Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

And that's a totally different kind of statement as well, Gonk.

I can certainly respect your opinion.

I remember when OWM, for example, strongly believed that it was Cheney. But that was back when OWM was blaming Cheney for everything including camping trips.

Such speculations form any political debate. It might still be Cheney. At this point, it could be Barak Obama for all we know.

However, that's a far cry from making definate statements like Plame undoubtedly was a covert operative, or that there is no question that a crime was committed.

Remember during the election, when Sandy Berger (Clinton's former NSA) acting for Kerry's election campaign, stuffed a bunch of documents from the national archives down his pants and was caught walking out?

That too, could have been dirty politics, or it could have been a crime. Does anyone know the results of that investigation, and how it may compare to this one?

 

I remember when OWM, for example, strongly believed that it was Cheney. But that was back when OWM was blaming Cheney for everything including camping trips.

Don't forget that it is already an established fact that Cheney is the evil genius behind ever dastardly plot that the adminitration has hatched.

Seriously, while it wouldn't surprise me if Rove was invloved I can't see him being stupid enough to have done it himself and/or leave evidence of his involvement.

 

Nixon was stupid enough to get caught.

 

Seriously, while it wouldn't surprise me if Rove was invloved I can't see him being stupid enough to have done it himself and/or leave evidence of his involvement.

And that's an important distinction.

Going back to the Berger example, it was found that Berger technically violated federal classification protections, but since he didn't do it to willfully bring harm to the government, harsh penalties weren't sought.

As a result, Berger was assessed a $1,000 dollar fine, and lost his security clearance for a minimum of 3 years.

The distinction is important because Berger didn't take the classified documents for espionage-realted activities, but more along the lines of the "dirty politics" that are being discussed.

 

Rove is smart enough to wipe his prints but his ruthlessness is approaching stratospheric levels - so much so that when something like this happens fingers from the left AND the right almost always point to him if theres any lack of clues as to who the culprit might be. I think he's behind Rathergate, too. I cant stand him, but there is no denying his effectiveness.

 

Rove is smart enough to wipe his prints but his ruthlessness is approaching stratospheric levels

And that'll be his downfall eventually. No one is invincible or infallible, and eventually someone like him makes one too many enemies, or one that's capable of destroying him in some way.

 

This is true.

 

I dunno who did what. But I gotta believe if it was Rove, Time would be singin' like a canary. I just have a hard time seeing most any reporters sacrificing themselves to save the Bush adminisration any embarassment. Hell, many have sacrificed themselves trying to embarass Bush.

 

It seems the reporters may have been the ones who told Rove and other officials that Plame was a CIA agent, and not the other way around. Oh, and this is from the Washington Post.

Oops.

 

But I gotta believe if it was Rove, Time would be singin' like a canary.

Maybe. But it may be that journalists as a whole, particularly the high end print journalists, care about journalism, the profession, and first amendment issues more than they care about right-left partisan politics. Despite what some conservatives like to think, most reporters don't view the world through a conservative-liberal filter. They try to do a good job and respect standards of journalistic ethics.

 

It is Rove. He leaked to Novak as political payback (remember the person was married to a politican). Novak isn't under investigation even tho he was the one to say the name first, Time has turned over the documents and yet the prosecutor still wants the journalists in jail, and Rove will never lose his job. Even if he does, he'll never be charged with treason (which it is), and will never be fined/faced with jail time.

 

Maybe. But it may be that journalists as a whole, particularly the high end print journalists, care about journalism, the profession, and first amendment issues more than they care about right-left partisan politics. Despite what some conservatives like to think, most reporters don't view the world through a conservative-liberal filter. They try to do a good job and respect standards of journalistic ethics.

The strangest thing, to me, about the recent court order, is that its opponents (usually Republicans) are making the slippery slope argument that now no sources will be able to trust reporters, and that they all now take the risk of being revealed. This ignores the fact that the situation here is the exact reverse of usual source-confidentiality situations. Take the newly-recent-again case of Kar "Deep Throat" Felt. He knew of, and helped confirm, clandestine criminal activity in the Nixon administration. He was, to use the popular phrase, the whistle blower, and confidentiality is designed to protect from retribution people like him, who risk themselves for the greater good so that important information that is being concealed can be given to an informed public.

In this case, Joe Wilson was the whistle blower, the information he made public was important. The public had no legitimate interest in knowing the identity of his wife--especially considering the context in which her name was used: a false claim that she had recommended her husband for the job; rather than simply agreeing to ask if he'd be interested; made to discredit his report. Given the falsity of that information, her identity was absolutely irrelevant to the story that Novak printed. Whether it is Rove or someone else, protecting the source in this case is not protecting the whistleblower, it is protecting the perpetrator. It is not protecting someone who reported criminal activity, it is covering up the criminal act itself.

