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. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    There have been several conservatives that have called for Bush to pardon Libby, and some claimed no crime was committed at all.
  2. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    I'll agree in that I had... I think MSNBC on or something, and I did hear the arguement that he should get pardoned because he never should have been gone after because of the claim that Plame wasn't undercover.
  3. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Sure, these are people who think that he didn't lie.

    I, personally, think the decision is great! Now people who use the excuses of,"I don't recall," or "my memory was wrong," stand a much better chance of perjuring themselves.

    But remember, there are those who think Libby actually didn't do anything wrong other than "mis-remembering" events. There are also those who think that his service outweighs his crime and he should be pardoned.

    That is a valid view. One that, at least for now, I don't share.
  4. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Huh? I haven't heard of any conservatives "switching sides". While I've heard the situation being compared to Clinton's, I have yet to hear anyone defend Libby. They only point to the hypocrisy of the left.

    I think Clinton got what he deserves largely, and he should certainly not have lied about everything that happened.

    At the same time though, I think there is a point in some of the attitude over what happened with Clinton that doesn't apply to the libby case. That being a sort of attitude of "what business do these people have asking these sort of questions about someone's sex life anyway?"
  5. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    That being a sort of attitude of "what business do these people have asking these sort of questions about someone's sex life anyway?"

    But does that give a man the right to lie under oath? The real problem with Clinton's case was that it was inappropriate to try it while he was still in office. The questions themselves needed to be asked as they pertained to the case.
  6. Araxie Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2006
    star 3
    Wasn't the issue with President Clinton that his purjury effected a sexual Harasement case? What ever the case, a lie under oath is a lie under oath.

    I'm not sure how I feel about the Libby case other than I question why it was a problem in the first place. I have never had any satisfactory answers. Politics is an ugly business whether you stand on the left or right of the isle.
  7. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    But does that give a man the right to lie under oath?

    No it didn't, which is what I just said / strongly applied.

    The real problem with Clinton's case was that it was inappropriate to try it while he was still in office.

    I wonder how all that came about then anyway. I really don't know the history too well of how all that got started. Oh well. I blame Linda Tripp.

    The questions themselves needed to be asked as they pertained to the case.

    Yes, that's true. If you're going through with the case itself, then those questions do have to be asked and should be answered truthfully. And once the case goes through, it's not for the President to decide when to lie under oath.
  8. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Wasn't the issue with President Clinton that his purjury effected a sexual Harasement case? What ever the case, a lie under oath is a lie under oath.

    I don't know what you mean about sexual harrassment -- I really don't think that applied to Monica: from all I know about the situation it was a totally consentual thing. And I know enough to know that the ball was rolling on the whole thing long before Clinton committed purjury.

  9. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    A quick check on that is turning up that it was an investigation of a sexual harassment suit by Paula Jones in a deposition for which Clinton lied about Monica.
  10. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Hardball on MSNBC had one of the jurors who wanted Libby pardoned out of sympathy, there was another lady who thought what he didn't wasn't really a crime, and I basically stole what I said about both parties from Glen Beck. (who I don't normally watch but all the other news stations were on commercial)

    The question of if Libby is going to get pardoned is the next question.
  11. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I think it would depend on what the sentence is. Again, if Libby gets a Berger-esque sentence of 2 years probation and/or fine, or similiar, it's not going to matter. This sentence wouldn't even affect his possible consulting work.

    The White House has already indicated publically that there is no pardon file ready in the wings, but I guess anything can change.
  12. rpeugh Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 10, 2002
    star 4
    I will be surprised if Bush doesnt pardon Libby at the end of his term.

    1. If memory serves me correctly, Bush has pardoned the least amount of people of any 2-term president (113). Only his father pardoned less people, and he was a 1-term president. This could be pointed out to show that he uses the pardon power with the ultimate discretion if the Dems try to make political hay out of it.

    2. I think conservatives will pressure Bush into doing it the way they pressured him into removing Harriet Myers from the Supreme Court nomination. I think a lot of conservatives believe that Bush is partialy to blame for this entire mess.
  13. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, at least the fewest of any 2-term president in recent history.
  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7

    Yes, but going to jail over it? Now, I can see about a murder case and how lying would be a terrible thing. And murderers lie under oath all of the time when they claim they're not guilty. But that's besides the point. So, if I took an oath and said...I dunno..."I did not break your lawnmower." And it turns out that I did, would I go to jail over it? No, you'd call be an ass and be done with it. Unless you went to small claims court.
  15. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    A quick check on that is turning up that it was an investigation of a sexual harassment suit by Paula Jones in a deposition for which Clinton lied about Monica.

    Ah, I see... but then where did the rest of the investigation spark from? His word wasn't enough for them?

    I mean, they were clearly right to doubt it; but where was the preponderance to look further into that part of the investigation and get a special prosecutor?
  16. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Ah, I see... but then where did the rest of the investigation spark from? His word wasn't enough for them?

    Yep, exactly why I rail against special investigations.

    Both Libby and Clinton share one additional item in common, even if not exactly the same. Both were charged with some action that fell outside the scope of the original investigation.

    Normal criminal investigations center on a specific event. Evidence is then gathered to suppport a conclusion on either side.

    Independent councils..Special Prosecutions..which are initiated by a political body, simply look around until evidence of a crime is found.

    In Clinton's case, the original focus centered on Whitewater transactions, to which no criminal violations were found. In Libby's case, it was also determined that no criminal violations occurred in the way Plame was named. Yet, both were charged with violations that occurred only because of the investigation itself.

