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    I don't know, I mean, she WAS a covert operative meant to be protected under the statute, no? Karl Rove DID have access to the files that told him so, right?

    Or are you saying Rove just heard the rumor and passed it along? (Assuming Rove was behind it.)
  20. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I dont' know, OWM..

    If she was, then she herself should be prosecuted for posing for Vanity Fair, even if she was wearing sunglasses to "hide" her identity.

    Why can she brag about herself at cocktail parties, and agree to pose for magazine covers, but then scream "it's a crime!" when someone else passes along that same info?

    AFAIK, her exact status has not been publically revealed, so we don't know. In the articles, she was always identifies as a case manager, so it wouldn't apply.
  21. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Everything I've heard suggests that she was meant to be protected, especially cosidering Pat Fitzgerald (I met him once during a career fair!) is invesigating the offense. If there was no crime, there would be no reason to continue the investigation.

    It seems that the most logical conclusion to draw is that she was meant to be protected. If she wasn't, then there would be no crime and then it wouldn't matter who leaked what.

    Furthermore, it is a well established legal principle that a member of a protected class is not to be prosecuted under a law meant to protect that class. Like if a 15 year old voluntarily sleeps with a 21 year old, the 21 year old can be prosecuted for statutory rape, but the 15 year old cannot be prosecuted as an accomplice.

    Thus, she can leak herself out, but Rove (or whomever) cannot. Also, the vannity fair cover was after the leak and the story became public, so shame on you for bringing up facts out of context![face_shame_on_you]
  22. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    It seems that the most logical conclusion to draw is that she was meant to be protected. If she wasn't, then there would be no crime and then it wouldn't matter who leaked what.

    Case in point (for reference): the Kerry/Lugar use of the CIA agent's name during Congressional hearings a while back. That was not investigated--it didn't even become a case to be investigated--because the agent's identity was not protected as a high security operative. His identity was public knowledge prior to the hearings, as are many who work for the CIA.

    In this case, though, Plame was an undercover operative, whose job duties required her identity to remain clandestine, not to mention her safety.

  23. GWB_44 Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Boy - that's a pack of wishful thinking. First off, Plame undoubtedly falls under the category of a protected employee. In case you didn't know - she was an undercover agent working for the CIA developing intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. In fact - if she hadn't been an undercover agent - Rove wouldn't have leaked her name - since it wouldn't have had the effect of placing her in danger - which is exactly what he intended.

    Second - don't you think that if Plame wasn't a protected employee just ONE of the many attorneys working on the case might have mentioned the fact ? Otherwise - what crime are they investigating ? Do you think the special prosecuter WANTS to look like a complete idiot on a major case with international press coverage when the judge throws it out on the first day of trial ?

    I suppose next you're going to argue that Rove isn't really an employee of the government....

    As for Rove - stick a fork in him - he's done. Mark my words - you can take that to the bank.

  24. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    If that's the case, then why was her identity known by "dozens of people around Washington?" In fact, in following articles she has been described as a CIA analyst.

    If she undoubtedly falls under such protection, then you shouldn't have any trouble providing an offical source that indicates as such.

    See, since you're new to the Senate, I'll let it slide this once, but in case you didn't know, we support our statements around here.

    If she was indeed a covert operative, she wouldn't be telling anyone of this fact. And in fact, if she was a protected employee, there would be no doubt of her status, and we wouldn't have the current environment of political posturing.

    Otherwise - what crime are they investigating?

    Do you even know why independent counsels are organized? If not, I suggest you research them before you start posting any more incorrect assumptions.

    You seem to be confusing the independent counsel with a regular criminal prosecution. Independent counsels are used to investigate allegations of misconduct by those who hold specific high positions within the federal government in an impartial setting.

    In fact, you just described the major criticism of the counsel, in that they don't need to demonstrate traditional "probable cause" and in fact, can keep widening the circle of the investigation until something is found.

    An independent counsel investigation can also conclude without any violation being found.

    Until the results of the investigation are complete, and publically revealed, no one knows the exact situation.

  25. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Wasn't it just for practices like this that Bush Snr. had Karl Rove taken off his re-election campaign?

    I definately believe he did it. If for no other reason than he's been accused of this sort of behavior many years before.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.