Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

Newsweek has a new article on this subject. Worth reading.

 

Again, Mr. 44, your constant attempt to bring in the Clinton administration into this discussion is completely irrelevant. But since you keep bringing up the charge, it seems odd you would throw out an unsubstantiated claim about the Clinton administration and then scold me for not having met the elements of a crime. And again, what Sandy Burger did was obstruction, not treason.

Furthermore, why are these "trumped up" charges? If Rove knew she was a covert operative, but released her name anyway, he is guilty of treason. If the only question is whether or not Rove knew of the covert status, how is it a "trumped up" charge?

 

Interesting artcile, KW. Possible that Rove will not be charged with anything, even perjury?

We'll see.

EDIT: It's a trumped up charge, OWM, because it's an investigation that is threatening the righteousness of our glorious administration. You know that!

 

Furthermore, why are these "trumped up" charges? If Rove knew she was a covert operative, but released her name anyway, he is guilty of treason. If the only question is whether or not Rove knew of the covert status, how is it a "trumped up" charge?

I'm sorry, OWM, but exactly what part of USC 18 Chapter 11 has Rove violated? Have you even looked at the legal requirements of treason?

Similarly, have you actually read 50 USC 421? The requirements are more than just knowing that she is a covert operative and releasing her name. First, it requires that he have had access to the fact that she is a covert operative, through his official capacity and he had to know that it was protected. Also, you have to demonstrate that the US was taking "affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent?s intelligence relationship to the United States". Simply saying that CIA procedure would indicate that they were taking such measures is not enough.

I thought you were supposed to be a lawyer? You don't seem to be basing your rhetoric on the actual law in this case.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Actually Kimball, I'm not just supposed to be, but rather I am a lawyer.

Jealous! A good lawyer uses the law as a starting point, not as the end of the race. (Trying to dog me because I'm a lawyer? Isn't that baiting?)

Even if Rove DIDN'T technically violate the statute, he could be guilty of treason, as there is no intent requirement. Heck, you could make the case that the entire Iraqi War was an act of Treason by the Bush Adminstration, but that's probably a bit more far fetched. Furthermore, isn't Rove authorized to access classified material regarding the executive branch since he is a deputy chief of staff?

But you are correct about one thing, I did not read any of the statutes, I just shot from the hip.

 

That's all I am saying as well, OWM..

Let's set the issue of "administrations" aside for a moment.

I use Berger as an example, because Berger actually plea bargained his charges. In other words, he plead guilty to an (lesser) actual crime.

The significance is that we can now compare the reson that was given during sentencing. Since Berger didn't use his knowledge for espionage related purposes, and instead for "dirty politics," his sentence was mitigated ($1,000 fine/loss of security clearance).

How would that precedent now apply to Rove? Are the demmie's dirty politics so much better than the GOP's? After all, as you said, Berger was simply obstructing justice, as if that was somehow a justification.

Relating to Rove, and exactly as I have brought up before, K_K posted the actual laws that are in question. Which elements even apply to Rove?

As a lawyer, would you prosecute everyone who happened to be standing near a fire, for arson? Of course not, because the criteria for arson are spelled out in the charge. It shouldn't matter if you don't like one of the bystanders.

 

I wasn't aware that "dirty politics" was a legal standard. Furthermore, you are using the wrong standard. It was used in sentencing, but again, I am unaware of this "dirty politics" doctrine to which you keep referring.

So let's get Rove convicted first, then we can worry about his sentencing.

 

You could have fooled me. You haven't even tried to discuss the actual facts of the case, and whether it actually fits the crimes that you make the situation fit.

You didn't even use it as a starting point, but rather used your political wishes as the starting point. By your own criteria, then, you must not be a good lawyer.

Yeah, I'd say that's far fetched.

Let's look at 18 USC 2381:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

I bet we can agree that Rove hasn't levied war against the US, nor has he "adhere[d] to their enemies". About the best you could come up with would be "giving them aid and comfort".

However, if you are going to stretch that to cover Rove's situation, then you could definitely stretch it to cover Durbin's comments, Newsweek's Koran story, or almost any comments made in opposition to the Administration (especially if they are picked up and used for propaganda by Al Quaeda). I doubt you would want to open that door, would you?

As for the access to classified material, you need to demonstrate more than just access. For example, if Rove has clearance to find out about Plame's position, but never was given official access (i.e. the information was never officially given to him), then the statute doesn't apply to him. If the information was given to him in a manner in which it was not noted as classified, again, the ctatute wouldn't apply to him.

There's still quite a high threshold that you have to meet.

If you've ever tried actually shooting a gun from the hip, you'd know that it is the most inaccurate way to shoot.