    This is no dig against Fitzgerald or Starr per se, these two were simply tasked for a job that supported the letter of the law, if not the spirit. But now that each side has a "win" against the other with these stupid proceedings, I hope the special prosecution system fades away.
  17. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Murderers tend to not take the stand in those cases. And pleading not guilty they're not under oath for.
  18. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5

    Stupid proceedings, case #1: President accused of perjury and obstruction of justice related to an extra-marital affair. Resolution: Impeached, acquitted of both charges.
    Relationship of accusations to criminal investigation: none

    Stupid proceedings, case #2: Vice Presidential chief of staff accused of obstructing justice (impeding an investigation), perjury (2 counts), making false statements under oath (2 counts), and making materially false and intentionally misleading statements relating to the leak of classified information, specifically the identity of a covert-status CIA agent. Resolution: Found guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements.
    Relationship of accusations to criminal investigation: immediate

    Wow... these are so similar, it's mind boggling.

  19. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Ok, Chev.

    EDIT:I should just let those 2 words stand, but you win, I'll bite.

    I think you missed the point of my above passage. First of all, Starr's investigation wasn't started because of his affair, it was organized to probe the Whitewater real estate scandal. The independent council was then expanded into the sexual harassment suit that was iniated by Paula Jones.

    Specifically, possible corruption and sexual harassment does not equal "lying about an affair" in any stretch of the imagination. But that's wasn't my point, and in this, I was actually on Clinton's side.

    When Clinton's investigation was started over Whitewater and nothing could be found that violated the law, the investigation should have ended. There was no reason why it was expanded.

    Now, when this investigation was started over Plame, and no laws were found to be broken, the investigation should have ended. There was no reason why it was expanded.

    Both cases represented a situation where the investigator was allowed to "fish," or simply look around for anything illegal under his own authority. Both subjects- Clinton and Rove- were found to do something illegal outside of the original scope, which sucked to be them.
  20. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    I'm glad I got through to you. :)

    Also, haven't you contended in the past that Plame was not a coverrt agent, and therefor no law could have been violated?

    I'm curious what your thoughts are after today's testimony, Mr44.
  21. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I provided an edit...
  22. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Don't forget, as Valerie Wilson's moving testimony today illustrated, that a career was unnecessarily, maliciously ruined over this. For political gain, the administration blew a CIA agent's cover without any regard for its potential effect on the security of the United States.

    The Bush white house has a culture of zero integrity. The prosecutor firings is just one more example. No honesty, no ethics, no integrity. There's no getting around the fact that Bush, Cheney and Rove are scum.
  23. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I don't agree. Plame has to take the blame for outing herself when she publically connected herself to her husband. Up until that point, there was no line between Valerie and Joe, relating to either one's position.

    Why is it that Valerie wasn't "undercover" when she used her position to recommend her husband for the trip, and then suddenly became so when it was directed back at her?

    It works both ways, and she would have never been named had she not gotten herself involved. Rove, or anyone else, simply didn't randomly pick her. Plame isn't an innocent victim here, she just beat Libby at his own game.

  24. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Under oath today, she said she didn't use her position to recommend her husband:


    There was one very important factual matter that Plame cleared up. Emphasizing that she was under oath, she explained that she neither authorized, recommended nor suggested her husband for his mission to Niger. She undermined several key claims that we have heard from the right both about her role -- and the role of the Office of the Vice President -- in her husband's mission. On February 12, 2002, one of Plame's subordinates at the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) of the CIA got a call from Cheney's office inquiring about a previous intelligence report about Iraqi pursuit of uranium in Niger. The subordinate reported the call to Plame, and one of her coworkers, hearing what was going on, suggested that Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, be sent on a mission. Valerie's superior asked her to ask her husband to come in to discuss the possibility the following week, and to write up an email or a memo memorializing the matter.


  25. Cheveyo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2001
    star 5
    Which is exactly why I said:
    "Relationship of accusations to criminal investigation: none" (Perhaps I didn't make that clear. I apologize for that, but I assumed you knew what the initial investigation was about, since you brought up Whitewater yourself.

    Stop the press. At what point was it concluded that no law was broken? I've not heard this resolution... Ohhh, right. Perhaps you are referring to the LA Times article which erroneously states:
    Fitzgerald has concluded that the disclosure did not violate a federal law protecting the identity of covert operatives.

    The only problem with that statement is that at no time did Fitzgerald say or even elude to this conclusion. Here is the link with all the details on this erroneous piece of journalism, should you like to peruse the facts of the case. The short explanation though is that Fitzgerald sayed he was unable to determine whether or not the law was broken because his investigation was "impeded by Libby." It was because of these tactics against the actual investigation that prompted the very charges against Libby. Therefor, as you can see, Libby's indictment was directly and intimately related to the actual investigation of the Plame leak.

    Funny, I hadn't even mentioned Rove. Obstructing a federal investigation actually is illegal, which is most likely why Libby was convicted.

    Oh yes, and lastly, it was established today during testimony that Plame was, in fact, a covert agent for the CIA--assigned to monitor WMD in Iraq, so her involvement had nothing to do with her husband. Her status as defined today met all the legal criteria required under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

    Also during testimony today, Rep E. Cummings confirmed that General Michael Hayden, Director of the CIA, had told him, "Ms. Wilson was covert."

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.