Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

I wonder if the Wilsons will make any headway with their lawsuit against Rove, Cheney et al. It doesn't seem very likely.

 

To be fair, Quix, the amount of time he was under suspicion, it seems a lot more to me like Fitzgerald was trying to prosecute him, and just didn't think he could get the grand jury to do it.

As to the Wilson's latest move, I could see grey-mail (that's the term, correct?) stopping it from going anywhere.

 

Now here's a big question: Will this lawsuit be put aside until after '08 as Cheney's the VP? I know the law prevents lawsuits and prosecution for a sitting President (save impeachment). They're fair game after leaving office, however. Does the same aply to the VP?

 

If only that were true, we wouldn't have had the Monica impeachment mess.

Presidents are protected from private suits resulting from anything done in his official capacity as President. Bush cannot be sued personally for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq. However, nothing prevents Cheney from getting sued unless I suppose he claims that he leaked that info in his official capacity as VP. But then he would be making quite an admission, and could find himself personally liable anyway.

 

That's why I left the caveat for impeachment for the Pres. Though it's still a bit difficult for me to see how lying about oral sex can escalate that far

If Cheney admits that he leaked that info as VP, it's gonna open up a whole new can of wors for the Bush Admin.

 

Right, but the point is that Presidents are not protected from civil suits arising out of personal actions. Clinton tried that argument and lost, and that's why he had to give the deposition that trapped him.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks, OWM.

 

I'm posting this article I found in honor of OWM,

I think it is a humourous examination of situations that exist when everyone involved has something to gain/loose:

Valerie Plame is Paula Jones

CLICK

FORMER CIA operative Valerie Plame is the new Paula Jones -- if with national security credentials and Washington Beltway savoir-faire. Both women filed iffy lawsuits that seemed more designed to discredit a president than to prevail in a court of law.

Jones never could prove that then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton hurt her career as a state worker after he allegedly sexually harassed her. Hence, there were no economic damages, as Judge Susan Webber Wright noted when she ruled against Jones.

The suit filed last week by Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, against Bush biggies -- Veep Dick Cheney, Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby and Bush guru Karl Rove -- is equally nonsensical. As CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin put it, "I think this lawsuit ranks somewhere between an actual lawsuit and a publicity stunt."

"She wasn't fired," noted attorney Victoria Toensing, who served in the Reagan administration. "She worked for two and a half years (at the CIA) after the revelation. Nobody fired her. She's got a book deal she would not have had."

And, I'll add, Plame's deal to write her memoirs for Simon & Schuster -- after a $2.5 million deal with Crown Publishing fell through -- is not stopping the Wilsons from making online solicitations to bankroll "counseling them for their potential witness testimony" in Libby's trial and/or their dubious lawsuit. They need counseling to testify?

At least Plame emerges with a deal to write her memoirs, whereas Jones' contribution to publishing entailed posing for Penthouse -- an odd choice for a woman who claimed to be suing Clinton to restore her reputation. Then again, Plame's photo spread in Vanity Fair didn't quite fit with her alleged desire to stay below the radar while she worked at the CIA.

Both women have played along with partisans out to damage a president. Jones aligned herself with Susan Carpenter-McMillan and other Clinton bashers. Joe Wilson stumped for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, Bush's opponent.

The left bashed Jones for enjoying her new-found fame. The right bashes the Wilsons for the same.

There was some truth in both women's stories. Whatever did or did not follow, Jones did establish that Clinton invited her to a hotel room. As for Plame, she had a legitimate beef in complaining that Bushies outed her identity as a CIA employee -- even if the leak was not illegal. (Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's failure to prosecute the man who first leaked Plame's identity suggests the leak was not illegal. Note how Fitzgerald has charged Libby for lying to and obstructing investigators in the federal probe.)

And there is an element of fiction in both women's stories. Jones' tale about Clinton's retaliation never did hold water. If Plame's job depended on anonymity, her hubby should not have penned a commentary piece for the New York Times.

The biggest similarity between Plame and Jones, however, is that both the Clinton and Bush administrations could have spared themselves a long legal nightmare if either one had not tried to make itself seem more virtuous than it was. Clinton should have refused to allow Jones' attorneys to depose him. If he had not lied to Jones' attorneys, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr would have had no cause to question Monica Lewinsky.

If Bush had not promised to fire anyone who illegally leaked Plame's info, or if staffers had told the media, that, yes, they had talked about Plame, but they did not realize her job was classified -- then, as one insider told me, it could have been a one-day story. Well, maybe not a one-day story, but surely not a three-year story.

That said, Bush haters are mistaken in putting Wilson on a pedestal as his lawsuit is clearly misleading. To wit, the

 

From the Washington Post

End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20



WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey

Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.

That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So where are we on this? We know that Wilson didn't really discredit anything. We know that Cheney didn't have anything to do with the leak. What about Libby?

Why isn't there as much coverage now as the administration seems to be cleared?

What's going on?

 

Pulled from, the admittedly biased, Media Matters:

---

The revelation that Armitage was Novak's original source is not inconsistent with Rove's and Libby's involvements in the leak, as both were reportedly the original sources of the information for at least two reporters during the summer of 2003.
...
Matthew Cooper, [...] in his testimony before the grand jury in the CIA leak investigation, identified Rove as his original source for Plame's identity and Libby as his confirming source.

...Judith Miller identified Libby as her primary source for Plame's identity.

The site goes on to list CNN, NYT, LA Times, Slate, MSNBC, WST, and, of course, FOX reports that paint the white house as completely exonerated [i]and[/i] downplay the story was much to do about nothing from the very beginning.
[hr]
But frankly without charges or indictments, there isn't much (or enough in my opinion) attention. I, for one, want to know what happened.