I rest my case.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball, I swear to god, you'd be that kid everyone hated in law school, the know it all who asked questions about materials not going to be covered on the exam. Every law school has a few. But I guess you wouldn't know, not having been legally trained.

Second, Durbin's comments are just comments, Rove supplied the identity of an actual covert operative (if guilty), making him a far more suitable candidate for treason. But regardless, I never meant to imply that Rove is guilty of the federal crime of treason per se, but that violating that particular statute was treason.

Third, this isn't a court of law, I only bring my a-game (or even my b-game) to those worthy of it, ie other actual attorneys, or like when I'm actually in court. Discussions here are great because I can argue without the pain of having to do any legal research, which is my least favorite part of being a lawyer.

 

Castillo vs. Corrales cant hold a candle to McCartney vs. Kinnison!

 

Nice edit, there...

E_S

 

Ahh, but which one of their actions has greater effects outside the US? The leaking of the name of someone who is under cover as an analyst (not an operative), working within the US, or making public statements that are directly used (unedited) for propaganda to attack the US? Which provides more "aid and comfort"?

You're just bitter that you keep getting schooled by an engineer.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Good points about Durbin, KK.

His statements are much more damaging internationally than this matter having to possibly do with Karl Rove.

 

If treason is based on how statements and actions appear internationally, Bush's invasion of Iraq is far more treasonous than anything Durbin has said.

 

I wasn't aware that "dirty politics" was a legal standard. Furthermore, you are using the wrong standard. It was used in sentencing, but again, I am unaware of this "dirty politics" doctrine to which you keep referring.

OWM, I swear, you must be the world's best covert attorney...Maybe we can get you covered by the federal statute, and then you can have us all tried for treason.

Who said anything about dirty politics meeting a legal standard? It was brought up as a mitigating circumstance as part of his plea bargain..

Let's start back with the basics, just for kicks.

We'll say two different people rob similiar banks.

One person robbed the bank to get money to feed his heroin habit.

The other person robbed the bank out of despiration to feed his starving family.

Both actions meet the legal elements of the crime, but the different mitigating circumstances will then come into play during sentencing.

*KEY DEFINITONS

Element of the crime=the actual standard that probable cause for arrest is based upon.

Mitigating circumstance="unoffical" factors that determine how the case is handled.

Now, back to the actual example above:

Berger=stuffed top secret documents down his pants and got caught removing them from the secure area of the national archives. (this is the actual offense.)

During his plea, since he didn't carry out his actions(the offense)for personal gain, or to damage the US government, he was given a lesser sentence ($1,000 fine/loss of security clearance) (that's the mitigating factor)

Now, let's set the fact that Berger was part of Clinton's team, and therefore untouchable, aside. It doesn't matter.

Even if Rove did violate the federal operative act(which it's still uncertain if he did), wouldn't that SAME mitigating factor apply to him?

In other words: Berger=Rove, two sides of the same coin, IF Rove is actually guilty. (we now know Berger is, because he plead guilty, regardless of party affiliation.)

So why then are you now calling for Rove's bloody head on a platter, and simply excusing Berger as "no big deal?"

 

KK: You could have fooled me.

Mr44: OWM, I swear, you must be the world's best covert attorney

Is it time for the mods to find their happy place?? What's the deal? Maybe this is their little way of saying, HEY! Open season on personal attacks!

If that's the case, I have few tongue-bitten rants I'd reeeeeally love to post...

Or should we all take a step back and remember the Senate rules against flaming and baiting?

 

*sigh*, it's because they are all jealous of me. Why else would they resort to underhanded personal attacks on my intelligence and charecter? Seriously, it's quite sad that the two mods in charge of keeping order feel it's ok to attack me. Now, i'm not really hurt, I admit that I encourage Kimball Kinnesson to break the rules by my behavior, but Mr. 44! The two of you should both be ashamed. It'd be one thing if I attempted to use the fact that I went to law school to bolster my claims or to establish that I was more qualified than either of you to make assertions, but I have never done so. Kimball regularly invoked the fact that I was a law student to disparage my posts however, something that seems quite unprofessional for someone who acts like this is the bloody floor of the United States Senate. There was no reason to bring up the fact that I was a lawyer in this case, except to bait me. If Kimball was doing his job, he would have warned himself about such statements. Or Mr. 44 for that matter.

Mitigating circumstances are NOT "unofficial factors that determine how the case is handled," but rather official factors that come into play AT SENTENCING. Didn't I explain this above? Didn't YOU explain it with your Berger example, that Berger plead guilty and that it came into play at sentencing? Seriously, as I said before, let's worry about getting Karl convicted, THEN we can worry about mitigating circumstances. All I'm worried about at this point of discussion is if the elements of the crime can be met. If Rove gets convicted, then we can worry about mitigating his sentence. That's where the disconnect between us lies, Mr. 44. You keep bringing up "dirty politics" as if its some sort of defense, and its not. As with Berger, it might merely lower the severety of the sentence, or perhaps it might not.