And I have to agree with what was said before. The prosecutor may be looking into who committed the crime, but there is no doubt that the crime took place. It's only a question of who. In other cases, they may be looking to see if a crime took place. If that question is so easily answered, not by looking into who did it, but into whether or not she was really confidential, then the existence of an ongoing investigation already answers that.

 

Ah... but she is the one who recommended he be sent to Niger according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

It's not quite clear there was a crime. Was she working undercover at the time? Did the CIA take steps to protect her identity? I mean, Clifford May reports that:

National Review Online

If they charge Rove, all Rove's defense attorney has to do is call Mr. May to the stand. Guess which two words enter the equation?

 

Fifth amendment?

 

WRONG!!!

Try "reasonable doubt" as to whether A) Plame was working undercover and B) CIA was taking measures to protect her cover.

Both of those are required for a crime to have been committed in revealing her employment at CIA to Novak.

 

WRONG!!!

Try "reasonable doubt" as to whether A) Plame was working undercover and B) CIA was taking measures to protect her cover.

Both of those are required for a crime to have been committed in revealing her employment at CIA to Novak.

If I may interject... if Rove's defense attorney is stupid enough to plead this as any viable defense, Rove will be convicted in haste. CIA records will very easily and quickly confirmed that the operative's status was classified "covert/under-cover". Once "A)" above is entered into evidence, it is a given per CIA policies and procedures that "B)" is true.

Rove would have no leg to stand on. It is also my understanding that it is a federal criminal offense to reveal the identity of undercover federal agents.

In order to give the "reasonable doubt" defense, Rove's attorneys would have to give "reasonable doubt" that he actually named Plame. that will be difficult to do since he has already admitted to speaking directly with news journalists in question, and that he officially "doesn't recall" saying her name.

 

Rove getting convicted? Are you crazy? Rove will never get convicted. Rove will never go to trial. It's just enough to show that he did it, if so, he'll resign and get pardoned like Nixon.

 

You're right, he won't see a trial. I am willing to bet that if anything happens to him at all, it won't be until well after this administration is out. And if this administration is replaced by an allied conservative administration, I expect we won't even see Iran/Contra-style hearings on the matter.

 

It's just enough to show that he did it, if so, he'll resign and get pardoned like Nixon.

Or Sandy Berger, who did something which was technically, much, much worse than Rove.

Which administration did he serve under?

 

Weak, Mr. 44, weak. Clinton could have sold nuclear secrets to N. Korea, Iraq, and Al Queda, HIMSELF, and it still wouldn't justify anything.

Furthermore, isn't what Rove did Treason? I feel like Treason is worse than obstruction, but again, who cares?

 

Clinton could have sold nuclear secrets to N. Korea, Iraq, and Al Queda, HIMSELF, and it still wouldn't justify anything.

Except that was Reno and Wen Ho Lee, and it was nuclear weapons data and China.

Furthermore, isn't what Rove did Treason? I feel like Treason is worse than obstruction, but again, who cares?

Treason? OWM, you may personally feel that way, but
as a lawyer, you know that the elements of the crime have to be met.

 

Amazing, Mr. 44. In one sentence you make unsubstantiated claims of a crime being committed without those elements being proven, and in the next breath, you ask for such proof concerning Rove? I mean, if that were true, wouldn't Reno be guilty of treason herself?

Are you feeling the heat or something here, Mr. 44? Your normal dispassionate and logical approach seems to be slipping. Clearly I am discussing what Rove's crime would be if he did indeed commit the crime. So, if he did commit the crime, if he did knowingly reveal her status, then it is Treason, by a measure signed into law by Bush's father, which is much worse than Sandy's apparant negligent obstruction of justice.

 

The case for perjury seems pretty definite. In 2003, he stood before the Senate Judicial Committee [under oath] and said that he'd had no contact with reporters regarding Ms Plame until after the Novak piece was published. The Time,Inc email records, however, will allegedly show the grand jury that he had not only spoken to reporters about Plame, but had released her name to them, long before the Novak piece was published.

Hence the case for perjury.

The case for treason will be in proving that he knowingly revealed classified information that would endanger a covert agent of the US government.

And if Rove goes down... the trail will likely lead to the White House. We can't have that, now can we?

I do think it's fitting that Rove will be undone by something as petty as a getting back at Ambassador Joseph Wilson for his negative remarks about Bush.

 

Are you feeling the heat or something here, Mr. 44?

OWM, I never said Reno committed a crime, did I? Sometimes, I just like to throw things back at you.

I certainly don't have a personal stake in what happens to Rove. Why would I?

I do, however, like to watch the different reactions...

Going back to Berger, for example. He actually pleaded guilty to improper handling of classified material. He was assesed his fine, and had his security clearance revoked. Yet, no cries of treason were being banted about then.. Stuffing top secret documents down one's pants isn't a big deal?

I agree, depending on his testimony, a case of perjury may be linked to Rove. Swearing under oath is swearing under oath. However, all these trumped up charges of teason and the like are kind of silly.

 

However, all these trumped up charges of teason and the like are kind of silly.

Silly in what way?