 

It just seems that this story was one of those that was more exciting in people's imaginations.

This excerpt, from the latest conclusion, fits along with prior revelations:

Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week

Every time her name came up, it was always as gossip, at a party, or made in an offhand manner. It was almost like the punchline to a bad joke. When the story originally came out, the claim was that Plame's identity was an "open secret" that quite a few people knew around Washington. If dozens of people knew who she was, it always did seem rather silly to point out 2 who just happened to be with a different political party.

But yeah, when the entire story became a non-issue, it ceased to be newsworthy. But maybe it always should have been a non-issue?

 

But...but...but...how did a non-story get to be so big? What with the fairness and unbiasness of the media and all...

 

Considering Armitage learned Plame's status as a CIA operative and husband of Wilson from a White House memo written by Libby because they were preparing their attempt to discredit Wilson's article, I still have serious reservations about the idea that practically everyone in the beltway knew Plame's status. As far as I am aware, the specific cases that have been named have not held up to scrutiny (i.e. neighbors, and a selection of specific events).

And as I put the "and" in italics, I hoped to make it clear these reports are calling the White House exonerated and calling it a non-story in the same breath. I don't particularly think it is non biased reporting.

I think it is a story of some importance. Reguardless, it seems to me that how it got to be so big was a combination of Blogers and reporters reporting about other reporters, as no one loves talking about the issue of journalistic ethics more than a journalist. The indictments brought it to the peak. Now that those are done, and Miller isn't in jail any more the story isn't sexy.

 

This is just another example of the liberal witch hunt against the Bush administration. If the Dems spent half as much time trying to come up with viable alternatives to the current administration's actions as they do in trying to trump up allogations of corruption, they might actually become a credible party. As it stands now, they look like a bunch of conspiracy theory whiners that will do or say anything to discredit Bush. It's pathetic.

 

Ah, yes, Republicans are well-versed on witch hunts. Especially since they too have conducted so many through the years. From their pleasant accusations that FDR was a/associated with Communists. To McCarthy's years of battling Communists in the media. Nixon's attempt to find dirt on Democrats, all the way up to the end of the Clinton administration. Oh, now there were some funny witch hunts then. Like he was responsible for numerous deaths to cover stuff up. To the Monica Lewinsky fiasco (which was also about trumped up charges--at least in the media "He disgraced the office. Blah blah blah.") So yeah, I think it's rather hypocritical to call 'witch hunt' when very clearly something went on. Maybe not illegal. And maybe it was. But there was obviously a concerted effort to discredit these two.


By the way, Liberals are not Democrats. And Democrats are not Liberals. It's an insult that you actually link those two in the beginning of your statement. It's equitable to being linked with excrement, at least for me.

 

The act of revealing classified informtaion, specifically the name(s) of agents operating under classified status, is illegal.

Armitage was found to be not culpable for the action, specifically because his source--a classified memo--did not properly identify the agent as being a covert operative.

I suppose the liberals' tricky witchy voodoo magic made I. Lewis Libby perjure himself during his grand jury testimony. Those darned godless Harry Potter-reading liberals!

 

Yeah, it's illegal. But the question that the connies get hung up on is how common her name was. Apparently under the belief that if her name were common with the D.C. elite that it invalidates the illegality of it. Or at least that's what I'm given to believe with their current diatribes. I don't know what planet these people live, but apparently they believe it.

 

I'm not the one blaming any specific party beacuse I think this was still a media driven story, or at least driven by Plame and Wilson themselves, but we've gone around about this before. There is no such thing as a half-secret, as the requirements of the various classification levels are spelled out in the law. If her name and position were an "open secret," or "a topic of gossip" around Washington or anywhere else, it's a safe bet they weren't classified, at least in the sense of being protected by law. Does no one think that spies and potential intelligence targets don't go to cocktail parties?

(Potential Plame cocktail party exchange) "Hey! Hillary Clinton, glad you could make it! Did you know I was a secret CIA case manager? Just don't let any bad guys know or allow any to hear me tell you this..."

There is "secret" and then there is officially classified. Someone could have an unlisted telephone number, which in a sense is "secret," but an unlisted number isn't protected by the classification system. (as an example)

It's also probably why no one was charged with the actual violation.

 

I think the media has driven this story mainly because it's verifiable proof that the administration leaks info to kill the careers of their political enemies. Or to discredit them. That and it's a story more than actual news. And our media no longer focuses on news anymore, but stories of intrigue. Can you really claim bias with this as Vezner and J-Rod have done? Most likely not. If it bleeds it leads. 'eh? Bias? Doubtful.

 

Unless of course the "leak" was mentioned in the first place to distract from their own conflict of interest.. Because the only one who has cried injury has been Valerie, right up to her Vanity Fair cover, and her book deal, and her memoires...

But that would probably be too cynical, eh?

 

IIRC most of that stuff happened after the leak. Not when it was happening.

 

And given the fact that Joe Wilson has lied every step of the way, that the entire case against Rove and Cheney and the Administration has fallen apart, and that Valerie Plame said she'd never speak to the media (2 years later, she's giving television conferences promoting book deals), one has to wonder:

When are you going to accept that everything that your puppetmasters wanted you to believe about this case was a lie?

 

what's with the sudden upswing in far right wing folks around here?

 

Yea, because stating the obvious, that the Valerie Plame case has been entirely discredited, is a signal that I'm a "far right-winger."

I happen to be a neocon, but citing the obvious with regard to the Plame case doesn't make me one. It just means that I'm caught up on the news.

 

Yea, because stating the obvious, that the Valerie Plame case has been entirely discredited, is a signal that I'm a "far right-winger.

no. most of your posts here indicate it.