As far as precedent goes, the two faced different crimes, so I don't see how precedent necessarily applies. Besides, sentencing is DISCRETIONARY. A judge need not follow precedent, it isn't applicable here as it is for say, legal decisions. Besides, Berger's reckless actions didn't threaten national security. So your whole attempt to bring TripleB like "yeah well he did THAT which is bad" logic fails again.

As Kimball kindly provided the link to us, intent is not part of the crime that Karl Rove is accused. Furthermore, who is asking for Rove's head? Didn't I even indicate I never believed Rove would spend a night in jail, let alone be tried? I'm just trying to establish he's guilty. Mr. 44, clearly you've become emotional and aren't thinking straight, launching into a covert personal attack on me and accusing me of things I never said.

Kimball, if Rove is guilty, he is guilty of an actual crime AND he has given valuable information to terrorists that undermines the life and security of an actual person. Your comments about Durbin are simply ludircous, as Jediflyer has pointed out.

 

But let's discuss something else here:

1. The fact Valerie Plame was CIA seems to be known for a while - note Clifford May's pieces, which I linked to earlier. If Karl Rove heard that from someone else (be it a reporter or other official), then what

2. There is the fact that Novak did reveal that Valerie Plame DID recommend her husband for the mission, and that the Senate Intelligence Committe found that he had given misleading information to the Washington Post.

 

Point one is a good one, but check out the link your "bro" provided. It doesn't matter if it was well known, so long as Rove was authorized to have access to that information. Your second point is irrelevant to Karl's guilt.

 

When was he sentenced?

E_S

 

Here's a good background on the situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Exposure_of_Plame_by_Robert_Novak

Under certain circumstances, the exposure of a covert government agent would violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years. The act applies itself to a person who, as a result of having "authorized access to classified information," learns the "identity 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."

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

To be honest, I haven't followed this closely enough to have an established opinion, regardless of how I personally feel about Rove. But if the IIP act was indeed violated by someone, I would hope that they do suffer the consequences.

OWM

Stop having an opposing point of view and using sarcasm. Remember, you are just a crazy leftist while everyone else is an objective centrist.

 

I think that the "Karl Rove" thing is a smokescreen. There might be something bigger and more serious being investigated.

The Senate Intelligence committee reported that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband go to Niger. They also determined that his investigation strengthened the Administration's case as opposed to the claims Wilson made in his op-ed. I think there is big game being hunted, but the "big game" could be a surprise. There's a very interesting theory that Wilson and Plame could be the ultimate targets (yeah, it's a discussion board, not a news article, but the theory is worth considering).

 

Again, Smuggler, even if that was ALL TRUE, it STILL wouldn't be a defense to the crime Karl Rove is accused of, if he in fact meets the elements.

Now, sure, it might be a mitigating circumstance in his sentencing, but other than that, maybe I'm being dense and you need to spell it out more clearly, how does this absolve Rove?

 

Now, sure, it might be a mitigating circumstance in his sentencing, but other than that, maybe I'm being dense and you need to spell it out more clearly, how does this absolve Rove?

Because you have to demonstrate that he gained the knowledge through his official access. You can't just say "He was cleared for the information, so he's guilty." You have to say "He was cleared for the information and it was given to him."

For example, if Joe Blow is cleared to review personnel files at the CIA, but never reviews Jane Spy's file, he hasn't violated that statute if he learns (and then repeats) that she is an agent of the CIA. That applies even if he later reviews her file.

Similarly, the fact that numerous other people seemed to already know demonstrates that the CIA was not taking "affirmative measures" to protect her identity. If the CIA wasn't taking those affirmative measures, then the statute doesn't apply, and Rove didn't violate it. (Simply saying "It is CIA policy" doesn't cut it. You have to document that those measures actually were taken.)

Neither you nor I know all the facts of the case. Right now, you're just "shooting from the hip" again, and your aim as as bad as ever.

Kimball Kinnison

 

redstate.org has a conspiracy theory regarding Wilson and Plame? I?m shocked! And yet OWM, it is you who is ?shooting from the hip?.

The Senate Intelligence committee reported that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband go to Niger. They also determined that his investigation strengthened the Administration's case as opposed to the claims Wilson made in his op-ed.

SICs report had many additional views that were endorsed by particular members. So to suggest that the SIC as a whole agreed on the entire report is disingenuous.

Joe Wilson?s response reprinted from the LA Times:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0721-06.htm


Neither you nor I know all the facts of the case. Right now, you're just "shooting from the hip" again, and your aim as as bad as ever.

OWM, just stop speculating and having an opinion. It could upset the delicate balance of society and provide comfort to our enemies.